Talk:Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford/Archive 5

The Authorship Controversy including Edward de Vere and Shakespeare
I believe that the original article lacks some very important and interesting information that can provide additional insights into the character of Edward de Vere. I plan to incorporate this information into the article. It concerns the notion that Edward de Vere could have been the author of the works written supposedly by William Shakespeare. The lifestyle that Edward de Vere lead, the education he received and the places that he travelled all support this possibility. Furthermore, little is known about Shakespeare. There are few depictions of him, he did not receive a high level of education and he did not travel to any of the places where his plays and stories were set. This is all underscored by the fact that there is an absence of documentation to prove that Shakespeare actually wrote his plays.

In my additions made to the article, I will also discuss the problems that Edward de Vere himself has with the authorship issue. He actually died before the last few plays were written; however, the dates of the plays are rather sketchy. Lastly, I will discuss how even if there is full proof evidence suggesting that Edward de Vere is the actual author, this will be met by much public skeptisicm and doubt since it is difficult to re-create the image of someone as iconoic as Shakepseare as a completely different person.

I will also include references at the end of the article as well as within the text and an image to display the two men of the moment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicoleplumridge (talk • contribs) 10:48, 14 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Contributors to this page are all fully aware of these "arguments". While it should certainly be mentioned on this page, the proper place to discuss it in detail is Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship, In less detail it is also discussed in Shakespeare authorship question. Specific aspects are also discussed in Prince Tudor theory and in articles on individual theorists. I can assure you that the text you have created in your sandbox will not be considered acceptable as it stands. Paul B (talk) 11:17, 14 October 2012 (UTC)


 * BTW, the image you have uploaded, File:The Authorship Debate.gif, does not depict Edward de Vere, it's the Ashbourne portrait before it was cleaned. Paul B (talk) 11:24, 14 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Furthermore, http://absoluteshakespeare.com/trivia/authorship/authorship_de_vere.htm is not remotely acceptable as a reliable source for such material. It is however almost certainly copyright - you need to paraphrase sources, not copy-paste chunks of them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:18, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Complaints from an editor
Just a question to you, Tom Reedy. With respect to Edward de Vere, you sometimes use rather disrespectful expressions. Like "Oxford kicked it", see three lines above. Does it mean that you dislike him as a person, a historical person? Some of your editings show great knowledge of certain matters, some other ones show your personal bias in connection with EO. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 07:19, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * WTF? Are you serious? Tom Reedy (talk) 15:51, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Tom, remember there's also SSMT. Try a new day of the week once in a while. Dude, it might just make you sound less acronymous. Knitwitted (talk) 17:54, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


 * That's right. All opposition to Oxford's claim is based entirely on personal animus. We just don't like him with his stupid smirk and poncy doublet. In fact denial of his true rights has been organised over the centuries by a secret society of descendents of Thomas Brincknell, motivated by an eternal need to revenge their ancestor. All senior Strafordians are members of the Knights of Bricknall. The existence and power of this conspiracy is proven by the fact that no evidence for it whatever has ever been found. However, secret ciphers in the writings of Shapiro, Nelson and Wells have been uncovered by dedicated Bricknallist researchers, so the truth will soon be known. Paul B (talk) 11:24, 8 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Geez Paul. Could you at least provide one [WP:RS] for your great ideas? BTW... aren't boys supposed to have a poncy doublet? Knitwitted (talk) 14:25, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Of course I can't. The Establishment censors the publication of the truth. Surely that's obvious to anyone with common sense. Paul B (talk) 14:53, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I thought they would have worked out who we are long ago, but kept it under wraps. Bricknall is 'Cell 'n' brink,' as in secret society and hermeneutic brinksmanshi t p. Bricknall was just labourer's cant for 'brick 'n all' meaning a plebeian freemasonry of sorts though they went T(h)o Mass and never forgave de Vere for his apostasy after an initial flirtation, the one with the Church, etc.Nishidani (talk) 12:56, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I see that Tom Reedy did not respond to my question why he used the expression "Oxford kicked it" instead of "Oxford died", which would have been far more appropriate. This might show his attitude towards the historical person of Edward de Vere, as e.g. the use of expressions like "monstrous adversary" by some other authors does show - in their case - a very negative attitude towards EO based on bias which were possibly acquired from some problematic lectures. This is then, in my view, no serious historical research. I am no attorney-at-law, but I know that such an attitude disqualifies for example witnesses or jurors at court. I can imagine that John Paul Stevens (born April 20, 1920), Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, had similar thoughts as he occupied himself with the Shakespeare authorship question. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 09:03, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * By the way, there are or were some other persons who accidentally caused the death of someone, not only the young Earl of Oxford. Well, if the three gentlemen, with whom I have the honour to discuss, do really think that such answers like the above ones are the proper way to get rid of those vast doubts expressed by the other side, so we can of course continue this discussion accordingly and for a very long time. I am sorry, but I did not know that Thomas Brincknell had issue. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 09:16, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Furthermore, I would like to point out at this moment that Tom Reedy and Paul B have obviously expressed their very strongly non-NPOV´s on Edward de Vere on this talk page recently. They have expressed their massive dislike of this historical person. I would like to ask the other participants on this discussion whether they think that such views are covered by all and especially all reliable sources and whether there are no other sources telling something else, more favourable to Edward de Vere. Attitudes like those shown by Tom Reedy and Paul B. are not exactly what is expected from editors on Wikipedia. This might lead to a distortion of the content of the page on Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, and other related pages, caused e.g. by the choice of sources to be quoted, by concrete biased citations, by deliberate deletings, and by the choice of specific topics by biased approach and added to the previous text. I fear that something like this might have already occurred. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 11:43, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * --Zbrnajsem, do you have any idea how utterly ridiculous you are making yourself? Paul B (talk) 11:45, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Agree with Zbrnajsem regarding the general "sneer-tone" of some of the editors at various times. But concede other times the same editors have been very helpful. But overall, think there's a less-than-pleasant work atmosphere on the Oxford pages most of the time. Just my nine cents worth. Knitwitted (talk) 14:50, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * For whom, Paul B? What you just have expressed can be qualified as a personal attack - instead of trying to continue with a serious discussion. And what has, by the way, happened to your proposal that Oxfordians should again cooperate on specific pages of Wikipedia? Very few of them want to do so, or they can´t because they are banned. You have not made a slight attempt to change this deplorable situation. The opposite might be true, I am afraid. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 12:34, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Nothing to do with 'massive dislike' of the historical person. de Vere's real life is no better or worse than a very large number of nobles and aristocrats in history. The luck of extravagant means bestowed arbitrarily on people who, without them, would be like you or me, doesn't alter the mediocrity. Rather, the sumptuous affluence tempts them to throw into dramatic relief the foibles of our kind. If "massive dislike" exists among students of these subjects, it is stimulated by discovering how such gartered mediocrities are seized on by partisans of historical conspiracy and cloak-and-dagger cover-ups to the degree that the dusty records of their dull lives (all that poring over tin concessions! those endless whingeing letters requesting 'more money, ma'am!) end up so twisted that the dyscrasia between document and reality assumes monstruously comical dimensions - as they are conveyed out of their grumpy lives and transported by hermeneutic enthusiasm into a state of apotheosis that sets them qualitatively apart from mankind, their peers and, especially, the plebs, of which the real Shakespeare was one. Worse still is the trashing of provincial genius by the devastating usurpation of its products by the snobbocracy. It's not enough that power is constituted by thugs through theft, which then proclaims its honours by the self-esntitlement of kingship, earl- and dukedom. No, you not only rise above the world by enclosures, and the filching of the commons, you poach as your own the achievements of the underclass, when one of its denizens manages to dazzle the world with his own, relatively untutored genius. When this afflatus of devoted admirations reaches the heights it did in the incipit of the Ogburns' first work, one shakes one's head at the confusion whereby a kind of exceptional state of mind, mystical devotion to an occult revelation, has come to infuse the historical imagination. The best proof that de Vere was an utter bore is his correspondence. Poor fellow, but typical of his class. One can hardly blame him. One does blame the way he has been picked on, and picked over, to make a magnificent mountain of magical majesty of someone who was a minor molehill, aside from his title, in the Elizabethan landscape of aristocratic life.--Nishidani (talk) 13:39, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Jesus H. Christ. I'd hate to see the reaction had I actually used "disrespectful" language to the august personage of the Great and Magnificent Lord Oxford. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:17, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Does your new invention "Jesus H. Christ" stand for Jesus Holy Christ, Tom Reedy? In this form, it would be at least acceptable from the moral point of view. However, it would not be correct as a citation of the name of Jesus Christ. You can inform yourself on the pages Jesus and Holy Name of Jesus (this is also Iesus Hominum Salvator, IHS). Please keep your language correct as far as names and definitions are concerned. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 09:46, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh, oh, Tom Reedy. All of you three gentlemen are very eloquent, I know. Especially one of you is very fond of occasional using of slang expressions which, unfortunately for him, are known to me, even if I was not born in England or the USA. Wikipedia, however, is for the whole planet, and especially the English-language Wikipedia is being read throughout the Earth. So all interested people are invited to listen to your poetry, Tom Reedy. By the way, everybody has the right to contribute to English Wikipedia. Other topic: You three gentlemen seem to think that an aristocrat was by some specific influences not able to write anything of substance. Do you then know Lord Byron, Earl Tolstoy, Madame de Staël and a number of other ones? You can´t change the real world as completely as you possibly want. I have never said that "plebeians" were generally not able to write a novel or a play. Do you think I am an aristocrat defending his class? Nevertheless, I hope that there will be real proofs thoroughly contradicting your special opinion of Edward de Vere, him having been "a minor molehill" (a very nice expression of Nishidani who possibly knows that there is a lovely film comics figure of "Little Mole" with his cosy molehill). Please take into consideration that there are proofs for Edward de Vere having been able to write something more poetical than allegedly were his private letters, e.g. to Lord Burghley. If there were any letters written by William Shakespeare from Stratford, and any other real signs of his authorship besides the sayings by third persons, I would not hesitate to recognize him. But as the things are, I am and remain a doubter like thousands of others. Have a nice day, gentlemen, and be more polite. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 17:40, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. The claim that he was a 'minor molehill' is wholly unacceptable. He was, I accept, an average-sized molehill, perhaps capable of providing enough aerated soil to fill a bed of leeks. Paul B (talk) 22:58, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey Paul, how 'bout a can of mole-asses for your efforts? Knitwitted (talk) 15:53, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Great blithering blisters! Stone the fucken crows! Have you mistaken PB for the philandering Ken Barlow of Coronation Street fame? I mean, a can of mole-asses is a pretty strong come-on in any man's book. I don't think this was what TR, no tom-cat, had in mind when he spoke of the dishonoured de Vere kicking the can, though he did get his own kicked for that.Nishidani (talk) 16:24, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * @Nishi... LOL Knitwitted (talk) 17:47, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Nishidani, you go too far in your attitude towards the aristocrats. Dishonoured de Vere, kicking the can? I thought you were able of a better language. But alas, this is not true, at least not at this place. You will see one day, how utterly unjust to Edward de Vere you are. I am sorry for you, for your strange language. Good morning, sir. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 10:09, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Whoever wrote Shakespeare loved puns, and if you have a tin ear for the play of language, you have stumbled on the wrong turfpatch (Elizabethan theatre) to exercise your talents. Despatch an email in your best secretary hand to Boonen asking for a carriage to convey you posthaste to the Bodleian, and get on overnight loan of Frank Rubenstein's Dictionary of Shakespeare De Vere's Sexual Puns and their Significance, Macmillan reprint by gentle concession from the heirs of Richard Field, 1989, and, perusing it, absorb a sense of humour. You are out of your element, and stylistically, your pompous misprisions of our tone stir up an impression of some blundering Hulk endeavouring to roar up in ethical remonstrance the three stooges. Yours sincerely, Curley aka--Nishidani (talk) 12:28, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You just shot yourself in the foot. Lord Byron, Leo Tolstoy and Madame de Staël were accomplished and witty letter writers who, in addition, mastered the orthography of their mother tongues, neither of which capabilities is evinced in the epistolary output of de Vere, who can't even get his head round elementary Latin tags. But it's late and are you due thanks for assisting me in posthasting to the land of Nod. We can close this, as it is not relevant to wikipedia or the article. You might ponder editing something else, e.g. sour grapes.--Nishidani (talk) 22:00, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

This is a Talk Page. I don´t have the intention to let you three gentlemen to go away with all this what you have written, partially on my personal address. There were personal attacks which are not acceptable, including your "peanut gallery". What do you think about yourself, who are you? There is a tremendous lot of POV, confessed by you three gentlemen very openly, which is of course shown in your editings in the article on Edward de Vere. This historical person is to be described fairly and not with massive personal bias, disregarding the outcome of the solution to the authorship question. Good morning. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 05:43, 10 October 2012 (UTC) --Zbrnajsem (talk) 19:31, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I have to say I haven't seen such an amusing discussion on a talk page since the great debate over the Top Cat theme in 2003. Deb (talk) 19:38, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, show business! There's no business like it (no business I know). Tom Reedy (talk) 20:25, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Fair Use
Cites to Nelson represent 69% of the total citations (126 out of 182). Approximately 210 pages of his book are used in this article. Is this considered Fair_use by WP standards? Knitwitted (talk) 15:03, 16 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Is this a serious question, or one of your whimsies? Citations do not come under the policy. We could have a million of 'em. What we can't have are substantial chunks of Nelsonian prose, however stirring to the Stratfordian soul it may be. Paul B (talk) 16:07, 16 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Again, this is interesting. As I do not possess Nelson´s fabulous book, may I ask the following: Is Nelson a Stratfordian who just fails to have a nice language? Or is he something else, e.g. more or less neutral as to the SAQ, but not liking Edward de Vere as a person? Your contribution has been a little bit surprising for me, Paul B. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 17:28, 16 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Given that de Vere shuffled off some four hundred years ago, your repeated assertions that editors here are motivated by an enmity towards him as a person are getting somewhat ridiculous. In any case, this is a discussion about the appropriateness of using a single source so extensively, and your comments are thus entirely off topic. If you have nothing constructive to add to this discussion, kindly exit, pursued by a bear or otherwise... AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:36, 16 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Getting back to the substantive issue, I don't think there is anything in Wikipedia policy regarding this, as long as it is properly cited. There is nothing in Plagiarism for example that addresses the issue, at least as far as I can see. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:53, 16 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The question asked concerned "fair use" (which with regard to copyrighted text concerns the amount of actual text we can legally quote without violating copyright). If Knitwitted meant to suggest that we are over-reliant on a single source, then all I can say is that there are not very many reliable sources. The Nelson book is by far the most impressive by WP's usual standards: comprehensive, scholarly, recent. I don't know what is meant by failure "to have a nice language". Since Zbrnajsem has not read the book, I assume he is referring to the title "Monstrous Adversary". The phrase is a quotation from our old pal Charles Arundel, written when he'd ceased to be a pal of Oxford's. I have a book called "Moral Desperado", a biography of Carlyle that's generally considered highly sympathetic to the old ranter. Titles are often chosen because they look good. BTW if Zbrnajsem goes to the Questia website he can get access to the book for free, though only for a short trial period. Still, it's there online to read. Paul B (talk) 18:06, 16 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Are we actually quoting Nelson though, or citing him? In terms of copyright, the former is usually of more concern. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:11, 16 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think there is much of Nelson's own text used - if any. So 'fair use' is not an issue. Paul B (talk) 18:34, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Pearson's Edward de Vere (1550–1604): The Crisis and Consequences of Wardship is actually quite good, and does more what a biography should do IMO: summarise and synthesise the life events so that the context and meaning are made clear. Nelson is often as cryptic as the original documents, but he's head y shoulders above Ward, who's mostly a fantasist. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:20, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your information, Paul B. I have already got access to http://www.questia.com. So I can read Nelson´s book and more of the like for one year, or longer. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 12:48, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, fair use (or in this case, fairly extensive use) regarding the reasonable use of one person's take on a subject to write an article, but also the objectivity of an article based primarily on one source. Question: If Nelson cites historical documents, should those documents be cited instead of Nelson's page numbers (assuming they can be easily accessed)? I know a fair amount of documents are on his website as well as on Nina Green's site. Knitwitted (talk) 16:06, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:PRIMARY is the relevant policy here - we leave any substantial interpretation of historical documents to historians, and should only cite primary sources "to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge". I'd suspect that this would rule out most direct use of primary sources in an article such as this. In any case, if we are basing the article on what Nelson says regarding the documents, we should cite him, not the documents. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:16, 18 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Seconded. The article is 68,000 bytes for an historically minor figure of the Elizabethan period, which is pushing the limit. (b) only de Vereans want blobs like that, to what purpose no one knows (c) the quotes are usually of inane stuff (d) the general reader coming to wikipedia is put off already by the excess detail, and is uncomfortable with primary sources in Elizabethan language.There's no room for original texts, aside from citing key phrases occasionally, if there are any.
 * The only reason we have such an intricate page is because there are groups out there who think we are writing the life of 'Shakespeare' under his heteronym. Courtiers etc who played a major role, like Essex/Devereux, and Raleigh so far have 24,000/19,000, and they had a vastly more important impact on the period than de Vere. Any one with a real passion for the period should be looking to improve several dozen other articles on major figures. This has covered everything, and just needs reorganizing, paring down, and rewriting for encyclopedic readability. --Nishidani (talk) 16:27, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * But can anyone corroborate Nelson's interpretations? Is Nelson an expert on Elizabethan documents? Also, are we using too large a portion of his book that people may be less inclined to purchase a copy for their personal use at venues such as here and here? Knitwitted (talk) 16:33, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree with Nishidani re "the general reader coming to wikipedia is put off already by the excess detail". Why the need to use *so much* piddle-poo from Nelson's book? Knitwitted (talk) 16:37, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That's ungenerous, and profoundly unfair, to the contribution made by Nina Green, who knows more about de Vere than any of us, Tom included, since his expertise is in the real Shakespeare and all of his theatrical contemporaries and their world. We had very strong disagreements, but that is a piddling memory compared to the recognition of the value of the work she then did for the page. Nina came to accept the restraints of wiki methodology, which many scholars find unusually repressive, and did the substantial bulk of the article in a thorough top-to-bottom rewrite. I think it needs paring down, but we can do that because Nina did the fundamental work of writing de Vere's life from Nelson, who remains, for wiki protocols, the RS par excellence for an encyclopedic article. --Nishidani (talk) 21:22, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Don´t agree with Nishidani on EO having been "historically minor figure of the Elizabethan period". You notoriously underestimate him. If you rightly think that Leicester and Devereux were very close to Elizabeth I etc. (Gaetano Donizetti: Roberto Devereux), so you should take into consideration that Edward de Vere was possibly also very close to her for a certain time. Why was she so jealous when she discovered his affair with Anne Vavasour? I possess one serious biography of Elizabeth by an American author where you can find a hint at the relationship. It is by far no Oxfordian book, and it is not quite new. In this book EO has been, this is true, only twice and shortly mentioned. This is surprising because of the alleged affair - and he is mentioned as a very good poet, among other words. His kind of overall obscurity - for you - is no reason to firmly believe that he was not the author of what we discuss all the time. Meanwhile, too many people believe, or nearly believe, exactly this. This is also because they simply don´t believe that the other man was able to be what he is supposed to be. Well, Edward de Vere was indeed able to write, there is no doubt - just a hint for another reader of these lines. I am sorry for this, but you should cope with the slight possibility that EO could "then" become a very important figure of the Elizabethan period. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 18:01, 18 October 2012 (UTC) --Zbrnajsem (talk) 19:17, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Oxford wasn't all that obscure until he finally pissed so many people off and wasted so much of his estate that he became irrelevant, shortly after the Vavasour affair. And Elizabeth was not "jealous" of Vavasour; that kind of thinking is the main problem with this page. Vavasour was part of the group of Catholic sympathizers who wanted Elizabeth to marry the Duke of Anjou, of which Oxford was also a part until he fell out with them around Christmas 1580. Until then he was thick as thieves with Raleigh, the Howards, Sussex, Arundell, and even Burghley still had use for him. After Oxford switched to the Leicester-Walsingham party, ratted out his friends, and knocked up Anne Vavasour, then the general tolerance of his boorish personality came to an end and he was cast out of the halls of power. He was never able to recover, simply because--well, frankly speaking--he wasn't all that bright in the ways of the world and he was a constant target for con men, who took what was left of his estate. He even blew his one chance at rehabilitation, although he was allowed to exercise his formal duties of state, which mostly consisted of holding a sword and keeping his mouth shut.

The problem with the page is that, as Nishidani said, Oxford's life is filtered through the sensibility of an editor who was quick to see where biographical incidents fit in with the Oxfordian theory yet left everything else that didn't fit hanging in limbo with no context, so it appears to be nothing but an episodic recounting of incidents with no overall biographical theme. Unfortunately Nelson's book is much the same. There are plenty of other sources that treat Oxford as a real person in the middle of real events, but so much bullshit has been written about him because of the fairytale authorship theory that those sources have been buried--histories of the era and biographies of Sidney, Elizabeth, Raleigh, Burghley--they all talk about Oxford in a realistic way as a man of his own time, and that's where you're gonna find the information that this article sorely needs.

I've been gathering and reading sources for the purpose of reediting this article, but like everything else I have on the burner it's a slow process. I've almost completed writing a related article that I hope to put up this weekend, and of course real life has its demands also. I'm sick to death of wasting my time talking to editors whose only purpose is obstruction and attrition, so just FYI, I don't intend on getting into any useless edit wars with any faction, and if I meet with any such actions I intend to make as short work of it as possible, which means I will appeal directly to admins to enforce the arbitration decision instead of time-wasting dispute resolution boards. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:24, 19 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Fairytale authorship theory. Admins to enforce the arbitration decision instead of time-wasting dispute resolution boards. Everybody waits for what you will present us in the next time, Tom Reedy. Will you then accept any criticism? Is it allowed? --Zbrnajsem (talk) 17:56, 19 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Tom, et al, a few comments please:
 * 1. "Records of books purchased for Oxford in 1569... " -- please add Geneva Bible
 * 2. Please add Meres' "best in comedy"
 * 3. Please add Peacham's whatever he said about Oxford in *Complete Gentleman* (not sure of title)
 * 4. Do we need so much info re: Oxford's legal/money matters? Seems a bit excruciating to read through... seems better left in Nelson's book. Note: Maybe such info would be better served up in a *Brief Chronicles* article if the Oxfordians deem it relevent to their case.
 * 5. Question re: impubes. Neither Venn's *Book of Matriculations* (1913) nor his *Alumni Cantabrigienses* (1922) list Bulbecke as impubes. Note both books do list John Jobsonne impubes Queens', Michs. 1558. An oversight on Venn's part? Or did Ward/Nelson have access to a document Venn had no knowledge of? Knitwitted (talk) 14:22, 20 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Zbrnajsem: I think the idea on Wikipedia is to give Oxford his place in Elizabethan history without regard to how important we may think he was based on the Oxfordian theory. His biography page shouldn't be *that* all-encompassing... mho. Let the Oxfordians have their say on their page. Knitwitted (talk) 14:28, 20 October 2012 (UTC)


