Talk:Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

The de Vere patronage sourcing and wording question

User:Tom Reedy has asked me to note, as an un-involved editor, that the discussion about the above-described topic at WP:RSN appears to have reached a suitable compromise concerning how to report De Vere's patronage. Hope that helps.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:40, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Andrew, I added a link to your comment for future reference. Thanks Nishidani (talk) 12:59, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

For the phrase one of the leading patrons in the lead, we should therefore have, when the text can be edited, De Vere was notable for his theatrical and literary patronage, with no source required. This of course can be revisted eventually when the relevant section dealing with his patronage, theatrical and literary work is completed, naturally. Nishidani (talk) 13:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I prefer "noted". Open up another RfC!. Tom Reedy (talk) 14:29, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Get off the court, Puppy! or it's foils and a Brincknell verdict at dawn tomorrow.Nishidani (talk) 15:13, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Did you know the word "clumsy" does not appear in the Shakespeare works? Proving that Brincknell was not the Bard. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:10, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Relevant. Tom Reedy (talk) 13:29, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Irrelevant Nishidani (talk) 13:34, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Additional errors in Monstrous Adversary

On the question of whether Monstrous Adversary is a reliable source, another instance of factual inaccuracy. On p. 37, Alan states that Oxford's tutor was 'Lawrence Nowell, Dean of Lichfield. The entry for Oxford's tutor, Laurence Nowell, in the online edition of The Dictionary of National Biography states that the antiquary Laurence Nowell (Oxford's tutor) was a different person from the Lawrence Nowell who was Dean of Lichfield. Errors of this nature (and there are many of them) all into question whether Monstrous Adversary can be cited as a reliable source. Nina Green205.250.205.73 (talk) 20:20, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

On Nowell, please note that article page as I left it has no mention of Nowell as the Dean of Lichfield, and therefore your comment has no relevance to the article. Nishidani (talk) 21:38, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you send a list of the errors you suspect may be in that book to Nelson. Few books in my library, a large number devoted to the exacting world of classical scholarship, lack errors, from erroneous citations to misprints. To note just a few examples. C.O. Brink's English Classical Scholarship, OUP 1985 has 12 by my count; Duncan Wilson's Gilbert Murray OUP, 1987, 6; Anthony Grafton's Joseph Scaliger: A Study in the History of Classical Scholarship, vol.1 Clarendon, Oxford, 4. All your remarks indicate is an unfamiliarity with the fact that scholars are human and, as Pope informs us 'to err is human'. Don't you remember your Latin and Horace's 'Ars Poetica' line 359?: 'indignor quandoque bonus dormitat Homerus'. By the Olympian criterion you are setting here, there are no sources, academic or otherwise. And of course, B.M Ward's biography must be binned by the same standard.Nishidani (talk) 21:06, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Alan doesn't want to know about the errors in his book. When it was first published, he set up a page on his website at which readers could post errors noted in his book, but he almost immediately shut it down. Nor does Alan want to know about the errors in Pearson's book because he simply incorporated her findings about Oxford's income and finances into Monstrous Adversary. When I first discovered the Latin document which Pearson had misinterpreted, and which led her to erroneously assign to Oxford an inherited income almost twice that which the extant documents show he actually did inherit (and then to speculate about the 'black hole' into which that imaginary income disappeared to :-), I told Alan about it. He didn't want to hear about it, and cut off all contact. Nina Green205.250.205.73 (talk) 21:14, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk pages for articles are not venues to conduct a personal campaign against scholars, but to discuss articles. It is both indelicate and improper to unilaterally insert here details of your personal exchanges in private with Nelson. And note, I made a point that is quite specific about errors in scholarly works. You did not, as you never have so far, address the point raised.Nishidani (talk) 21:22, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

As I mentioned before, my objective is to make the article as factually accurate as possible. Alan's book can be cited for certain facts, but it contains far more errors than are acceptable in a scholarly work, and for that reason it can only be cited with caution, and after having cross-checked Alan's statements against other sources, including the sources Alan quotes (see, for example, how Alan distorted the quotation from Fenelon which I just mentioned). You and I got off on the wrong foot, and I'm hoping we can work together to make the article as factually accurate as possible. I'm surprised at the amount of reading you indicate you've done on the topic. That's very commendable, if I might be permitted that comment. You're not editing off the top of your head. Nor am I. I've put in thousands of hours trying to get at the facts about Oxford. This research has little to do with the authorship aspect. It has to do primary with the historical documents which form Oxford's 'biography'. Nina Green205.250.205.73 (talk) 21:30, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually you're too polite. You've put in 2 decades, not thousands of hours. Nelson himself acknowledges the help you provided him with documents. Unfortunately, your desire that we, as editors, look at the primary documents on your website, and make a call as to whether you, Nelson or Pearson or whoever is right on anything would cause us to violate the strict protocols governing editing here. We are not allowed to make these judgements. It would turn us into an adhoc assortment of pseudo peer reviewers in a battle of contentions between a published scholar and an unpublished private researcher. Several of us here have academic records, and bridle instinctively at this limitation, but it is a convention we have underwritten as editors, to rein in temptations to judge the merits of what scholars say. There are some borderline situations which require great tact and care, but this particular one as far as I can see, does not fit them. I'm sure, given your decades of archival research, that you are capable of writing your version of Oxford's life. Do it, and preferably, get it to a university press, and it will compete with Nelson and Pearson (and you must be aware that Elizabethan historians have a consensus on the many defects of Pearson's books, something that is not apparent from reviews of Nelson's work). Another problem I'm sure you are not familiar with but which could cause problems is WP:COI. Nishidani (talk) 21:56, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Again, since you appear to have no formal qualifications as an historian, and no record for academic publications under an imprint guaranteeing peer-review and quality of research, this style of argument is not utilisable. If you can provide us with a secondary source by an historian of the Elizabethan period who says what you are saying, I'll be all ears. Otherwise, you are just persisting in WP:BLP and WP:OR infractions. Nishidani (talk) 21:43, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced statements

I note there is no source for this statement in the article: 'In later years Burghley was to upbraid Oxford frequently for his prodigal extravagance.' Nina Green205.250.205.73 (talk) 19:34, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict with Nina Green, below)Yes you're right. 'Prodigal extravagance' is of course Lawrence Stone's phrasing for Oxford and other earls of his generation in Burghley's care. The 'upbraid frequently' certainly requires source justification. It is either my memory straying, or a violation of WP:OR. I read over a thousand pages in a week while preparing my edits and did them rapidly, but that is no excuse for such slipshod disattendance to precise references. I'll check for this tomorrow, and if I cannot find where I got the idea about Burghley upbraiding, we can note this down (and there must be quite a few things like this) for rewriting.Nishidani (talk) 20:35, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Good. Thanks. Nina Green205.250.205.73 (talk) 20:43, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

It turns out that the text I wrote can be reliably sourced, and the irony of the results of my checking, is that the source I had in mind was the Oxfordian biography by B. M. Ward:-

In later years we shall find Lord Burghley continually upbraiding Lord Oxford for his extravagance.B. M. Ward, The seventeenth Earl of Oxford, 1550-1604: from contemporary documents 1928,John Murray, London 1928, p.31

One could take exception to the adjective 'prodigal', which has drifted in from Lawrence Stone's remarks on Oxford and his generation of wards, as cited in Nelson, Monstrous Adversary (2003 p.35 where we read: 'No wonder these young men adopted a way of life of absurdly prodigal extravagance,' where Stone specifically has Oxford in mind.) I dropped the adverbial 'absurdly' and retained' prodigal', which found in Elizabethan sources for de Vere's spendthrift ways. I.e. Anthony Wood's 'the prodigal Earl of Oxford' (cited Nelson p.62)

While on this, I should note that Miss Green's tasking of Nelson for identifying Oxford's tutor Lawrence Nowell with his cousin the homonymous Dean of Lichfield, overlooks the point that the Oxfordian school made the same identification, as we can see from B.M. Ward's biography (p.20) and Charlton and Dorothy Ogburn's This Star of England, (1952) ch.2. If Nelson strays here, it looks like he does so by failing to check his notes from Oxfordian sources against the archival records and secondary literature.Nishidani (talk) 09:47, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Even the DNB had the identification wrong until recent years. See the new entry for the antiquary Laurence Nowell in the online edition of the DNB. Nina Green205.250.205.73 (talk) 17:21, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

This belongs both under this heading, and under the heading Additional Errors in Monstrous Adversary above: 'Cecil, who had risen to Baron Burghley by February, was displeased with the arrangement'(i.e. Oxford's betrothal to Anne Cecil). The page reference given in the article is to p. 71 of Monstrous Adversary, and I assume the reference is intended to e to Alan's misquotation of a letter from the French ambassador, Fenelon. The letter is transcribed and translated on my website (see Fenelon, July 1571 on the Documents page). Alan has erroneously inserted the name [Burghley] into his quotation from the letter, thereby stating that Burghley had told Fenelon he was not happy to see Anne, at her age, brought to church to marry the Earl of Oxford. In fact Fenelon is referring to what the Queen told him (Fenelon) about her own pretended reluctance to marry Alencon, since he was 'the age of the Earl of Oxford' whereas she herself was much older. Surely Wikipedia does not wish to direct readers of this article to an error this egregious in nature. Nina Green205.250.205.73 (talk) 20:56, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

This page deals specifically with de Vere. It is not a page dedicated to your personal review of Nelson's volume. The proper person to address those comments to is Alan Nelson, who is or was your correspondent, to judge by his kind words in acknowledgement to you in the preface. Please restrict your comments to the article as it has been redacted. If you have reliably sourced information from secondary sources to bring the page up to wikipedia standards, I'll be delighted to check it and we can work to get a better article than the one that was, and the interrupted version I was asked to suspend editing a week ago. Nishidani (talk) 21:19, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm wondering whether we can take the Fenelon citation step by step to see whether a compromise can be arrived at. Firstly, on pp.62-3 Ward quotes Lord Burghley's letter in connection with Oxford's betrothal to Anne Cecil to the effect that Burghley thinks well of Oxford and 'honour him so dearly from my heart as I do my own son', so Alan's reference to Fenelon is suspect from the outset. Secondly, historians are well aware that Fenelon's correspondence is in French, so Alan's quotation on p.71 in English while citing in his endnotes a source which is in French (Correspondance, iv. p. 186) is also suspect from the outset. Even Wikipedia's rules must allow for questioning of a cited source which is in another language from the quotation alleging given from that source. Thirdly, the letter in question is from Corresponance, which is itself a published work, and therefore Wikipedia editors can take cognizance of it. Fourthly, the letter in question is from Fenelon to Queen Catherine de Medici, and the words in question (taken from Corresponance) read:

Madame, en discourant avec la Royne d’Angleterre des choses que je mande en la lettre du Roy, nous sommes, de propos en propos, venuz à parler du pourtraict de Monseigneur vostre filz, et elle m’a dict qu’encor que ce ne soit que le créon, et que son teint n’y soit que quasi tout chafouré de charbon, si ne layssoit ce visaige de monstrer beaucoup de beaulté et beaucoup de merques de dignité et de prudence; et qu’elle avoit esté bien ayse de le veoyr ainsy meur comme d’ung homme parfaict, car me vouloit dire tout librement que mal vollontiers, estant de l’eage qu’elle est, eust elle vollu estre conduict à l’esglise pour estre maryée avec ung qui se fût monstré aussi jeune comme le comte d’Oxfort

There is no way in which a letter which begins, Madame, in discussing with the Queen of England, who told me thus and so can be turned into a letter in which Lord Burghley told me so and so, as Alan's interpolation of Lord Burghley's name into the letter has done.

The point is that the statement in the article doesn't need to be made, and since it doesn't need to be made, it can be removed if the sources on which allegedly rests turn out not to support it, no? Nina Green205.250.205.73 (talk) 17:33, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

The text doesn't rely on Fenelon's correspondence at this point except with the words 'was displeased with the arrangement'. I'd only feel confident of making a judgement on this had I vol.4 of Fenelon's correspondence for the period, to read the whole section from page 156 to 315 (which Ward quotes).

However, over the page in Nelson (p.72) Burghley is stated as writing to the Earl of Rutland that he, Burghley neither hoped nor sought it and: 'Truly, my Lord, my goodwill serves me to have moved such a matter as this in another direction than this is,' which, even if phrased to placate Rutland, construes as an expression of Burghley's opinion that, had he had a decisive say in the matter, he might have made a different arrangement than the one which, by his proposal of marriage, the Earl of Oxford made.

The simplest solution is simply to rephrase 'was displeased with the arrangement' as 'assured the Earl of Rutland he personally might well have thought of a different arrangement'.Nishidani (talk) 19:04, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

New Topics for the Article

Have the editors of this page considered adding something about Oxford's participation in the Frobisher expedition and in Adrian Gilbert's Colleagues of the Fellowship for the Discovery of the North West Passage (Ward pp. 236-41, Nelson, pp. 187-9)? The topic has historical interest, and also explains where some of Oxford's capital went. Nina Green205.250.205.73 (talk) 23:48, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Of course. Everything must be covered, either in chronological progression or thematically.Nishidani (talk) 10:35, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Would you be interested in writing something on that topic? Nina Green205.250.205.73 (talk) 14:42, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I intended doing the whole article in detail, from several RS, but cannot touch the page because of labyrinthine suspensions, topic bans, discussions, RfCs, doubts about policy, mediation, perhaps Arbcom. I have a week left before travel plans will make me incommunicado for several months. If they give me a day or two, sure, I'll write that section.Nishidani (talk) 14:48, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

That's unfortunate. Just when we were getting somewhere. Maybe the ban could be lifted? Nina Green205.250.205.73 (talk) 15:48, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

It's the way the place works. No one is indispensable: wikipedia is based on the volume and turnover of people not on what individuals may contribute, and, in any case, the work of years can be destroyed in an hour, on both strong and flimsy grounds. It's a voluntary ban. I won't be around when it expires, which it looks like doing before I expire. But these articles have several professional scholars watching them. What I said are just the usual reminders about policy. Good luck. Nishidani (talk) 18:01, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, before you go away, let me wish you the best. Hope you have a great holiday. I'll probably give the article a rest until you return. Nina Green205.250.205.73 (talk) 19:30, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Barring snakes and spiders, which are a hobby of mine, I'll be back around early February. So, sure, let's set that down as a date for collaborating to get this article up to snuff, at least to GA standard. A splendid gesture, much appreciated. Mind you, all sorts of things, from substantial improvements to destructive mobbing of what we have, can occur in the meantime, but we can go through it with a fine toothcomb together at that date. Regards Nishidani (talk) 21:35, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Some things to consider fixing when editing resumes

Taking into consideration some of the remarks above, in addition to points raised generally over the past month.

(a) Add source as per Nina Green's request for the line:-

'In later years Burghley was to upbraid Oxford frequently for his prodigal extravagance.'

No. Nina simply didn't check the source, in Ward, at the end of the second line, which is indeed Ward p.31. The ref applies to both sentences.

'Prodigal' can be elided, and the source should read, with the template system employed, Ward 1928, p. 31 Nishidani (talk) 09:51, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Nishidani is right. I now see that Ward does say on p. 31 that 'In later years we shall find Lord Burghley continually upbraiding Oxford for his extravagance'. Ward doesn't, so far as I know, provide references later in his book which would justify his use of the phrase 'continually upbraiding', but nonetheless, that's exactly what he says on p. 31. Nina Green205.250.205.73 (talk) 17:17, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

(b) 'the sixth son of Sir Thomas Tyrrell of East Horndon' can be elided (an unnecessary specification in any case') or it should be prefaced by 'according to some sources'.

(c)The words in the lead, 'participated in military campaigns in the Northern Rebellion (1569)' are misleading as I noted above and on LessHeard vanU's page.

I suggest:'participated in two military campaigns, in the Northern Rebellion (1569-1570),..' (the appropriate section notes he participated in April-May, 1570)

(d) The section 'Shakespearean authorship question' should not head the page, but be relocated at the bottom of the page as per the DNB standard biography, since it is incidental to Oxford's life, and never figured in accounts of it for 316 years.

(e) On the matriculated impubes, the sources all say this (a) Charles Henry Cooper, Thompson Cooper (eds.) Athenae Cantabrigienses, Volume 2, 1861 (Gregg Press, 1967) p.389 (b) B. M. Ward, The seventeenth Earl of Oxford, 1550-1604: from contemporary documents, 1928 p.11; (c) Alan H. Nelson, 'Monstrous Adversary,' 2003 p.24 (d) Daphne Pearson, Edward de Vere (1550-1604): the crisis and consequences of wardship, 2005 p.14 Nishidani (talk) 10:25, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

(f):As per Nina Green's request above: 'was displeased with the arrangement' as 'assured the Earl of Rutland he personally might well have thought of a different arrangement'/ or some variant of the same consonant with the Rutland letter. Alternatively one could just elide the phrase.Nishidani (talk) 19:07, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Either would work, but I think the latter (eliding the phrase) might be preferable because it's difficult to know what Lord Burghley really thought. He seems to be hinting to Rutland that he would have eventually suggested a marriage between Anne Cecil and Rutland if Oxford had not stepped in with his proposal, but on the other hand, is Burghley just being diplomatic? If the phrase is kept in, I'd be inclined to cite Ward (p.62) because although Alan cites HMC Rutland, i, p. 95 as his source, the Calendar of Rutland manuscripts is available online, and the spelling in it is not the modernized spelling used in Alan's quotation on p.72 of Monstrous Adversary, which instead bears a considerable resemblance to the modern spelling version on p. 62 of Ward, so the citation perhaps properly belongs to Ward. Nina Green205.250.205.73 (talk) 20:38, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Let me suggest this.

