| Revision as of 15:17, 9 October 2012 editTom Reedy (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers14,081 edits →Dedications and literary mentions← Previous edit | Revision as of 15:22, 9 October 2012 edit undoTom Reedy (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers14,081 edits →Dedications and literary mentions: separating the serious concerns from the ridiculousNext edit → | ||
| Line 58: | Line 58: | ||
| ::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.] (]) 19:03, 5 October 2012 (UTC) | ::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.] (]) 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.) ] (]) 03:41, 8 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.) ] (]) 03:41, 8 October 2012 (UTC) | ||
| == Complaints from the peanut gallery == | |||
| ::::Just a question to you, ]. 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. --] (]) 07:19, 8 October 2012 (UTC) | ::::Just a question to you, ]. 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. --] (]) 07:19, 8 October 2012 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 15:22, 9 October 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. |
|
| 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. |
|
| 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 | |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Unclosed reference tags
Article has numerous unclosed reference tags. Regards, SunCreator 16:25, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Family background
In the article, a historian should depict the family background of Edward de Vere in more detail. He was the 17th Earl of Oxford, after all, so the line of his ancestry was really very impressive. And his family name de Vere - of course of Norman or even other French origin. These details are not very well known to me, and possibly are interesting for all readers. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 08:43, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- Oxford's background and family is covered in the encyclopedia, and it would not be useful to cram all this information into one article. See Category:Earls of Oxford, Category:De Vere family, and the article Earl of Oxford. Feel free to add any reliably-sourced material that meets Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines to any article, including these. Before you do so, I suggest you make yourself familiar with those policies and procedures. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:58, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
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.
- Kennedy 2004, p. 169 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFKennedy2004 (help)
- Nelson 2003, p. 181 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFNelson2003 (help)
- Nelson 2003, pp. 237–8 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFNelson2003 (help)
- Bennell 2004 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFBennell2004 (help)
- Nelson 2003, pp. 238, 247 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFNelson2003 (help); Bergeron 2007 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFBergeron2007 (help)
- Nelson 2003, p. 238 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFNelson2003 (help)
- Nelson 2003, pp. 239, 242 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFNelson2003 (help)
- Cite error: The named reference
Nelson 2003 281–2was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - 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".
- Nelson 2003, pp. 386–7 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFNelson2003 (help)
- 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)
- 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)
Complaints from the peanut gallery
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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 The Establishment censors the publication o the trutrh. 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
tp. 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 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
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)
- 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)
Jesus fucking 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)
Categories:- 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