 * You can add yourself whatever you think is appropriate as long as it conforms to those terminally dull Wikipedia policies that you apparently have no time to read. Paul B (talk) 15:22, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Paul! Will my add myself to whatever I think is appropriate. Cheers! Knitwitted (talk) 15:13, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Paul, your "terminally dull Wikipedia policies"... nope, rather it is "interminate dull Wikipedia policies" that I respectfully decline to meander through... i.e. the never-ending hyperlinks on policy pages. Knitwitted (talk) 18:13, 21 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Zbrnajsem: Check out Doc S's Bible FAQs for info on Nelson. Knitwitted (talk) 15:15, 21 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Regarding my #4 above (legal/money matters)... Could a brief statement such as "Oxford's life in general was rife with misfortune and discord, including the mis-managements of both his wardship by others and his inherited estates by his own hand." be substituted for all the detailed info? Detailed legal/money matters seem to be beyond the scope of an encyclopedic biography. Knitwitted (talk) 16:04, 21 October 2012 (UTC)


 * So you're proposing to delete all the detail about his financial situation and substitute them with a vague unsourced generalization, is that about right? Exactly what detail would you want to cut--the part about his livery fees, the part about his debts (and if so, which part), the part about selling his lands, the part about his annuity, or all of it? My thought is to put most of the financial information in one (probably comprehensive) section instead of having it peppered all through the article where it loses its importance (and believe me, his financial affairs were important to him and his family and heirs). The same with all the dedications and literary affairs. IMO having all those together allows the reader to get a better idea of his life. Your proposed summary might make a good start for a topic sentence for such a section, but it would hardly be adequate for a comprehensive encyclopedia article, especially since he was noted in his own time for squandering his estate, probably more so than he was for being a poet or playwright. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:24, 21 October 2012 (UTC)


 * No, not everything. His annuity is important. But are details like that suit from his tailor's widow really necessary? And, yes, agree topical paragraphs are much better than a day-by-day blow of what Oxford did. Maybe as you suggest, one paragraph for his legal/money matters would be better... at least that way people could decide to read it with calculator in hand or by-pass it entirely. Thanks for your input! Knitwitted (talk) 18:11, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I did not suggest putting all his legal/money matters in one paragraph. Please re-read my post. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:38, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Topical SECTIONS... whatever those things are with a big heading at the beginning. I stand corrected. Enjoy your day! Knitwitted (talk) 14:20, 22 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Regarding my #5 above (impubes), could someone please verify Nelson's interpretation of CUA Matriculation Book 1:169 that two other boys matriculated as impubes at Queens' Nov 1558? Nelson lists H. Crane and W. Boothe; Venn doesn't show Crane as impubes and shows him with a B.A. 1561-2. Also, Nelson doesn't list John Jobsonne (as shown above) at all. And, also, please verify Bulbecke is listed as impubes. Knitwitted (talk) 18:22, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Side note for those interested (ahem... i.e. Zbrnajsem)... Thomas Cecil (Burghley's son) matriculated at Trinity Nov. 1558. Knitwitted (talk) 18:38, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Per Tom's "histories of the era and biographies of Sidney, Elizabeth, Raleigh, Burghley--they all talk about Oxford in a realistic way as a man of his own time, and that's where you're gonna find the information that this article sorely needs"... Agree. Would much prefer the article to be written from the perspective of how Oxford fit into his day rather than written as a laundry list of Nelsonian interpretations. Knitwitted (talk) 14:12, 27 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Could the following please be added to the article:
 * Four contemporary critics praise Oxford as a poet and a playwright, three of them within his lifetime:


 * (1) William Webbe's Discourse of English Poetrie (1586) surveys and criticises the early Elizabethan poets and their works. He parenthetically mentions those of Elizabeth's court, and names Oxford as "the most excellent" among them.


 * (2) The Arte of English Poesie (1589), attributed to George Puttenham, includes Oxford on a list of courtier poets and prints some of his verses as exemplars of "his excellencie and wit." He also praises Oxford and Richard Edwardes as playwrights, saying that they "deserve the hyest price" for the works of "Comedy and Enterlude" that he has seen.


 * (3) Francis Meres' 1598 Palladis Tamia mentions both Oxford and Shakespeare as among several playwrights who are "the best for comedy amongst us".


 * (4) Henry Peacham's 1622 The Compleat Gentleman includes Oxford on a list of courtier and would-be courtier Elizabethan poets.
 * These facts are clearly part of de Vere's biography. Also, could we add what Disraeli and Aubrey said about Oxford? Knitwitted (talk) 14:42, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Challenges to Nelson
I am hereby challenging Nelson's ability to accurately intrepret Elizabethan documents and am also asking why Wikipedia would consider a book written by a non-expert to be [WP:RS]. As such, I am asking an independent examiner to verify the interpretation of the following two documents:
 * (1) Cambridge University Archives Matriculation Book 1:169 -- please verify Edward Bulbeck(e) and H. Crane are listed an impubes. Also verify John Jobsonne is not listed as impubes on same list (Queens' Michaelmas 1558). John Venn et al per both *Book of Matriculations* (1913) and *Alumni Cantabrigienses* (1922) neither lists Bulbeck(e) nor Crane as impubes but both books list Jobsonne as impubes whom Nelson omits from his book.
 * (2) The National Archives SP 12/36/47, ff. 110-111: In May 1565, Oxford's mother wrote to Cecil, urging that the money from family properties set aside for Oxford's use during his minority by his father's will should be entrusted to herself, etc. Please verify date of letter as "some time before October 1563" Oxford's mother married Charles Tyrrell. The letter in question is signed "Margery Oxenford" and endorsed "The Countess of Oxford".
 * Thanking those in advance for their help. Knitwitted (talk) 18:09, 23 October 2012 (UTC)


 * If you wish to debate the validity of Nelson as a source, the correct place to ask this is Reliable sources/Noticeboard. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:25, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you!! Knitwitted (talk) 18:34, 23 October 2012 (UTC)


 * ...But before you do that, I suggest you read Professor Nelson's profile on the UC Berkeley website: . AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:36, 23 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not arguing his ability to decipher Elizabethan handwriting but rather his ability to interpret the information found within those documents. Knitwitted (talk) 18:46, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

re: Reliable sources/Noticeboard Tom, were you serious when you posted a link to a WP article in hopes of proving your point? Sorry but I didn’t respond because WP is *not* an authority. I thought you would have taken the time to review other documents *as I did* pertaining to Margery to specifically ascertain whether or not *she* used the Countess title after remarriage *and* still signed herself as an Oxenford. Best, Knitwitted (talk) 14:19, 27 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Knitwitted, I have no faith whatever in the veracity of your statements about "documents" you have "reviewed", since you are palpably repeating by rote what you have been told by Oxfordians on social networking sites. Instead of making vague claims about what you have done, why not point to actual evidence? BTW, Wikipedia articles cannot be cited for footnotes. However, it's perfectly OK to point to them for useful information in debate. Of course you have not contradicted the information, because you cannot. In any case, it has been repeatedly pointed out to you that the existence of the odd mistake in a book does not stop it being a reliable source. The Encyclopedia Britannica is full of mistakes - anything that vast will inevitable include inadvertant errors. That does not affect its status as a reliable source in the sense in which that phrase is used in Wikipedia. How many times does that have to be repeated before you understand it - or actually look at the policies? Paul B (talk) 16:09, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Your "why not point to actual evidence?" umm, no Paul. This is *exactly* my point. Suggest you do your own homework. Then come back for a discussion. Knitwitted (talk) 14:49, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Look, Knitwitted, this response is frankly infantile. I'm sorry to use this kind of language, but I'm just about sick of your game-playing. We are not supposed to be acting like kids going "I know something you don't know". If you have a point to make that will improve or correct the content of the article, make it. Paul B (talk) 15:44, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * "Sorry but I didn’t respond because WP is *not* an authority."
 * You didn't respond because—like most Oxfordians when they get caught making a big deal out of something they don't understand or haven't really bothered researching—you have no response, and now you demonstrate—again—that you don't even have the grace to admit when you're wrong. That would require a more objective point of view and a different agenda.
 * Quit wasting our time. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:53, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Your "and now you demonstrate—again—that you don't even have the grace to admit when you're wrong." umm, Tom, I merely began an inquiry into why you can't review documents instead of relying on Wikipedia. Come back when you're better prepared and *then* I'll be more-than-happy to say what's what. Knitwitted (talk) 14:49, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

O.S. dates
"Records of books purchased for Oxford in 1569"... Per The National Archives SP 15/19/38, ff. 89-90, the payment was for Jan 1 - Mar 25, 1569/70 (the 12th yr of Eliz). How does WP prefer to show such dates? Knitwitted (talk) 14:09, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what the point of your question here is. It's normal to use OS dates for events when the OS calendar was used. We Remember Remember the 5th of November, more's the pity, a week from now. Paul B (talk) 16:19, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Paul. Wasn't certain of WP policy. Is there a separate search engine for WP policies? I don't seem to find an easy link to WP policies via an article's page. Knitwitted (talk) 14:54, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh wait. Ok I see "the policies" on the talk page. But where's the search engine? Thanks! Knitwitted (talk) 14:56, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Got it. Have to type "Wikipedia:" before the topic. Knitwitted (talk) 14:59, 29 October 2012 (UTC)


 * teehee Thanks Tom!! I'll stick a copy on my page for future reference... Best, Knit Knitwitted (talk) 15:43, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Good grief!! Someone already put a copy on my page... BTW... Happy Turducken Day! Knitwitted (talk) 15:47, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Howdy Tom
Check it out: http://books.google.com/books/about/The_Progresses_and_Public_Processions_of.html?id=h2gNAAAAIAAJ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knitwitted (talk • contribs) 15:42, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations on the Scrub
I just wanted to congratulate you guys on the very thorough scrubbing job. You've created an article on Edward de Vere that cites Alan Nelson's "Monstrous Adversary" well over a hundred times, and makes not one single mention of Looney, Ogburn, or any one of a dozen other major books that cover the topic of your supposed inquiry. O, I forgot, those are not RS. I have not touched your work and could hardly presume to interfere with so noble a project. just sayin' --BenJonson (talk) 19:13, 26 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Yep, you've got it Ben boy. None of those books are even remotely reliable sources by Wikipedia's standards - or indeed those of anyone else who accepts the basic standards of scholarship. Paul B (talk) 19:47, 26 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I hope that BenJonson won't continue to comment here, since his topic ban includes this page:
 * From the log of WP:ARBSAQ, 2 April 2011. EdJohnston (talk) 16:46, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Controversial half-sentence on Oxford´s character

