Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:11, 28 November 2012

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 2 months

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 2 months

Biography: Arts and Entertainment / Peerage and Baronetage / Politics and Government B‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group. This article is supported by WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage. This article is supported by the politics and government work group.

Screwed up refs

I cannot determine what the problem is with the refs in this article. Beginning at ref 86, the refs don't link to anything, and clicking backward from the cite section the refs go to unpredictable places. Can anybody help find the problem? Thanks. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:01, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Never mind; I found it. Giving up and asking for help seems to be a part of the process for me. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:05, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Dedications and literary mentions

They are haphazardly sprinkled through the article in chronological order. I am cutting them and storing them here for a dedicated section to be created later. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:56, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

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.

1. Kennedy 2004, p. 169 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFKennedy2004 (help)
2. Nelson 2003, p. 181 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFNelson2003 (help)
3. Nelson 2003, pp. 237–8 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFNelson2003 (help)
4. Bennell 2004 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFBennell2004 (help)
5. Nelson 2003, pp. 238, 247 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFNelson2003 (help); Bergeron 2007 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFBergeron2007 (help)
6. Nelson 2003, p. 238 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFNelson2003 (help)
7. Nelson 2003, pp. 239, 242 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFNelson2003 (help)
8. Cite error: The named reference Nelson 2003 281–2 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
9. Nelson 2003, p. 382 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFNelson2003 (help): The actual dedication is lost; the 1619 second edition was dedicated to Oxford's heir, in it Munday mentions "these three several parts of Primaleon of Greece were the tribute of my duty and service' to 'that most noble Earl, your father".
10. Nelson 2003, pp. 386–7 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFNelson2003 (help)
11. Nelson 2003, pp. 381–2 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFNelson2003 (help)

I think one should make a synthetic statement listing the number of dedications (to show de Vere's ranking in the Elizabethan brownnosing-for-favours/patronage stakes), with a couple of mentions, the most distinguished. The article is way too long, and though Oxfordians think this stuff is a supplement to proofs of his literary distinction, hence credentials as an author of Shakespeare, it really doesn't belong in extenso on this page, but to the Oxfordian page.Nishidani (talk) 19:03, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm trying to compile the dedications independently and see which biographer is correct. May said he had 33; Nelson says 28. May also said they were disproportionately literary; Nelson says they were disproportionately translations. May was a not-so-closet Oxfordian at the time he wrote that in 1980, but he was disabused of the idea the more he studied Oxford, hence the dissonance in what he wrote early (which is when he wrote all the extravagant "nobody ever saw anything like it" praise, which he tempered later) and late. Another problem is that so many wrong things have been published about Oxford in reliable sources that one has to make some editorial decisions about who one to follow. (Gurr's statement that Oxford patronised a playing company until he died is one good example; Oxford's Men merged with another troupe in 1602, two years before Oxford kicked it.) Tom Reedy (talk) 03:41, 8 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 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 brinksmanshitp. 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages? 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. Misplaced Pages, however, is for the whole planet, and especially the English-language Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 ShakespeareDe 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)

Saint Philip Howard, 20th Earl of Arundel

Text: "On 14 April 1589 Oxford was among the peers who found Philip Howard, Earl of Arundel, the eldest son and heir of Oxford's cousin, Thomas, Duke of Norfolk, guilty of treason. Arundel eventually fled to Spain and put himself in the service of King Philip II of Spain." The latter statement might not be correct, see Saint Philip Howard, 20th Earl of Arundel. Or is the destiny of the Saint not correctly depicted in the article on him? --Zbrnajsem (talk) 07:32, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Thanks. This may derive from confusion between Oxford's one-time friend Charles Arundel (associate of Charles Paget) and Philip, Earl of Arundel. Nelson notes that some sources mix up the two Arundels. Paul B (talk) 09:46, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages policy regarding this, as long as it is properly cited. There is nothing in Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages policies"... nope, rather it is "interminate dull Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages would consider a book written by a non-expert to be . 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 Misplaced Pages: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: Misplaced Pages: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, Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 "Misplaced Pages:" before the topic. Knitwitted (talk) 14:59, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Tom Reedy (talk) 15:46, 27 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 Misplaced Pages's standards - or indeed those of anyone else who accepts the basic standards of scholarship. Paul B (talk) 19:47, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

In your opinion, Paul B, the following is completely 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 completely negative and in fact not reliable judgment just at the start - but you want it there. We should delete it again. 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)

I hope that BenJonson won't continue to comment here, since his topic ban includes this page:

BenJonson (talk · contribs) banned indefinitely from all articles, discussions, and other content related to the Shakespeare authorship question, William Shakespeare, or Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, broadly construed across all namespaces, per AE thread.

From the log of WP:ARBSAQ, 2 April 2011. EdJohnston (talk) 16:46, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

The statement is made by Steven May, who is deemed to be a reliable source by Misplaced Pages'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 whole biased 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..." It would be grossly unfair to take this private opinion of Mr. May for granted (as the first author of the sentence did) and for so valuable that it should be cited prominently. Then every reader who otherwise doesn´t know anything about Eddie (your language, Paul) is 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 writing just about EO as a person of history (not directly in connection with SAQ) not eligible to be cited on Misplaced Pages? This was what User BenJonson found strange, and it is no good situation that he is banned. There is no rule saying so! I personally would not place this unjustified judgment of Mr. May anywhere in the article. If you agree, Paul, I would delete the incriminated 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 unbelievable sentence at least to some other place, and simultaneously a) modify it somehow, so it is not so rude, 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 ther 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, and the first part of it is a vile gossip: 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, 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 Misplaced Pages, where was it laid down that this is a rule on Misplaced Pages? 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. Misplaced Pages has its domicile in the US (in Florida, I suppose), so Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages? 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 based on May´s assertions does not qualify for a good summary, it is a misjudgment. 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)

1. May 1980, pp. 5–7 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFMay1980 (help).

• B-Class biography articles
• B-Class biography (arts and entertainment) articles
• Unknown-importance biography (arts and entertainment) articles
• Arts and entertainment work group articles
• B-Class biography (peerage) articles
• Unknown-importance biography (peerage) articles
• Peerage and Baronetage work group articles
• B-Class biography (politics and government) articles
• Unknown-importance biography (politics and government) articles
• Politics and government work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles