Talk:Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford

Congratulations

This is just to congratulate all the industrious scrubbers who have put in so many hours on the references to this article. This article, in this purified form, is destined to become a textbook case of the perversion of scholarship for purely doctrinaire ends, the exclusion of contrary opinion, and the sanitization of a historical record to conform to the intellectual rigidities of a corp of morons. Truly, a remarkable bibliography in every regard, one that students of critical thinking may learn from for a long time. Good work.

Dr. Stritmatter

SAQ in the WP:LEAD of this article

MaineJill, hello, and welcome to a WP:TALKPAGE. WP has plenty of SAQ articles, this is not one of them. The WP:LEAD in this article summarize the SAQ-section in this article (afaict, "Eighty-seven "alternative" authors" is just something WP says in the list article, it's not actually from a WP:RS). The proper amount of SAQ in this article is next to none. The lead here is not the place to go into details about SAQ. The current version is proper WP:WEIGHT for this article. "alternative candidates proposed" is not misleading, just short and inclomplete, which is fine in this context. Refs like are not very helpful, it's like saying "It's in that library somewhere, go find it". You may find the referencing "tool" found here Help:Introduction to referencing with Wiki Markup/3 helpful, there are others.

References

I'm also unsure about some of your other WP:LEAD changes. The current version,

playwright, but "his violent and perverse temper" and "reckless waste"[1] precluded him from attaining any courtly or governmental responsibility and resulted in the total loss of his extensive inheritance.[2] In the 1888-1900 Dictionary of National Biography,

makes me ask why these "nameless" quotes are in the WP:LEAD and what is so stellar about the 1888-1900 Dictionary of National Biography that it must be mentioned in-text in this part of the article?

That's my view, we'll see if others have any. I'm not a lit PhD who's taught Shakespeare for decades, I've just been editing WP for awhile.

One more thing. SAQ is one of several... let's say conflict areas on WP, and the topic (wherever it appears) is under something called Discretionary sanctions. And, like I said at your talkpage, I still hope you like it here and decide to stay! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:54, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Yet another thing, about references in the WP:LEAD, see WP:LEADREF. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:00, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

• If the SAQ is mentioned in the article, then I guess it should be reflected in the lead with due weight. There's no reason to have any refs though, as there's no reason to be quoting the DNB (particularly in the lead). Use the ODNB and don't cite it in the lead. ——Serial 10:17, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Controversial topics tend to have more refs in the lead (check [23] at Jai Shri Ram for example), sometimes it seems to help a bit, but in general, if the WP:LEAD is done right, they should not be necessary. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:02, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

    I was sratching my head, asking "what on Earth is SAQ"? Not sure about lead inclusion. With the current coverage in the article, I would lean towards WP:UNDUE, but if it's true that he is one of the most popular Shakespeare candidates, it seems like this aspect may not be sufficiently covered in the article. Events and people referenced in conspiracy theories may be especially notable just because of their conspiracy associations. Just my two cents. (t · c) buidhe 12:50, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Buidhe. Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford/Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship has a sort of Evolution/Intelligent design relationship, in that there's no question that "the other topic" is WP:N on its own and has an enormous amount of sources, some even WP:RS. There's even an "Oxfordian" drama-film, Anonymous (Derek Jacobi!).

Per the spirit of WP:OTHER, compare how SAQ is mentioned in the other "big ones", William Shakespeare, Francis Bacon, Christopher Marlowe and William Stanley, 6th Earl of Derby (some would add Henry Neville (died 1615)). The current amount of SAQ in this article is quite reasonable, which of course doesn't mean it's perfect. But adding WP:LEAD only stuff is not a good idea. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:27, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