 * In your opinion, Paul B, the following is reliable: Although he had a reckless, unpredictable, and violent nature that precluded him from attaining any court or government responsibility and led to the ruination of his estate,... This is a negative judgment just at the start - but you want it there. We should delete it. Edward de Vere was not so reckless as you possibly mean. On the contrary, certain men were reckless to him, he was for example told that Anne Cecil was untrue to him (similarity with Othello). He was by no means obliged to be a high politician, so why to say something like this (he was an educated man and poet, this is enough). And his estate was ruinated partially a) by his heavy financial duties to the Crown, b) by his long and costly educational trip to Italy, c) by unsuccessful investments. This has nothing to do with unpredictability. Of course, he was hereditary Great Chamberlain, and at a certain time he was very near to the Queen. She liked him. This is not mentioned in the article (or is it?), although there are reliable sources. People have seen Anonymous, and maybe they have a certain opinion. I mean, there are too many people who know how biased many passages in this article are. Are you aware of this fact? --Zbrnajsem (talk) 16:30, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The statement is made by Steven May, who is deemed to be a reliable source by Wikipedia's standards. You seem to be confusing the issue of whether the statement is fair assessment Eddie de V himself with whether or not the source for it is reliable. Anonymous which is a Hollywood fiction has, of course, no reliability whatever. Now you could have a case that opinion should not be presented as fact. That is to say, May's opinion should be attributed to him. That would be arguable if it was a contested view. I don't know of any reliable source that disagrees with it. However, I don't have a problem saying, "May says...". Paul B (talk) 17:04, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I would like to see that this sentence, as indicated above, is deleted at the very beginning of the article. Then it would continue with (as far as I know) "Oxford was patron of the arts..." Every reader who otherwise doesn´t know anything about Eddie (your language, Paul) is, with the present text, inclined to think about him very badly. We don´t want to support this, or do we? There are other opinions, much more favourable about Eddie, that are not cited in the article. Are known Oxfordians, who write just about EO as a person of history (not directly in connection with SAQ), not eligible to be cited on Wikipedia? This was what User BenJonson found strange, and it is no good situation that he is banned. There is no rule saying so! If you agree, Paul, I would delete the sentence as it is. (Maybe we should ask other contributors, too, what they think about it. But seemingly nobody else cares.) If you don´t agree, please move this at least to some other place, and simultaneously a) modify it somehow, b) put your formula (like May says) down there. Of course, then it would be still appropriate to cite some other reliable source with a more positive judgment on EO. There are certainly other sources. I can´t imagine there were none. Must it be always only a source who is 100 % accepted by the Stratfordians? There is no need to say, at the same time, anything like "he was a great poet". I do think so, indeed. But this is so far my private matter. At this moment, it is important for me to support strictly NPOV tendencies in this article. I am quite sure there is a lot to be done in this respect. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 18:59, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Here we go again. Zbrnajsem, has it never occurred to you that your endless assertions that anyone who's opinions you don't like is biased and unworthy to comment on your beloved 'poet/playwight' might actually be counterproductive? If you have a serious objection to the content of the lede, just tell us what it is, and what you proposes as an alternative, and cut out all the bullshit about 'Stratfordians' and the rest... AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:18, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * It does not matter if it is "rude", what matters is whether it is a good summary for the lede! Oxfordian literature is not generally acceptable because it does not conform to academic standards. I don't think many scholars think he was a great poet (if we are talking about the works published under his own name, of course. He was such a modest guy that he allowed the mediocre stuff to be circulated as his own work, while the really good stuff came out under the names "Shakespeare", "Lyly", "Munday", "Golding" or one of his other many noms de plume). However, it's fair to say that May himself considers his poetic work innovative. This, I should note, is also found in the lede. In fact this half-sentence is the only negative comment in all the lede (apart perhaps from the statement that his marriage was "unfortuate", which does not imply any blame). Even the rest of the sentence you complain about is positive! Paul B (talk) 20:53, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

My first point, defining my complaints more precisely, I have to say that there is no coherent logics behind the incriminated full sentence. In its entirety the sentence is not justified: Although he had a reckless, unpredictable, and violent nature that precluded him from attaining any court or government responsibility and led to the ruination of his estate,[1] Oxford was a patron of the arts... There is no causality in this text (which is probably a combination of two different texts with two different points of view), no logical consecutivity. The first part of it is simply not acceptable, the second part starting with Oxford is correct at this place. By the way, I am not identical with editor 71.191.1.186 who first deleted the problematic half-sentence. My second point, you tell me: Oxfordian literature is not generally acceptable because it does not conform to academic standards. Who has posted this as the official policy of Wikipedia, where was it laid down that this is a rule on Wikipedia? And what does it mean generally not conforming to academic standards? Generally, but not always? And how are the academic standards defined? As far as I know the practice all over the world, if books were published, especially but not only those written by academically educated people, then this literature can almost always be cited, there are almost no exceptions. You would not allow citations from Stritmatter´s dissertation accepted by a US university? Think of US Constitution and Freedom of Speech. Wikipedia has its domicile in the US (in Florida, I suppose), so Wikipedia is subject to the US Law and jurisdiction, not to the British Law as you once wrote. This is only a statement, nothing else. So, on the one hand there can´t be an onesided choice of literature for citations. On the other hand, if a particular citation is not correct or misleading in a certain context, then it does not belong to a Wikipedia article. Are there any lists of allowed books and articles, kept up-to-date every week, and are there any lists of libri prohibiti for Wikipedia? This would be very strange. And I tell you again, Paul B, this is no discussion about SAQ. This is a discussion solely about EO as a historical person, and it is grossly against NPOV, if there is an onesided depiction of his character as a bad guy, when there are other informations, other judgments. The first part of the sentence is not a good summary. It should be deleted from the lede, and it should not be placed somewhere else in the article. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 21:51, 27 November 2012 (UTC) --Zbrnajsem (talk) 10:11, 28 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The 71.191.1.186 IP was almost certainly the same as banned editor User:HenryVIIIyes, since he has edited under variations of the 71. IP. I have already pointed out that the article is not one sided, and that the lede contains far more positive statements than negative ones. But essentially you seem to want all "negative" views to be removed. Your personal view that it is a misjudgement does not count for much. The rest of you ludicrous commentary about "freedom of speech" is a bit rich coming from someone who wants to delete text because it is "rude" about an aristocrat. What kind of "freedom" of speech is that! I'm sure Stalin would have agreed with your definition of free speech. Paul B (talk) 12:15, 28 November 2012 (UTC)


 * -Zbrnajsem. I am sure you have been told on multiple occasions where to find Wikipedia's policy on identifying reliable sources. That is the policy. That is how we do it. It is entirely pointless arguing against the policy here. This is not a forum for endless rants about some perceived injustice concerning a minor English peer who has been dead for for-hundred-odd years. And please drop the hogwash concerning NPOV and 'freedom of speech' - it fools nobody, and we've heard it all before from promoters of everything from woo-water cure-alls to magic teapots. We don't give 'equal weight' to fringe beliefs, and if mainstream sources say that long-dead Ed was an idiot, so will we, regardless of your opinions on the matter. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:19, 28 November 2012 (UTC)


 * What has Stalin to do with English aristocrats? With liking them or not liking them? The bolsheviks executed the Czar family, as far as I know. My definition of the Freedom of Speech is, among other points, to be free to use sources. No sources should be forbidden, there should not be any libri prohibiti in the sense of this expression in Latin. I don´t agree with either of you on this point. My standpoint is in accordance with the modern times, I would say, in accordance with the principles of democracy and freedom of opinion. Is this forbidden on a talk page in Wikipedia? EO was by no means a minor English peer, AndyTheGrump. Please try to understand historical facts. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 20:48, 28 November 2012 (UTC)


 * This is not a forum. Please stop wasting everyone's time with your vacuous blather about 'freedom of speech'. We couldn't agree here to ignore Wikipedia's policy on what sources are suitable for articles even if we wanted to. If you wish to propose a change to policy, you can't do it here. Is that to difficult a concept for you to comprehend? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:57, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Three Wikipedians including my person have in the last days objected this half-sentence mentioned above, and so it was now again deleted by me. I explained the reasons for this step thoroughly. I would consider it very unappropriate, if somebody imposes this sentence on the article once more. It has no justification. There are books which might be correct in some of their textual parts, but other parts in those books can be misleading. Historical persons deserve justice. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 20:39, 29 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I would remind you that WP:BLP policy applies to Wikipedia talk pages, and suggest that you redact your aspersions regarding May's academic credibility. Should you fail to do so, I shall raise the matter elsewhere, and ask that you be prohibited from contributing on such matters. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:59, 29 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I am pretty aware of Wikipedia policies: Neutral point of view (NPOV), Verifiability (V), No original research (NOR). Can it be said also with respect to your editings, AndyTheGrump, as they occurred up to now in the above matter, both in the article and on this talk page? And how can it be qualified when you call my contributions "vacuous blather", and have no intention to apologize for it? --Zbrnajsem (talk) 08:34, 30 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Since you refuse to redact your personal attack on Professor May's academic credentials, I shall now be raising the issue elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:13, 30 November 2012 (UTC)


 * You have been very fast with your action. I am slower, AndyTheGrump. I have not refused the redaction. Now I redact my previous personal attack on Professor May's academic credentials. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 18:34, 30 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I think that rather than stating that you redact your comments on May, it might be more appropriate to actually do so - to either strike them out from your post (use and to start and end the strikeout of text ), or remove them entirely. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:09, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump, the name is no more mentioned. I am able of self-restrict, and would hope for reciprocity. However, I maintain what I said, i.e. that there is no sufficient causality and consecutivity in the text (as a whole) now again present in the article, because it is a combination of two (maybe three) different textual parts with two different points of view. You can´t say that such a judgment is not allowed. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 22:08, 30 November 2012 (UTC)


 * "He had a reckless, unpredictable, and violent nature that precluded him from attaining any court or government responsibility and led to the ruination of his estate" is judgmental. What source(s) does May use to back up his statement? No other possible explanation exists as to why Oxford never attained "any court or government responsibility" other than his perceived personality? Really a poor argument on May's part to assign personality traits to the prospect of job offers. Again, May's assertation that Oxford's personality "led to the ruination of his estate" is untrue. Nina Green has accurately researched that Oxford's estate was mis-managed during his years as a ward. Knitwitted (talk) 16:24, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Also, how does an article written about the poems of Oxford and Devereux qualify as *the authority* on Oxford's potential jobs and the condition of his estate? Knitwitted (talk) 16:45, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * MNina's "accurate" research was discussed here some while ago. It is simply way out on a limb. It is not for us to judge whether May's argument is poor, though if you don't think personality traits and behaviour have an effect on one's capacity to get 'job offers' you have an odd view of how careers progress (or don't). Other non-partisan writers on Oxford come to the same conclusion. Paul B (talk) 22:00, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * No response regarding my query as to how May is an expert on Oxford's finances. I've deleted the biased statement. Knitwitted (talk) 17:04, 31 December 2012 (UTC)


 * May is an expert on Oxford. His view is uncontroversial among scholars who are not also fringe theorists. This has been pointed out ad nauseam. It is therefore not "biassed". Indeed, May has no known or disernable bias against Oxford. Describing both good and bad points does not make you biassed. Portraying a historical individual as flawless does. Paul B (talk) 19:17, 31 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Paul, what legal authority does Dr. May cite which would render de Vere incapable of selling his own lands? De Vere obtained licenses to alienate his lands, was fined and acknowledged receipts for sales of clear title... i.e. the courts approved the disposal of his lands. Isn't it merely Dr. May's (and others) opinion that de Vere was reckless, etc. and ruined his estate? Shouldn't de Vere's situation be compared to other noblemen of the same time period with similar land holdings? Did Dr. May do this? Knitwitted (talk) 19:55, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Shakespeare Authorship Summary
This summary of the main article is lacking in just about every way I can imagine. It lacks even the minimum of detail, especially considering its notability to the subject. I attempted supplying such detail, using standard summary style guidelines, and it was all reverted. 100% of the additions, removed based on "WEIGHT" and that "there's a link to the main article". A summary style approach has not even been attempted. Are we going to follow policy and guidelines in this article or not? Smatprt (talk) 20:24, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, we are following policies and guidelines. You can read them here. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:36, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

So you are actually saying that independent reliable sources do not connect Oxford and the Oxfordian Theory in a serious and prominent way."? Seriously, Tom? Smatprt (talk) 22:15, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not saying that at all. What I am saying is that in conformance to the guideline I linked to above and the policy of WP:WEIGHT, this article will cover the Oxfordian theory in the same proportion as other biographies written by independent, reliable sources. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:37, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

And no, you are not following policy. And writing a summary of a main article is not supposed to be controversial.Smatprt (talk)
 * Everything is controversial when an editor wants to give a fringe theory undue weight in an article. Check out the Marlowe page and teh Bacon page to get an idea of the proper amount of weight the authorship theory should have in a biographical article. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:37, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

SYNTH, Cherrypicking and COI issues.