'She had been pledged to Philip Sidney in August 1569, and others had apparently sought her hand. Oxford was the most eligible bachelor in England. Cecil, who had risen to Baron Burghley by February, and apparently had entertained the idea of her marrying the earl of Rutland, acquiesced. According to Nelson, Oxford's rank trumped all else.' Ward 1928, pp. 61–63Nelson 2003, pp. 71–73

My policy from the start has been to use both Ward and Nelson, and, had I not undertaken the voluntary ban, would have accompanied every key point with dual sourcing, while maintaining the most neutral narration of the story as we have it, so that readers can readily access the respective sources quickly. (Note for example re interpretations notes 25/26, where Ward's interpretation is given and then Nelson's) One of the drudges of wikiwork is that effectively, we read a thousand or more pages on any subject, often 5-6 books, and index by page everything, so that the younger generation is no longer obliged to read anything beyond a few pages, but if uncertain, can simply check in a library by following the refs to go to the precise pages.Nishidani (talk) 20:58, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

It might be that Oxford's rank trumped all else, but it might also be that Burghley realized that Anne was infatuated with Oxford and wanted her to be happy (what little evidence there is suggests that Anne loved Oxford to the end of her life, in spite of everything). Rather than speculate, maybe we should just let all this detail (which is more about Anne and Burghley and Rutland than Oxford) go. But nonetheless, if you want to put it in, I wouldn't object. Nina Green205.250.205.73 (talk) 23:23, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Historians can make inferences from evidence, in fact that is what historians basically do. They generally are trained not to make inferences from the absence of evidence. There is evidence for Oxford's rank, Burghley's views on the marriage, and inferences have been drawn by RS. There is no evidence for Burghley's thoughts on Anne's motivations. The two issues are distinct. One is legitimate inference in an RS, the other pure speculation. That's why I registered the former.Nishidani (talk) 10:42, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Leaving aside the fact that Alan isn't a historian and thus hasn't been trained 'not to make inferences from the absence of evidence', isn't it confusing to claim, as Alan does on p. 71, that 'Evidently Oxford's rank trumped all else' when in fact Rutland was also a high-ranking Earl? Just asking, because the fine distinction Alan seems to be making between the ranking of earls in marry his daughter is lost on me and I suspect would be lost on most people. I think the factual quality of the article would be improved by omitting this sort of speculation as to Lord Burghley's motives, but that's just my opinion. I happen to like what I'd read of Lord Burghley, and I'd like to give his motives the benefit of the doubt since we don't know what they were. Nina Green205.250.205.73 (talk) 14:55, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

You might like to examine the use of the word 'evidently' in Nelson's several hundred pages. I have. I gather he doesn't use it as 'according to the evidence=obviously' but 'ostensibly, apparently, the odds are' etc. Nelson is a cultural historian. If you do classical Greek and Latin, you get intensive training in the language, and then write pages on 'Thucydides' and 'Tacitus', 'Sophocles' and 'Seneca', 'Plato' and 'Lucretius' (history, theatre, philosophy, etc). Once you have mastered this, you choose where to move, history, philosophy, literature etc., but even if you specialize, the historian still uses philology, the philosopher must learn how rhetoric works in literature, and the literary specialist must know how to evaluate historical evidence. Most historians down to recent times were trained this way. And it goes for Old-Middle-Elizabethan literature and documentary scholars. Mastery of texts, and then you specialize. History gets nowhere without this philological-literary preparation, and that is any English lit major of the past works historically, as an historian. To write, as Schoenbaum, May, Nelson, Chambers do does not require a doctorate in some modern faculty of history. If you write the life of someone who died 400 years ago, using archives, and the historical secondary literature, you are practising the profession of the historian, whatever your primary credentials. No one raises this point, as far as I know, except Oxfordians, almost none of whom have recognized credentials in literary theory, historical methodology, or philology. I say this without wishing in the least to imply anything negative about your personal commitment over decades to research. It is just that it looks shabby to try and discredit someone whom you disagree within on such an extremely tendentious equivocation, one which most informed readers won't concur with. I've noticed quite a few errors in Nelson myself, some you've noted here. But I notice them, after a year, in anything intricate I write, and in most books on subjects I have a detailed knowledge of. It is in the nature of things that specialists, notn infrequently, slip up, and that they do should not occasion suspicion about their qualifications, but a reflection on the intrinsic difficulties of getting anything right.