And to be clear, the current amount of SAQ in this article is the Since the 1920s, he has been among the most prominent alternative candidates proposed for the authorship of Shakespeare's works. lead-sentence and the Edward_de_Vere,_17th_Earl_of_Oxford#Oxfordian_theory_of_Shakespeare_authorship section. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:45, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi GGS- First, thanks for your comments above. I just reverted your change to the wording at the end of the first paragraph of the lede, as I think the previous wording was more neutral. I think WP stamps things with the term "fringe theory" more than it should. Eric ^talk 17:49, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Wow, that was a rapid undo of my revert! Well, maybe I just have a different take on the tone of "fringe theory". Eric ^talk 17:51, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

As I see it, while the tone may not be considered "neutral" by all considerers, it's quite clearly WP:NPOV. Actually, I think even some Oxfordians may agree with the term, they just think it's a Alfred Wegener kind of fringe theory. Perhaps the next century will tell. The intention was to comply somewhat with MaineJill's argument, as I understood it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:19, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

• Comment I just wanted to make clear what MaineJill's main argument (repeated) is:

"We know WS wrote the plays in exactly the same way we know O was an earl: the historical record for both facts is extensive & unequivocal. There's 0 evidence for any alternative author. Oxfordianism is a textbook conspiracy theory."

And, to note that this, to my own view, is a strongly biased, POV argument. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 18:29, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Agree. I made a comment to that effect on her talkpage. Eric ^talk 18:42, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

For a certain value of "evidence" there is more than 0. For example, the lifespans of O and S partly overlaps, that is evidence. They were both poets, that is evidence. But the evidence for Will, compared to any of the 87 or whatever, makes any other candidate a fringe theory. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:10, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

You may be right, when you "compare." But when you look at all the evidence for Will just by itself, I don't think you get to a value of say, 60%. Not over 50, I feel. And herein is the rub. When all the lacunae are systematically described, it does make you scratch your head, I think. warshy ^(¥¥) 20:32, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Name change from "Oxford" to "De Vere"

Hello all- Dositheus has changed apparently every instance of "Oxford", where used as de Vere's name, to "De Vere". While some may find this preferable, I think such a change would merit discussion here before implementation. Eric ^talk 14:56, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

I've no opinion on its correctness, but I find the revised version more readable. And I've no objection to editors being bold: we can always change it back if there are objections here. AndyJones (talk) 16:44, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

"Oxford" is correct. Peers are referred to by their titles, not their surnames. (We refer to Wellington and Salisbury, not "Wellesley" and "Gascoyne-Cecil".) There is a reason why it is referred to as the "Oxfordian theory", and not the "De Vere-ian theory". Proteus (Talk) 17:21, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm not arguing how 'Peers' refer to themselves. I wanted to add clarity, which was the only reason for the edit. Dositheus (talk) 06:55, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

I did not say anything about how peers refer to themselves, so I'm not sure what relevance your first comment has. And it is the opposite of clear to use names which are not those commonly used. Proteus (Talk) 10:19, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

FYI- Genealogically, for those directly related, it adds 'Clarity' amidst academic snobbery. Dositheus (talk) 14:39, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

The fart isn't mentioned

I was expecting to see a reference to the book Brief Lives by 17th century author John Aubrey, which recounts a story of Edward de Vere, "... earle of Oxford, making his low obeisance to Queen Elizabeth, happened to let a fart, at which he was so abashed that he went to travell 7 yeares. On his returne the Queen welcomed him home and sayd 'My lord, I had forgot the fart.'" The story is mentioned in the article flatulence humor and cited to https://archive.org/details/briefliveschiefl02aubruoft/page/270 - which unfortunately seems to be a somewhat bowdlerized version.