 * I have added a WP:SYNTH tag to the opening section, based on the line "Although he had a reckless, unpredictable, and violent nature that precluded him from attaining any court or government responsibility and led to the ruination of his estate,", which does not appear in the source as paraphrased. Also, this line is the precise definition of [[WP:Cherrypicking] - "selecting information without including contradictory or significant qualifying information from the same source and consequently misrepresenting what the source says. This applies to both quotations and paraphrasings. Do not cherrypick." I attempted to replace with an actual quote:


 * "In the opinion of Stephen May, Oxford's modern editor, "Much as Oxford's rash, unpredictable nature minimized his success in the world of practical affairs, he deserves recognition not only as a poet but as a nobleman with extraordinary intellectual interests and commitments."

Unfortunately, this was reverted back to the offending paraphrase. Can we have some guidance by editors without a conflict of interest? For the record, Both Tom Reedy and Paul Barlow either write or lecture on the authorship, so their COI is undeniable. My interest in the subject is also well known, so I would include myself in the COI group. This is why I'm asking for outside comments. Thanks. Smatprt (talk) 22:34, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I suggest you check the reference, which encompasses three pages, not just the one sentence you reproduced here. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:44, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I have read the entire reference, as well as the full article - which is how I discovered that you are synthesizing the info and coming up with your own paraphrase, which is not accurate. Thus my request for comments here. It's also CherryPicking, which you are silent on. Smatprt (talk) 22:48, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh really? Perhaps you skipped over these parts:
 * Upon coming of age in 1571, Oxford was probably regarded with higher expectations that were held for any other young nobleman of the reign. … his future could hardly look more promising …. But waste the old earldom he did in a process that was well underway by January of 1575 when he set out upon an elegant continental tour; during his fifteen months abroad, Edward spent some 4,561 pounds, a sum derived largely from the estates which he insisted that his father-in-law sell for him. …De Vere had run up debts totaling thousands of pounds. Between 1575 and 1586, Oxford divested himself of most of his lands … (page 5)
 * De Vere's prodigality was but one aspect of a self-indulgent, erratic, often belligerent temperament which undermined his youthful prospects as well as his later ambitions. His tendency toward violence erupted at the age of seventeen when he killed one of his guardian's servants … Oxford so vehemently opposed the betrothal of his sister, Mary, to Peregrine Bertie … that Bertie feared for his life, and the Earl not only quarreled with Sidney … but may have planned his assassination as well. (page 6)


 * […] Oxford was noticeably disadvantaged by what Gilbert Talbot termed his 'fyckle hed' …. Oxford rejected his first wife, Anne Cecil, on trumped up charges …. In 1589 he betrayed the friends with whom he had joined in a secret profession of adherence to Catholicism, and when Anne Vavasour … gave birth at court to his illegitimate son he did not merely abandon her but insulted her publically as well …. These reckless tendencies did not go unnoticed by the Queen …. It is noteworthy that she never appointed Oxford to a position of trust or sole responsibility. ....the Earl often requested military duty, but he never gained command of any sizeable body of troops ….(page 7) He was never entrusted with a diplomatic mission, entertainment of foreign dignitaries, nor office at court on in the government at large…. His pension was an act of charity … [that] was designed to solve an unusual problem, the preservation of a necessary state figure whose irresponsibility precluded a grant which might be farmed out, commuted, or sold.(page 8)"


 * This is the material that is summed up with the phrase, "Although he had a reckless, unpredictable, and violent nature that precluded him from attaining any court or government responsibility and led to the ruination of his estate ..." Show us all how that qualifies as WP:SYNTH. Tom Reedy (talk) 00:36, 14 March 2013 (UTC)


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

Don't be that way, Tom. I will respond when I have time. I do work for a living. You are wrong on this and I will post why soon enough. Please stop accusing me of not reading sources or policies all the way thru. That is just as much a personal attack as calling me incompetent, which you have also recently done. Please stop this. It's disruptive and against policy. Smatprt (talk) 14:45, 15 March 2013 (UTC) Also, this dispute is not over. Removing a tag, as you have done, prior to resolution, is also against policy, as you well know. Will you follow policy and self revert your tag removal until this dispute is resolved?Smatprt (talk) 14:45, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I resolved it by providing the relevant material from which the sentence was derived. I doubt any editor who had read the material competently would have agreed with your tagging the article for synthesis or cherry-picking. You can always take this to the noticeboards for an outside opinion; posting it on this talk page won't get much attention from outside editors. This talk page only averages 20 views a day, and that's up considerably since you returned from your topic ban.
 * And I'm sure the dispute is not over; you don't have to advise me on that. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:22, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Now that you have moved from WP:SYNTH and WP:CHERRYPICKING to WP:POV, you need to go ahead and take it to dispute resolution, because I have no idea what you're referencing as POV, and I suspect it has as much validity as your last tagging. Tom Reedy (talk) 01:49, 16 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Tom, it sounds like you are saying that you don't want me to discuss it here, but would rather I move directly on to dispute resolution. Unfortunately, that would not be following the dispute process. Issues need to be thoroughly aired on the talk page, and that is my intention:


 * First, you may not be aware that there is no Cherry-picking tag. It's a form of POV editing, which is why the POV tag is what is recommended in case of suspected Cherry-picking. And while there is a synth tag, due to the fact that there are multiple issues involved (synth, cherry picking, & COI), the POV tag is a cleaner and more appropriate choice (no one wants to see multiple tags cluttering up an article).
 * Regarding Synthesis. The rule: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." In this case, its all in one source (May), but it contains context and qualifications that you are not providing. In any case, it is not "explicitly stated by that source". So if you are asking why I'm moving from Synthesis to CherryPicking? Well, it's a bit of both. Let me explain:


 * Synthesis issue: You have written "Although he had a reckless, unpredictable, and violent nature that precluded him from attaining any court or government responsibility and led to the ruination of his estate". You have provided some quotes above. Not one of them, however, implicitly states exactly what it was that "led to the ruination of his estate".  You seem to be picking quotes that suit your own views, and pasting them together to make your point. Thus the suspicion of WP:ORIGINALSYN.  Further, you fail to include, in the causes of his financial downfall, any expenses of Wardship, or his expenses in patronizing scores of artists, writers and scientists. Most important, however, you failed to provide this quote from the very next page of your own source (9):


 * "Oxford's genuine commitment to learning throughout his career lends a necessary qualification to Stone's conclusion that De Vere simply squandered the more than 70,000 pounds he derived from selling off his patrimony...for which some part of this amount Oxford acquired a splendid reputation for nurture of the arts and sciences".
 * Regarding Cherry picking. The rule: "In the context of editing an article, cherrypicking, in a negative sense, means selecting information without including contradictory or significant qualifying information from the same source and consequently misrepresenting what the source says." Which leads us to Cherry Picking...


 * Cherry Picking Issue #1: As illustrated by the quote above, you have failed in include the qualifying information supplied by May, which even May writes is a "necessary qualification".


 * Cherry Picking 1 suggested fixes: There are several summations provided by May that could be used in this article, as opposed to the one being chose and paraphrased. For example:


 * "Oxford's poems... comprise the earliest substantial alleviation of a dearth of courtier verse throughout the first decade of Elizabeth's rein. He is her first truly prestigious courtier poet" - Food for thought, but I agree this is not sweeping enough.


 * "In the opinion of Stephen May, Oxford's modern editor, "Much as Oxford's rash, unpredictable nature minimized his success in the world of practical affairs, he deserves recognition not only as a poet but as a nobleman with extraordinary intellectual interests and commitments." - This seems to satisfy all the requirements. It eliminated the Synth and provided the direct (and balanced) quote from the source.


 * but you are insisting that your summation is the only one that can be used, with no qualifications or contradictory opinions. Further, in this instance (and others through-out the article), the information in question is being presented as fact, when it is actually opinion, and as such, needs attribution. I provided this in the quote directly above, but this was also reverted. You know well, especially when it comes to the causes of Oxford's financial downfall, that there is disagreement among researchers, and that the Ward system created huge financial issues for the Wards, as laid out by Pearson (Edward De Vere (1550-1604): The Crisis And Consequences Of Wardship), whom you are familiar with. Pearson, in fact, is listed as a source for this article, but there seems to be a lot of picking and choosing between her and Nelson, instead of noting conflicting opinions as is required under the cherry picking guidelines.


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


 * most notable today as the leading alternate authorship candidate
 * lauded as an important courtier poet
 * lauded as a playwright, and the 'best for comedy"
 * lauded as a patron with extraordinary intellectual interests and commitments
 * lauded as a champion jouster, "his prowess winning admiring comments from participants", as the article says.
 * noted as introducing Italian fashion to the court (big deal, right? but he's been noted for it)
 * noted for maintaining acting companies, and companies of musicians, tumblers and performing animals.

These are, arguably, the things that make Oxford notable by Wikpedia standards. These are the things that should be capsulized in the lead, which I attempted to with this summary for the opening graph, followed by the rest of the lead as I had edited it.


 * Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford (12 April 1550 – 24 June 1604) was an English peer andcourtier of the Elizabethan era. Lauded in his own time as a lyric poet, playwright, sportsman, and patron of the arts, since the 1920s he has been the most popular alternative candidate proposed for the authorship of Shakespeare's works. In the opinion of Stephen May, Oxford's modern editor, "Much as Oxford's rash, unpredictable nature minimized his success in the world of practical affairs, he deserves recognition not only as a poet but as a nobleman with extraordinary intellectual interests and commitments."


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


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


 * This was reverted without talk or explanation other than "this is a biography article, not a hagiography. Most biographers agree with May, who is represented accurately". As I have shown, May was not represented accurately, given the synthesis issue I have noted above, and the deletion of the necessary qualification that he himself pointed out. And if anyone thinks that Oxford appears a Saint (the hagiography jab), then they missed the phrase "rash, unpredictable nature minimized his success in the world of practical affairs". And the part about his bad marriage. Hardly a Saintly write-up.


 * Cherry Picking issue #3: It's pretty much unanimous that Oxford's military service was not notable. Why then is his non-notable military service listed in the lead? This seems another example of cherry picking so that the general editors can include the statement "but he fled the field" - another opinion presented as fact. The lead is supposed to 'summarize' the article. However, his military service is so rarely mentioned in the article, with no specifics or contradictory opinions - of which there are many - that to be featured in the lead is also completely against policy due to WEIGHT issues.


 * COI issues: Based on this mass deletion [], I can find no other reason than a POV and/or COI issue. This was simply a standard summary version of a major article. Oxford is (today) most notable as the leading alternative authorship candidate. This is not in dispute. It even says so in the lead. But to remove 95% of the detail, and then bury what's left at the end of the article is simply not up to policy on notability or summary guidelines. Nor is the argument, "there's a link, follow it", based in policy.