Let me tell you an anecdote about a classical scholar, which I read somewhere in Toynbee's voluminous works as a youth. He was prepossessed by grammar, and in middle age, began to refuse to read any classical author who did not express himself according to the best usage of the definitive and exhaustive German grammars on classical languages. A Latinist, he ended up constitutionally incapable to reading anything earlier than Vergil or later than Ovid. Catullus was so badly reported, he was cancelled. Propertius was deeply problematical because of bad transmission. Then Vergil's Aeneid has those 48 half lines unfinished, and some questionable grammar. Out. Then Horace, then Ovid, then Cicero, they all had blots. I think he ended his days reading grammars written in the late 19th century rather than Latin authors, because only the former expressed perfectly the ideal forms of competent Latin usage, and all real authors were too painfully distant from that ideal. Knowledge is empathy with the past, but also humility at the intrinsic limitations in our cognitive ability to know it, in Ranke's words, wie es eigentlich gewesen ist.Nishidani (talk) 22:08, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

(g)The Ref to lead on his comedies runs:"Puttenham and Meres reckon him among 'the best for comedy' in his day; but, although he was a patron of players, no specimens of his dramatic productions survive."

Correct me if I'm wrong on this but Meres marked him down as 'the best for comedy' while Puttenham classified him among the 'courtly makers', whose 'doings' would be worth finding out. The context suggests primarily poetry, but the point is, whatever the provenance of the quote from the secondary source it attributes to Puttenham a judgement made only by Meres. It's quite easy to find material in May Nelson and Ward on this, and I will supply it presently in the few days left to me, along with a few other things. Nishidani (talk) 09:54, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

There's no reason, technically, why this should be removed but

the sixth son of Sir Thomas Tyrrell of East Horndon.

I have placed it provisorily here. Two RS state it, and a private researcher denies it to be confirmed in the records. Normally, to edit it out on personal research grounds would infringe WP:V, and WP:OR. And I personally see no reason to do as I am doing now, except for this, that it is not necessary to the text. If I find however that this is confirmed in two or three other modern RS, I will reinsert it. Any editor who sees this differently however will be within their rights to reinsert it. And I will not oppose such an edit, though I think both courtesy and commitment to essentials provide a ground to simply expunge the point, which Nina thinks controversial.Nishidani (talk) 19:41, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your doing this. The ultimate source of the error is The Complete Peerage, cited by Alan as his source, and Alan has merely repeated the error. It's not vital that this error be deleted from the article, but it would improve the factual quality of the article because this error has led to other errors on Alan's part, including his claim that Richard Tyrrell was Charles Tyrrell's brother. This entail in Richard Tyrrell's will makes it clear that he was not Charles Tyrrell's brother:

>Item, I will and bequeath unto Edward, my son, all my lands and tenements with their appurtenances to him and to his heirs males of his body lawfully begotten, and for default of such issue that all my said manors, lands, tenements & hereditaments with their appurtenances except the manor of Sundon shall remain and be unto Thomas Tyrrell, my eldest brother’s son, and to his heirs males of his body lawfully begotten, and for default of such issue the remainder thereof to Henry Tyrrell, my second brother, and to the heirs males of his body lawfully begotten, and for default of such issue the remainder thereof unto Robert Tyrrell, my brother, and to his heirs males of his body lawfully begotten, and for default of such issue, the remainder thereof unto Eustace Tyrrell, my brother, and his heirs males of his body lawfully begotten, and for default of such issue the remainder thereof unto Charles Tyrrell that married the Countess of Oxford and his heirs males lawfully begotten, and for default of such issue the remainder thereof to Charles Tyrrell, servant to the Lord Rich, and to his heirs males lawfully begotten, and for default of such issue the remainder thereof unto the right heirs of me, the said Richard Tyrrell, forever;<

In my view the entail in the will of Richard Tyrrell above also suggests that it was likely the Charles Tyrrell who was the 'servant to the Lord Rich' who was actually the sixth son of Sir Thomas Tyrrell of Horndon.

I understand the problem with using primary source documents, but sometimes it's only primary source documents which reveal the errors in otherwise reliable secondary sources.

Nothing earth-shattering turns on whether the error is left in, or removed, from the article, but I think it would improve the factual quality of the article if it were removed, particularly since it's not vital to an article on Edward de Vere. Nina Green205.250.205.73 (talk) 20:50, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I should perhaps have added that it was because of Alan's mention of the will of Charles Tyrrell's alleged brother Richard on p. 41 of Monstrous Adversary that I ordered a copy of Richard Tyrrell's will from the National Archives and transcribed it, only to find that it doesn't say what Alan claims it says. Alan writes on p. 41:

>Although Margery and Charles are first identified as husband and wife in a will signed on 13 May 1566 by Charles' brother Richard of Assheton, Essex . . . .<