It's likely apocryphal, but may fit in the plots and scandals section. As far as I can tell this does seem to be what he's known for in popular culture. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:40, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:RS question on de Vere burial place

Removed the paragraphs in Last Years claiming that an unpublished manuscript has "led to questions regarding his burial place," concerning that manuscript, including a lengthy quotation from the manuscript. There's no citation for any reliable source raising any question about Oxford's burial. This appears to be purely WP:OR. The question is in the mind of the original poster of this material, not a reliable source. Further, devoting two paragraphs and a quotation to a primary source document not mentioned in any cited source seems disproportional. The actual records of de Vere's burial rate a single sentence. This material isn't appropriate for a wikipedia article.Bomagosh (talk) 01:25, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Bomagosh, could you enlighten us as to how you arrive at your judgement that the five sources in the material you deleted are not reliable? Eric ^talk 02:27, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

None of the sources support your statement,"The absence of a grave marker and an unpublished manuscript written fifteen years after Oxford's death have led to questions regarding his burial place." The sources cited violate WP:PRIMARY and WP:OR. Tom Reedy (talk) 02:48, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

No reliable source provided (or that I'm aware of) cites the sources in the material to raise questions about Oxford's burial place. If you find a reliable source where questions are raised by the existence of a distant relative's unpublished manuscript account that conflicts with two actual records of burial and the will of the man's widow expressing her desire to be buried in Hackney near her husband's body, cite that. There are no records that Oxford was ever disinterred from Hackney, or buried in Westminster. In the absence of any reliable source, the extensive speculation, in addition to the policy issued raised by @Tom Reedy above, also violate WP:WEIGHT. Bomagosh (talk) 03:01, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't have a dog in the race, but I did not find the mere mention of speculation regarding Oxford's burial place to be unjustified.

Tom Reedy, to whom are you addressing the above "your statement"? I am not the originator of that passage. In an edit from a few years ago, I made a copyedit to that sentence, and re-wrote the next two for a more encyclopedic style, removing language that came across to me as sounding indignant (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1025640296h). You'll note that I also clarified the presentation of evidence that Oxford was buried at St Augustine.

Bomagosh, with "distant relative", are you saying that Percival Golding was not Oxford's first cousin? In the above-linked edit I state that he is, but I no longer know what led me to believe he was. Eric ^talk 13:25, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

I am not the originator of that passage. Pretty sure you are: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Edward_de_Vere,_17th_Earl_of_Oxford&diff=prev&oldid=1025640296 Tom Reedy (talk) 16:49, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Tom Reedy, did you mean to post the same link that I had already posted a couple lines above? That diff clearly shows what text was already there and what changes I made, so I'm wondering if you meant to paste a different link. Note that before I posted above, I searched for my edits to the article so I could see what I'd written and what I'd changed. Eric ^talk 20:10, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

You might want to click on the two links. And yes, you were the person who added the language being objected to. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:55, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know what more I can do to help you understand this. Maybe it would help for you to review WP:DIFF. Eric ^talk 12:49, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

The premise to bring in the primary source document is the claim that the lack of grave marker and the manuscript led to "questions." This is a statement of fact that should be supported by a reliable source, since it's the premise for over 2000 characters of text being included in the article. If no reliable source has expressed the question, what's the justification for including this in Wikipedia?

Notably, in Nelson's biography of Oxford, Golding's statement concerning Oxford's burial is quoted, and Nelson, our secondary source quoted throughout the article, states that Golding erred as to both the burial site and to Oxford's membership in the Privy Council. Nelson also describes Golding as Oxford's "half-cousin, once removed." Golding's father was half-brother to Oxford's mother, one of eleven siblings and half siblings; and Percival was one of eight children of his father Arthur.

So our main secondary source for this article had read and reproduced this passage from Golding's manuscript, and unambiguously rejected it as erroneous. Unless some other reliable source exists that expresses questions about Oxford's burial site based on this document, there's no justification for this material's inclusion. Bomagosh (talk) 15:31, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Further concerning "distant relative:" Beyond being, according to Alan Nelson, Oxford's "half-cousin, once removed," he was also 29 years younger, and not of Oxford's social rank -- a commoner. All this suggests that Golding would not have been particularly personally close to the earl. Bomagosh (talk) 15:38, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. Eric ^talk 18:25, 25 November 2024 (UTC)