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


 * So in your opinion, since Oxford's main notability today is his candidacy for the True Author of Shakespeare's works, this article should concentrate on the reasons for that and ignore or minimize everything else, such as his military service, his loathsome treatment of his wife and mistress, and the personality characteristics that made him such a shit.
 * As I have said before, you are not a very thorough reader.
 * You are correct in that not one of the quotes I provided "implicitly states exactly what it was that 'led to the ruination of his estate'". Do you know what the word "implicit" means?
 * What characteristics of Oxford does May say "undermined his youthful prospects as well as his later ambitions"?
 * Answer: his temperament, which consisted of
 * 1. prodigality (which May says caused him to "waste the old earldom" by running up debts and selling his lands so that by 1583 he was described by Burghley as practically bankrupt)
 * 2. self-indulgence
 * 3. erratic (i.e. his "fyckle hed", fickle: Changing frequently, esp. as regards one's loyalties, interests, or affection, or, as May calls them, "reckless tendencies"
 * 4. belligerency
 * 5. tendency toward violence
 * 6. his irresponsibility
 * In short, May is presented accurately.
 * Regarding your complaint that the sentence fails to include May's "necessary qualification", please notice that the sentence in question begins with "Although", which means "in spite of the fact that; even though," synonyms are "though - albeit - while - notwithstanding - as", and is then followed by a list of what you say he is most notable for: "... Oxford was a patron of the arts and noted in his own time as a lyric poet and playwright, and since the 1920s he has been the most popular alternative candidate proposed for the authorship of Shakespeare's works."
 * In fact, Oxford was probably more noted in his own time for being a shit than for being a poet. Poetry was light stuff in the Elizabethan age, considered to be an indulgence of youth, and any person of substance who followed it beyond youth was looked upon as effeminate and weak, so much so that Sir Phillip Sidney (a commoner with 38 dedications, BTW, 5 more than Oxford) named his work of criticism The Defense of Poesy.
 * It may be May's opinion, but coincidentally, his opinion is also shared by Oxford's other biographers. Everyone of his biographers said he was a shit, and that despite being a shit, he was a generous patron of the arts and a minor court poet. In fact one entire book, Pearson, barely mentions his literary activity and concentrates on his finances as an exemplar of what Lawrence Stone described as the "Crisis of the Aristocracy, the changes that were transforming the country and the economy.
 * As I stated earlier, the authorship material should be represented in the this article in the same proportion it is represented in reliable sources. That also goes for every other thing about Oxford. Neither you nor I gets to arbitrarily determine what is notable about Oxford's life and bend this article in that direction. Leaving out Oxford's major character flaws because you don't think they're notable enough is the essence of cheery picking. In fact, your "solution" to "Cherry Picking Issue #1" is just that: picking out one sentence from may that reflects what you think the article's message should be. Who says only one sentence from May has to be used? My sentence sums up four pages, not just one sentence.
 * I want to go directly to the boards because all of this has been discussed and it is burdensome and time-consuming to continue to do so. All the facts are on the table, all the diffs are there, the discussion is above for all to see. In my opinion after years of experience dealing with you, you still don't understand Wikipedia's policy of neutrality. Tom Reedy (talk) 01:02, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * P.S. Oxford did not "maintain" playing companies; he patronised them. To think that he supported them shows your misunderstanding of that type of patronage. And the article doesn't say he "fled the field". Read what it says, not what you think it says. Tom Reedy (talk) 02:22, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I note that the biographer being sourced for this line, Steven May, spends far more time in his study discussing Oxford's patronage and learning. He sums it all up by describing Oxford as:


 * "a nobleman with extraordinary intellectual interests and commitments', whose biography exhibits a 'lifelong devotion to learning.".
 * "Oxford's poems... comprise the earliest substantial alleviation of a dearth of courtier verse throughout the first decade of Elizabeth's rein. He is her first truly prestigious courtier poet"
 * "Oxford's genuine commitment to learning throughout his career lends a necessary qualification to Stone's conclusion that De Vere simply squandered the more than 70,000 pounds he derived from selling off his patrimony...for which some part of this amount Oxford acquired a splendid reputation for nurture of the arts and sciences".
 * Are not these summaries more notable than his supposed "violence", especially given the context of the times?Smatprt (talk) 21:58, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * So May "sums it all up" with those descriptions, eh? Its funny summary that spreads out over pages 8, 9, and 14 of an essay that begins on page 6 and ends on page 14. Tom Reedy (talk) 01:29, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

New sections
Smatprt, I've been planning to cull out all the dedication mentions and put them in a section by themselves close to the literary reputation section, maybe in the same section with poetry and dedications each having their own subsections. Right now they're just all over in semi-chronological order and I haven't had time to herd them up. I'll write up a military section soon. Tom Reedy (talk) 23:37, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Poem links
If someone uploaded Oxford's poems to Wikisource, we'd be able to link to the titles in the articles. May 1980 contains his complete known works. Tom Reedy (talk) 04:53, 26 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I've begun the process . Paul B (talk) 21:28, 26 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Very cool. Where did you get the titles? I was thinking we should use first-line titles and make a note of the title it was first published under and when. For example, "I am not as I seem to be" was published in PDD as "Not attainying to his desire, he complaineth". Whuduyyah think? Tom Reedy (talk) 21:46, 26 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The titles are from . I've put first lines in brackets after most of them (unless the first line is the title). "Anne Vavasour's Echo" is usually known as that, so the first line seemed unnecessary, but i think all the others require it. I'll add the others later. The template gives a space for notes on publication details. I've added some. Of course we can have redirects or change the article name, as on Wikipedia. Paul B (talk) 22:06, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I thought the Elizabethan Authors site went down after Robert died; I'm glad to see it's still up. I'll link the poems mentioned in the article, probably later tonight. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:19, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thought I'd drop the template here for easy reference: Tom Reedy (talk) 22:23, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * This was on Wikisource before A Short Biographical Dictionary of English Literature/Oxford, Edward De Vere, Earl of. That and the old DNB and EB articles. Humm.... Paul B (talk) 22:36, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I can't make that template work. I'll try again later. Tom Reedy (talk) 23:15, 26 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I just love that title you quoted, "Not attainying to his desire, he complaineth". It seems to sum it all up, really. Deb (talk) 09:47, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I think I've now uploaded all the poems considered by May to be either authentic or possible works by E de V. I made a few mistakes, all of which I hope I've now corrected. One of them was in "I am not as I seem to be", which I have retitled "Not attainying to his desire, he complaineth", since Deb seems to like that so much! I would have gone with first lines rather than titles as Tom suggests, had I not got most of the way through before realising that "titles" are too variable to be really appropriate. I've tried to list all first lines with the titles and give variant lines and titles in the "notes" part of the template for each poem. Obviously there may be omissions or other errors, so please do check up on me. Paul B (talk) 15:17, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot, Paul. And I've finally discovered how to link: "The labouring man that tills the fertile soil" . Dunno why I couldn't figure it out from the example you gave above! Tom Reedy (talk) 15:34, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Sources and cut material for later use
Incest and Agency in Elizabeth's England. This goes into detail on the Sidney/Oxford incident in the context of the Anjou marriage crisis, which was the cause of Oxford's downfall at court.



In later years Burghley was to upbraid Oxford frequently for his prodigal extravagance. However, he allowed the young Earl 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.

Tom Reedy (talk) 04:11, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Dedications and literary mentions
I finally found these in Archive 4.

The next year 1577, John Brooke dedicated an English translation of Guy de Brès' The Staff of Christian Faith to Oxford.

where Gabriel Harvey dedicated his Gratulationes Valdinenses to the Queen. The work consists of four ‘books’, the first addressed to the Queen, the second to Leicester, the third to Lord Burghley, and the fourth to Oxford, Sir Christopher Hatton, and Leicester's nephew Philip Sidney, with whom he would famously quarrel. Harvey's dedication to Oxford is a double-edged criticism, praising his English and Latin verse and prose, yet advising him to 'put away your feeble pen, your bloodless books, your impractical writings'.

During this time, several works were dedicated to Oxford, Geoffrey Gates' Defense of Military Profession and Anthony Munday's Mirror of Mutability in 1579, and John Hester's ''A Short Discourse. . . of Leonardo Fioravanti, Bolognese, upon Surgery, John Lyly's Euphues and his England, and Anthony Munday's Zelauto'' in 1580. In the dedication to Zelauto, Munday also mentioned having delivered the now lost Galien of France to Oxford for his 'courteous and gentle perusing'. Both Lyly and Munday were in Oxford's service at the time. In addition, in his A Light Bundle of Lively Discourses Called Churchyard's Charge, and A Pleasant Labyrinth Called Churchyard's Chance, Thomas Churchyard promised to dedicate future works to the Earl. By now he had taken over the Earl of Warwick's playing company, which may have included the famous comedian, Richard Tarleton.

In this troubled period Thomas Watson dedicated his Hekatompathia or Passionate Century of Love to Oxford, noting that the Earl had taken a personal interest in the work.

During this time Anthony Munday dedicated his Primaleon; The First Book to Oxford.

In 1597 Oxford's servant, Henry Lok, published his Ecclesiastes containing a sonnet to Oxford. In his Palladis Tamia, published in 1598, Francis Meres referred to Oxford as one of "the best for Comedy amongst vs".

In 1599 John Farmer dedicated a second book to Oxford, The First Set of English Madrigals, alluding in the dedication to Oxford's own proficiency as a musician. In the same year, George Baker dedicated a second book to Oxford, his Practice of the New and Old Physic, a translation of a work by Conrad Gesner.

Shakespeare Authorship Summary Part 2
"Though nearly all scholars reject all alternative authorship candidates, including Oxford,[186][187] popular interest in the Oxfordian theory persists." I don't think this statement can be justified any more. See http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-22206151 "But what has stirred Prof Wells, who has edited the Oxford Shakespeare for 35 years, is his worry that this question about Shakespeare's authentic authorship seems to be entering the mainstream." It should be amended. Sceptic1954 (talk) 08:46, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The statement is overwhelmingly supported by the sources. In order to explain Wells' point I'd have to go into the politics and economics of academia in the US and Britain. Suffice it to say that the phrase "enering the mainstream" has nothing to do with academic acceptance. In any case this is a biographical article on de Vere. The point you make has nothing to do with him as such. Take it to the Shakespeare authorship question page. Paul B (talk) 00:08, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If you read the free ebook 'Shakespeare bites back' to which Wells comments relates he refers to academic course which have been set up on the authorship question at Brunel and Oregon.Sceptic1954 (talk) 06:33, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I know all about that. These are miniscule initiatives in the wider field of Shakespeare scholarship, one of which is largely a commercial matter, the other is entirely one person's concern. Paul B (talk) 09:41, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the current wording is too long and am quite agreed that the great majority of academia does not listen to such claims however I think it is rather offensive to suggest that anyone who does consider such claims is not a scholar. Is a scholar only someone who agrees with you? There is no one sources which carries the wording 'the great majority' I think that the reliable source quoted is rather intolerant and it is in fact it is a quote of a quote I could not date and the other source is from 2001, before the course at Brunel was established (I don't know about Oregon). We could make the quote shorter by synthesising the sources writing that ' the great majority of professional scholars continue to reject such claims'. If this has nothing to do with the article why is there any statement along these lines in the first place. I'm certainly not arguing that any more should be said about the authorship, except perhaps a brief mention of the film, and that it's thesis is generally rejected or not accepted by professional scholars/academics. The film brings Oxford's name to a far wider audience than it has ever enjoyed before. Sceptic1954 (talk) 06:51, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