But in fact, as noted above, the entail in Richard Tyrrell's will demonstrates that Charles Tyrrell was not Richard Tyrrell's brother, and indicates, moreover, that there was another Charles Tyrrell, 'servant to the Lord Rich', who was likely the Charles Tyrrell who was the 'sixth son of Sir Thomas Tyrrell of Heron' in East Horndon. Nina Green205.250.205.73 (talk) 20:58, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I can't see it, but then I am not an expert on the Peerage nor on Elizabethan documents. If the word 'brother' is not used of the first Richard Tyrrell, who married Oxford's widow, neither is it used of the second Tyrrell, who was the servant to the Lord Rich. Where's the proof as opposed to a different inference, that escaped the Peerage, and the other authoritative sources?Nishidani (talk) 22:05, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I think you meant to write 'If the word 'brother' is not used of the first Charles Tyrrell, who married Oxford's widow, neither is it used of the second Tyrrell, who was the servant to the Lord Rich'. Exactly. When Richard Tyrrell is referring to his brothers in the entail, he calls them 'brother'. When he refers to both the Charles Tyrrells, who were obviously relations of some sort or he wouldn't have included them in the entail, he doesn't call them brothers because neither of the Charles Tyrrells was his brother. Alan simply misread the will. Moreover all the sources are clear that Richard Tyrrell of Asshedon was most definitely not one of the 'six sons of Sir Thomas Tyrrell of Heron, in East Horndon', so if he and Oxford's stepfather, Charles Tyrrell, were brothers, as Alan claims, then obviously Charles Tyrrell couldn't have been a son of Sir Thomas Tyrrell of Heron either. So Alan, without realizing it, in one of his statements on p. 41 disproves another of his statements on p. 41.

I just don't see the point of referring Wikipedia readers to a page in Alan's book on which this sort of confusion reigns. I could point out another error of Alan's concerning Charles Tyrrell's alleged annulled marriage on p. 41, but I think people's heads are spinning already. :-) It just seems pragmatic to omit the statement concerning Charles Tyrrell's background from the article entirely. It doesn't add anything to the article, it's almost certainly wrong, and it leads Wikipedia readers to a page in Alan's book where there are further errors. If it stays in the article, I won't lose any sleep over it, but I think it would improve the article to omit it. Nina Green205.250.205.73 (talk) 22:55, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Alan's comment on p.41 about Charles Tyrrell's alleged annulled marriage is worth considering because it is yet another error of a type which raises the question of whether Alan's book can be considered a reliable source. On p. 41, Alan writes:

([Oxford's stepfather] Charles [Tyrrell's] prior marriage to Agnes Chitwode alias Odell had been annulled by the Court of Delegates on 6 April 1560.)

Alan cites as his source 'BL MS Add. Charter 44271 (annullment)'. However if Alan actually looked at this manuscript, he misread it, because there is an account of this rather famous case in Strype's Annals. But more importantly there is this account of it, taken from a 1559 Act of Parliament, on pp. 327-8 of Documents of the English Reformation 1526-170, ed. by Gerald Bray, c1994:

http://books.google.com/books?id=UGi6WWtzkJYC&pg=PA327&lpg=PA327&ots=LCCGcJwbv4&dq=tyrrell+chetwood&ie=ISO-8859-1&output=html&sig=31Cb4v0HyfvtmmNvya_qmvamPzM

>23. And where one pretended sentence has heretofore been given in the Consistory of Paul's before certain judges delegate, by the authority legatine of the late Cardinal Pole, by reason of a foreign usurped power and authority, against Richard Chetwood, Esq., and Agnes his wife, by the name of Agnes Woodhall, at the suit of Charles Tyrrell, gentleman, in a cause of matrimony solemnized between the said Richard and Agnes, as by the same pretended sentence more plainly doth appear, from which sentence the said Richard and Agnes have appealed to the court of Rome, which appeal does there remain, and yet is not determined; may it therefore please your Highness that it may be enacted by the authority aforesaid, that if sentence in the said appeal shall happen to be given at the said court of Rome for and in the behalf of the said Richard and Agnes, for the reversing of the said pretended sentence, before the end of threescore days next after the end of this session of this present Parliament (i.e. by 07 July 1559), that then the same shall be judged and taken to be good and effectual in the law, and shall and may be used, pleaded and allowed in any court or place within this realm; anything in this Act or any other Act or statute contained to the contrary notwithstanding.