If Paul B will read the whole article from the BBC which I quote and the ebook which it refers to it will be clear that the two main examples of this 'entering the mainstream' are the Marlowe window in Westminster Abbey and academic courses at Brunel and Oregon. The wording we have now in this section of the article is clumsy but an improvement. If the 'Blakemore' quote was from G Blakemore Evans then both quotes predate the establishment of both the Brunel and the Concordia centres and are out of date.Sceptic1954 (talk) 09:31, 24 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I've read the BBC article, and indeed the entire newly-published book on the subject edited by Wells and Edmondson, as well as most other literature on the topic. I repeat, this is not really relevant to this article. None of the statements are about de Vere. It should be discussed at Shakespeare authorship question or Oxfordian theory. A short summary is here because MOS requires it. Paul B (talk) 09:46, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I've no issue that only a short summary is required, however I think that this should reflect that the authorship question has now entered academia and mention the film Anonymous. I'm trying to make this as brief as possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sceptic1954 (talk • contribs) 09:59, 24 June 2013 (UTC)  I've no issuue with this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Shakespeare#Authorship for example and wouldn't object if you reduced the amount of space on the authorship in the William Stanley main article.  What should be clear is that Stanley Wells has now conceded that these questions have begun to 'enter the mainstream'.  I really think the film Anonymous deserves a mention, that's probably why a lot of people come to this article.Sceptic1954 (talk) 10:26, 24 June 2013 (UTC) Regarding 'nearly all academics reject' it might be more accurate to say that 'many academics reject and very few academics consider'.  It may be that many academics keep quiet.  Not chalenging an orthodoxy is not quite the same as supporting to it, many people in Hiteler's Germany or Stalin's Russia may have kept quiet out of expediency. Sceptic1954 (talk) 10:55, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The SAQ has not "entered the mmainstream" in the sense that it is taught as a viable theory nor even as a phenomenon to be studied; it has "entered academia" in the sense that academics have rejected it, which is exactly where it has been since the first academic responded to SAQ claims. Academics have written books bemoaning the unscholarly methodology of authorship promoters for decades now. It is nothing new.
 * Your claim that the movie Anonymous stimulated Oxford's candidacy (if that is what you meant to write) is OR and debatable, since the movie tanked. And Paul's point is valid: this is a biography article, not an authorship article. And comparing the SAQ's scholastic reception to Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Russia is ludicrous beyond ridiculous. Tom Reedy (talk) 13:34, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It has entered academia in that it is now studied in two academic institutions. I note that you went in for a wholesale revert without addressing the question that the source 'Blakemore' has no title and is untraceable.  Academics have drawn a parellel between authorship questioners and 'holocaust deniers' my point was merely that silence from an academic should not imply either support or rejection, this applies to orthodoxies in all fields.  Sceptic1954 (talk) 18:38, 24 June 2013 (UTC) I removed reference to an untitled book - if you wish to restore it please give the title of the book.  I restored a reference to the film, this time grammatical.  It provoked a considerable response so must have made some impact.  I could give many references.  Sceptic1954 (talk) 18:45, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I've no idea what you mean by "the source Blakemore has no title and is untraceable". You just click on the footnote and it takes you to the link in the bibliography. It's how this particular footnoting system works, which is the one recommended for featured articles (I don't especially like it myself, finding it very cumbersome, but that's the current practice). We have known for years about the two courses. There's nothing new. The point is that they are utterly marginal (and "Brunel university" is aboyt as obscure as universities get). There has not been silence from academics at all. In fact the whole field is quite well studied. I do think there will be more in future, but it's a mistake to think that academic discussion of a theory means that its claims are taken seriously as history. Academics write about fringe theories all the time (the example you give, holocaust denial, is widely discussed and studied by academics). I am still at at a loss to understand why you are not discussing this on the relevant page about the Shakespeare authorship question. Paul B (talk) 18:56, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The text is not supported by the quote. The text says 'nearly all scholars' or something like that, the source says 'absolutely no scholars' For balance you need to show that there are a few 'scholars' (by your definition) who do take it seriously.  I think your parallel with Holocaust Denial is wrong.  To my knowledge the only academic in Britain to 'deny' the holocaust was very rapidly stripped of his position, whilst Bill Leahy quite openly questions the authorship and nothing happens to him.
 * You appear to be quite confused about sourcing, you can't be bothered to actually check the article to see what it says, and you attribute to Paul what you wrote about the Holocaust. Nor have you been able to master using four tildes to sign your posts, despite several reminders on your user talk page beginning from your first edits a few years ago. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:41, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * And I'd say that you totally fail to be civil and if I knew who to raise this with I would do so, but I'll leave the personal stuff there and focus on the unresolved issue that the main text, to which I don't especially object, is not matched by the source. If you have a source which says 'no competent scholar etc.' it must be balanced by one which accepts that a small number of academics do entertain such claims. Otherwise IMO you are breaching guidelines by excluding a significant minority viewpoint.Sceptic1954 (talk) 22:01, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Bloody Christ! Here we go again.
 * Your requested edit has been made. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:42, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I have restored the quote from Wells in a new form. I consider that if quotes 1 and 2 in this section are present 3 should also be present to provide balance and express a significant minority viewpoint.  Can someone explain why it shpould be there - 'entering the academic mainstream' means that courses have been set up to explore the question of the authorship from the standpoint that Shakespeare may not have written the works attributed to him. That is very different from studying the SAQ as a cultural phenomenon, Shapiro has done that in 'Contested Will' and he completely rejects any alternative authors.  Yes Wells may be extremely unhappy that such questioning has 'entered the academic mainstream' but he is a totally reliable source by anyone's standards.  If other editors want to continue excluding this quote please advise me about dispute resolution Sceptic1954 (talk) 04:24, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * regarding the latest edit this question has the potential to come up in many areas so I think there should be an arbitration on it. I could provide back up for Wells statement by linking to Brunel and Concordia Univeristy's pages, I'm sure that all editors who have disagreed with me here know this.  It would of course make the article too cumbersome to put these references in.  I agree this article is not a debate, if someone can find a single reliable source to say that 'very few academics support question the Stratfordian authorship' I'd be agreeable.  Wells himself has said that this is no longer an entirely fringe theory.  Sceptic1954 (talk) 07:13, 25 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Johnuniq  Re Red Flag - see full guidelines below.

Previously questioning the Startfordian authorship might have been regarding as 'an exceptional claim' That it has entered the academic mainstream is not an exceptional claim, Wells' claim, if you could call it such, is quite easily demonstrated by going to Brunel and Concordia's website. There's nothing red flag here. I consider that Wells' statement means that the SAQ can no longer be treated as an entirely fringe theory on Wikipedia.

> Exceptional claims require exceptional sources[edit] Policy shortcuts: WP:REDFLAG WP:EXCEPTIONAL See also: Wikipedia:Fringe theories Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources.[11] Red flags that should prompt extra caution include: surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources; challenged claims that are supported purely by primary or self-published sources or those with an apparent conflict of interest;[8] reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, or against an interest they had previously defended; claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living people. This is especially true when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them.< — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sceptic1954 (talk • contribs) 07:20, 25 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Further to above, I accept it is not a direct quote from Wells. Regarding debate I'm not trying to promote a debate - it's a question of balancing sources.  Sceptic1954 (talk) 08:00, 25 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I have opened a section on this issue on the Shakespeare Authorship Question talk page as I consider it, and in particular the BBC report of Wells, may have wider implications for the treatment of this question on Wikipedia. Sceptic1954 (talk) 09:20, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay I have added a reference to the BBC report of Stanley Wells dated 23rd April this year to balance the quotes which indicate total academic rejection of SAQ and thus to make the sources quoted reflect the text. I really don't see how anyone can object to this. The reliable source is only newly published. Some Stratfordians, especially on Wikipedia, may wish that Wells hadn't taken his latest initiative as may be seen to 'legitimise' the SAQ question.  However he has done so and Wikipedia should reflect this. Times change.  As Ed Johnson has somehow been brought into this I left left a message on his talk page suggesting that someone who is less personally committed to a particular point of view on the authorship look at this if Tom and other editors continue to object.  It may help other editors to know that I am not committed to any one point of view on this question, the one thing I feel passionately about is fairness and balance and no ad hominem attacks.  Sceptic1954 (talk) 19:51, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Reverted. See here for explanation. Let's try to keep the discussion in one place. Tom Reedy (talk) 19:56, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Would this quote from Wells and Edmondson be better that the one rejected? "doubts about Shakespeare's authorship are being given academic credibility by the Universities of Concordia and Brunel" (my highlighting) I think it would be better but I'm not going to go to the length of putting it in if it's going to be struck out.  Difficult to keep discussion in one place as it's specific to this article but has wider implications. Sceptic1954 (talk) 07:16, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The difficulty stems from your insistence on interjecting an irrelevancy into this article. The reference nor the quotation has anything to do with the biography of Oxford, which is why I am again reverting your edit. Tom Reedy (talk) 14:00, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * There is a brief section in the article on the Oxford Shakespeare question. I quite agree it should be brief.  But if it's there it should be accurate and if you say 'almost all academics' and substantiate 'all' whilst not substantiating 'almost' when a perfectly good source is available and it all fits within the notes then you are failing to give a source.  Also if the film is to be mentioned in this section why not without using extra words state that it has encouraged popular interest.  A biography can show depictions of a person in the media, there must be hundreds like that.  Sceptic1954 (talk) 17:46, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Please see the discussion at the SAQ talk page. I furnished such a source yesterday. And the only "popular interest" it has encouraged is that of the established Shakespearean community to answer the bogus antiStratfordian claims, as evidenced by the movie tanking and the lackluster reception of the "Declaration of Reasonable Doubt". In any case quoting a journalist who wrote something Wells didn't say is not responsible sourcing for any article. If you're quite finished wasting our time we can get on with the job of building an encyclopedia. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:57, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I am unaware of any source which says 'almost all'. I think the journalist is giving a fair summary and presumably Wells would have the chance to object - maybe you should ask him.  If you think I'm wasting your time you might do better not to respond.  I've done many edits - I'd imagine hundreds - on Wikipedia in the last year, very few of which have been reverted, so your final sentence doesn't seem appropriate. Sceptic1954 (talk) 18:15, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * There are multiple sources which state that it is overwhelmingly rejected by academics. Indeed the book by Wells and Edmondson repeatedly states this. That's the purpose of every single article in the book. To quote from the book to make claim which is the antithesis of what the book as a whole does is to misrepresent it. It's a classic case of quoting out of context. It's like quoting a line from a book criticising creationism which includes a phrase about attempts to make it academically respectable, since the whole purpose of the the passage you quote is to assert that the theories have no academic credibility. The point about the word "mainstream" has already been answered on the main SAQ page, which is where this debate should be. 19:01, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 'overwhelmingly' does not mean 'unanimously'. That's my whole point.Sceptic1954 (talk) 19:07, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, this "point" has no point to it that I can discern. Anyway, I'm done point-scoring, and am off to score a pint. Paul B (talk) 21:21, 26 June 2013 (UTC)


 * All the discussion could have been avoided if we used the statement which appears in the main Shakespeare article >Only a small minority of academics believe there is reason to question the traditional attribution,[180] < with its reference http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/22/education/edlife/22shakespeare-survey.html?_r=1 which is surely definitive.  Tom and Paul surely both know of this.  It achieves precisely what I was trying to achieve better than with the three source note that I was proposing.  (I hadn't realised that the percentages for 'yes' and 'possibly' were so high)  I will post this on the SAQ talk page and will be happy to confine the discussion there from now on. Sceptic1954 (talk) 05:00, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Proposed 'citation needed' tag To avoid get another edit war warning or worse instead of entering a 'citation needed' tag, which can be undone a click of a mouse, I'll discuss it here. I am in full agreement with the main text

'Though the attribution has been rejected by nearly all academic Shakespeareans,'

Now look at the text which follows it

'Blakemore 2011, quoting William Hunt: "No, absolutely no competent student of the period, historical or literary, has ever taken this theory seriously. First of all, the founding premise is false -- there is nothing especially mysterious about William Shakespeare, who is as well documented as one could expect of a man of his time. None of his contemporaries or associates expressed any doubt about the authorship of his poems and plays. Nothing about De Vere (Oxford) suggests he had any great talent, and there is no reason to suppose he would have suppressed any talents he possessed."; Sutherland & Watts 2000, p. 7: "There is, it should be noted, no academic Shakespearian of any standing who goes along with the Oxfordian theory." '

We move from 'nearly all' to 'no, absolutely no', it's a bigger discrepancy than going from 'nearly all' to a simple 'no'. This is followed by 'no academic Shakespearean of any standing' I noticed this discrepancy and tried to mitigate it.

Are we to assume that there are two classes of academics and scholars, those who are competent and have standing and those who have neither, and that whilst the relative proportions of one to the other are undefined, the proportion of the incompetent scholars without standing who go along with this theory to the remainder of the whole class of scholars is so small as to constitute 'all - nearly all.'

So if people are to lecture me about accuracy here is a small discrepancy which needs ironing out. There are far worse on wikipedia of courseSceptic1954 (talk) 19:40, 29 June 2013 (UTC) The tag to go after 'nearly' Sceptic1954 (talk) 20:22, 29 June 2013 (UTC)


 * This is argument by attrition, a familiar experience on this topic. I cannot see the point of these petty distinctions. There is no real discrepancy. There are indeed two classes of scholars. In fact there are numerous classes of scholars, since there are many degrees of academic expertise, and even among top experts fields-of-expertise overlap and differentiate in several ways. I'm constantly amazed by the dumb things otherwise sensible Shakespeareans say about portraits, for example. I'd be more inclined to trust the opinion of an expert on Reynolds on the subject of the Chandos portrait than the editor of a prestigious edition of Hamlet. To me this seems like mere pedantry masquerading as concern for accuracy, all so that you can add a "dubious" tag to something that can be supported by many citations, just because the wording of experts differs slightly, as inevitably it will. Paul B (talk) 20:51, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeed. This needs to be put to bed. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:08, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It's hardly a big thing and my point in raising it is to show that I as a fairly casual first time reader was struck by a discrepancy between 'nearly all' and 'absolutely, no' and tried to correct it. It's the sort of small thing which I quite often edit, it takes a minute, and is hardly ever reverted.  I took the only reference I knew which could provide some balance.  Why don't you all accept that I had no other motive?   I'm accused of trying to smuggle in Oxfordianism.  There are a whole range of quotes under note 3 in SAQ which would not give such a discrepancy and wouldn't need to be 'balanced'.  As a page averaging 600 hits a day this is worth a bit of thought.  Leave it there if you will, I think causal readers on the whole may be less likely to be swayed by the authority of Shapiro than to be put off by his dogmatism. As for Tom's 'crush' behaviour, I'd imagine that somewhere else there is something I could fling at him to describe his was of dealing with people who may have a different perspective, flinging rulings and quotes with an implied threat of a ban, however for me life is too short to immerse myself in detailed wikidocs. The five pillars are fine Sceptic1954 (talk) 04:12, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * "for me life is too short to immerse myself in detailed wikidocs." That's the fourth or fifth time you've said that. We got it. Have you? Tom Reedy (talk) 05:10, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

16th Earl?


As the result of a conversation we had a year ago, I've looked into the putative portrait of Edward de Vere and found that Roy Strong has dated it to the 1560s. I've removed it until authentication is forthcoming from a reliable source and left a note on the Commons page. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:32, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Literary reputation
Skimming through the article, i noticed a block of text under "Literary reputation" without any citations, and that´s a little weird in an article like this. If someone competent wants to take a look at it, it couldn´t hurt.

"Contemporary critics praised Oxford as a poet and a playwright. William Webbe names Oxford as "the most excellent" of Elizabeth's courtier poets. Puttenham's The Arte of English Poesie (1589), places Oxford first on a list of courtier poets and included an excerpt of "When wert thou born desire" as an example of "his excellance and wit". Puttenham also praises him as one of the playwrights who "deserve the highest praise" in the genres of "Comedy and Enterlude". Francis Meres' Palladis Tamia (1598) names Oxford first of 17 playwrights listed by rank who are "the best for comedy amongst us", and Oxford appears first on a list of seven Elizabethan courtly poets "who honoured Poesie with their pens and practice" in Henry Peacham's 1622 The Compleat Gentleman." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:59, 24 May 2014 (UTC)


 * It's pretty uncontroversial stuff. I've cited it to Nelson. It's not clear whether Puttenham is praising Oxford for both "Comedy and Enterlude", or praising him for comedy and Richard Edwardes for interludes. The sentence is "That for Tragedy, the Lord of Buckhurst, & Master Edward Ferrers for such doings as I have seen of theirs do deserve the highest praise: th's Earl of Oxford and Master Edwardes of her Majesty's Chapel for Comedy and Interlude." So I've tweaked that. Paul B (talk) 16:42, 25 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:08, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

The Thomas Brinknell incident
According to the first episode of PBS's "Great Houses With Julian Fellowes", entitled "Burghley House", which I am watching as I write this, the resolution of the Thomas Brinknell case (using and actually showing original documents of the time) was more complicated and more tragic than indicated in the article as it currently stands.

In particular, the show revealed contemporary documents (microfilm shown as part of the show) that recorded that Oxford was declared innocent because the court determined that Brinknell had deliberately "committed suicide" when he ran into Oxford's sword. According to the show, as a suicide he was not buried in consecrated ground, and all his worldly possessions were confiscated, leaving his pregnant wife destitute. She delivered a child shortly after Brinknell's death, which died soon afterwards.

I think that someone with greater resources than I should look into this, because if this is correct, the paragraph in question that we currently have is quite misleading as to the actual course of events. Bill Jefferys (talk) 03:45, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Chapman excerpt
Once again I have deleted the excerpt about the earl of Oxford from Chapman's Revenge of Bussy D'Ambois. It is fictional, not biographical; Chapman never met Oxford in Germany (or anywhere else that we know of), and doesn't contribute anything to the article. Tom Reedy (talk) 14:49, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Oxford's reputation in fiction is entirely germane to his biography. --BenJonson (talk) 23:50, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Give it a shot
As an Oxfordian since 1986, I am long, long, LONG done arguing with people about the Authorship Question. But I've always wondered why your basic Stratfordian won't pick up Ogburn's book. Got something to lose? Like what? And pace The New York Times, it certainly does matter who wrote the plays. My two cents.Donggies (talk) 17:58, 23 May 2014 (UTC)


 * This is supposed to be for discussing the content of the page. I have no idea what a "basic Stratfordian" is supposed to mean. I have read Ogburn's book. It's a tissue if misrepresentations from the opening pages. I can well understand any Stratfordian, basic or otherwise, concluding that it's not worth the effort to plough through the rest of it after having read the first chapter. Paul B (talk) 18:03, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Dongiess -- yes, the bibliography on this article looks very thin, doesn't it. You even got an immediate reply from User Paul Barlowe, one of the faithful defenders of the sanctimonious "who was Charlton Ogburn?" brigade.--BenJonson (talk) 23:52, 10 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Does this have something to do with the improvement of this article? Otherwise, please see WP:NOTFORUM, which explains that an article's Talk page is not intended for general discussion of a topic, but to facilitate the development of content and maintenance of the articles associated with it. Thanks.  Dwpaul   Talk   18:06, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Here's my question about the talk page. I wrote a PhD dissertation on the Earl of Oxford's Geneva Bible. It has been generally available for over twelve years, read by many, commented on in the New York Times and the Chronicle of Higher Education, and yet there's nary a word of it in this Wikipedia article. What's the deal with that? --BenJonson (talk) 23:54, 10 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Yet, thanks for the comment since the TALK page extends understanding. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 01:37, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Oxford is only "Among the most popular alternative candidates?"
Didn't that passage originally read, the most popular alternative candidate? Who put in "among?" The article on the Oxfordian theory describes him as "the most popular alternative candidate." Cdg1072 (talk) 00:27, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Maybe protect again?
, I don't know if we are at "persistent" yet, but we may be getting there. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:43, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

And now I have been called a vandal:. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:36, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * fwiw, I don't particularly see the need for any protection just now. It's one editor and just a few edits, edit-warring over which they have already been warned. And since the topic is covered by discretionary sanctions (which fact I have now alerted the editor in question to), admins have a lot more latitude to deal with any further disruptive behaviour. Protection is a bit of a sledgehammer in this situation. Whether it might be sensible long term with indef ECP is another matter: there seems to be an endless supply of these editors showing up periodically over the last decade that is getting to be quite tedious. --Xover (talk) 15:09, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Meh, lets give it another decade and see what happens ;-) Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:18, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 April 2020
Nelson says that "contemporary observers such as Harvey, Webbe, Puttenham, and Meres clearly exaggerated de Vere's talent in deference to his rank. By any measure, his poems pale in comparison with those of Sidney, Lyly, Spenser, Shakespeare, Donne, and Jonson." He says that his known poems are "astonishingly uneven" in quality, ranging from the "fine" to the "execrable".[185] This opinion of Nelson that his talent was clearly exagerated should be removed for the following reason. His "known" poems are juvenilia, therefore may be of varying quality. Harvey, Webbe, Puttenham, and Meres praise of De Vere as a writer were written and published much later. Meres praises him as a playwright, as there are no known plays of De Vere written under his name, it is not possible to say whether that praise was justified. It is unlikely that Harvey, Webbe, Puttenham, and Meres were praising him for his early poems, so it is not true that they clearly exaggerated his talent, as we cannot be sure which work they were praising. 2A02:C7D:1A9B:9B00:2D61:32BF:4AB5:C109 (talk) 09:01, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Aasim 10:44, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

X:Nelson says that "contemporary observers such as Harvey, Webbe, Puttenham, and Meres clearly exaggerated de Vere's talent in deference to his rank. By any measure, his poems pale in comparison with those of Sidney, Lyly, Spenser, Shakespeare, Donne, and Jonson." He says that his known poems are "astonishingly uneven" in quality, ranging from the "fine" to the "execrable".[185] Y:Nelson says that "that his known poems are "astonishingly uneven" in quality, ranging from the "fine" to the "execrable".[185]

Reason for change and evidence that the poems of Oxford were juvinilia: Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford (/də ˈvɪər/; 12 April 1550 – 24 June 1604) Oxford's manuscript verses circulated widely in courtly circles. Three of his poems, "When wert thou born desire", "My mind to me a kingdom is", and "Sitting alone upon my thought", are among the texts that repeatedly appear in the surviving 16th century manuscript miscellanies and poetical anthologies.[Marotti 1995, p. 126, quoting L. Glenn Black's unpublished Studies in Some Related Manuscript Poetic Miscellanies of the 1580s 2 vols. D. Phil. thesis, Oxford, 1970, v. 1, p. 30.] His earliest published poem was "The labouring man that tills the fertile soil" in Thomas Bedingfield's translation of Cardano's Comforte (1573). Bedingfield's dedication to Oxford is dated 1 January 1572. In addition to his poem, Oxford also contributed a commendatory letter setting forth the reasons why Bedingfield should publish the work. In 1576 eight of his poems were published in the poetry miscellany The Paradise of Dainty Devises. According to the introduction, all the poems in the collection were meant to be sung, but Oxford's were almost the only genuine love songs in the collection.[ May 1991, p. 53] Oxford's "What cunning can express" was published in The Phoenix Nest (1593) and republished in England's Helicon (1600). "Who taught thee first to sigh alas my heart" appeared in The Teares of Fancie (1593). Brittons Bowre of Delight (1597) published "If women could be fair and yet not fond" under Oxford's name, but the attribution today is not considered certain. < May 1980, p. 82> "What cunning can express" and "Who taught thee first to sigh alas my heart" Published by Grosart in Miscellanies of the Fuller Worthies' Library, Vol. IV (1872) The poems referred to in the article were written when Oxford was a young man. All of them published before the age of 26 but written earlier. Therefore: That "contemporary observers such as Harvey, Webbe, Puttenham, and Meres clearly exaggerated de Vere's talent in deference to his rank" is untrue In the published praise for Oxford by Harvey, Webbe, Puttenham, and Meres where is the evidence that "they clearly exagerated de Vere's Talent in deference to his rank", as in most cases it is not known to which work they are referring. and:By any measure, his poems pale in comparison with those of Sidney, Lyly, Spenser, Shakespeare, Donne, and Jonson. How can he compare even by any measure the juvenilia of Oxford with the adult works of Sidney, Lyly, Spenser, Shakespeare, Donne, and Jonson. He should at least compare like with like.

88.107.184.128 (talk) 10:21, 28 April 2020 (UTC)