>And if no sentence shall be given at the court of Rome in the said appeal for the reversing of the said pretended sentence before the end of the said threescore days, that then it shall and may be lawful for the said Richard and Agnes, and either of them, at any time hereafter, to commence, take, sue and prosecute their said appeal from the said pretended sentence, and for the reversing of the said pretended sentence, within this realm, in such like manner and form as was used to be pursued or might have been pursued, within this realm, at any time since the twenty-fourth year of the reign of the said late King Henry VIII (1532-33), upon any sentences given in the court or courts of any archbishop within this realm.<

>And that such appeal as so hereafter shall be taken or pursued by the said Richard Chetwood and Agnes, or either of them, and the sentence that herein or thereupon shall hereafter be given, shall be judged to be good and effectual in the law to all intents and purposes; any law, custom, usage, canon, constitution or any other matter or cause to the contrary notwithstanding.<

The bottom line is that this Charles Tyrrell, whoever he was (and it seems likely he was the Charles Tyrrell who was 'servant to the Lord Rich', not the Charles Tyrrell who was Oxford's stepfather), was never married to Agnes Chetwood. Charles Tyrrell was merely the person who instigated the suit to have the marriage between Agnes Woodhall and Richard Chetwood annulled.

Considering that the case in question is well enough known to have been part of a 1559 Act of Parliament, why did Alan make the egregious errors not only of falsely claiming that Oxford's stepfather Charles Tyrrell was married to Agnes Chitwode and that the marriage was annulled, but also of citing a manuscript source which demonstrates that Charles Tyrrell was not married to Agnes Chitwode? I'll leave that up to readers of this message.

Nina Green205.250.205.73 (talk) 17:01, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Nina, you cannot technically wage a campaign against Nelson's book on this page, which is not a forum or venue for such issues and in violation of WP:BLP. Much of what you contest is in Ward, Debrett's Peerage, Pearson (wh has been severely criticized by specialists ) and DNB and other sources. You are singling him out in what looks to the outside viewer as a personal attempt to disinvalidate his recognized status as an Elizabethan scholar, and you lack the public credentials to do this. No one here can conduct research and challenge an RS adducing these private researches. I will be quite happy to collaborate, but only if you drop this monocular assault. Nelson has written 500 detailed pages and has been peer-reviewed. If you wish to be cited, you must find a peer-reviewing non-partisan journal that enjoys scholarly respect, write an objective review of it, and if, accepted, it can be cited here. I could tear apart a lot of stuff on your page (as I showed earlier, you get things wrong), but I don't. There are tight rules governing what editors can and cannot do, and you are attempting, I've no doubt with a sincere bona fides, to do things that subvert the protocols here. Read them very carefully.Nishidani (talk) 18:23, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

"disinvalidate"? That's an excretable concoction! Tom Reedy (talk) 21:13, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I guess I don't understand how Wikipedia determines what is, or is not, a reliable source. As I've said before (and forgive me for repeating myself), Alan is not a historian and his book has not been reviewed by professional historians. I've already demonstrated here that there are significant errors in Alan's handling of factual material from primary source manuscripts. Alan's own transcripts and other highly respected published sources such as Bray's Documents of the Reformation (cited above) establish that what Alan says in his book about the contents of certain primary source documents doesn't factually represent what the documents actually say. I could cite many more examples of factual errors in Alan's book, but leaving that aside, and merely taking the other points I've just mentioned into consideration, at what point does Wikipedia itself begin to question whether it can simply cite Alan's book as a reliable source, or whether Wikipedia itself has to say 'Maybe we can cite Alan's book for some things, but we have to be cautious'. I'm merely asking, because I really don't know. I'm new to Wikipedia, and don't understand its policies. Just by way of example, Wikipedia doesn't accept Brief Chronicles as a reliable source, yet Brief Chronicles is included in the bibliographies of The Modern Language Association and The Folger Shakespeare Library. So why does Wikipedia not accept Brief Chronicles as a reliable source, while accepting a book written by someone who is not a historian and whose book has not been reviewed by reliable historians? I'm sincerely confused about Wikipedia's criteria for assessing what constitutes a reliable source, and who actually makes that determination.

That said, I do want to co-operate with you on editing the article when you return from holidays, and so I'm quite willing to refrain from further comments on errors in Alan's book in the interim. Agreed?

You state that you could 'tear apart a lot of stuff' on my page (I assume you mean the Documents page on my website). If so, I would welcome that. I'm always revising the summaries to the documents on that page in order to reflect new information and correct earlier errors. Any help any editor of this page can provide in correcting errors on the Documents page of my website would be appreciated.

Nina Green205.250.205.73 (talk) 18:39, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Nelson's book has been reviewed, often favourably, by many scholars of the period. You dismiss this, saying they aren't historians. Neither are you, by the same criterion, and I say this without venom. It is no great boast to say that one can tear apart Looney, Ogburn Sr. Ogburn Jr, Farina, Malim, Anderson and all the rest. It is very painful, if a duty, to read their books, the inferential overload is appalling. I do think it admirable that you pursue archival research, but the argument can never be made, because though you may correct oversights (a valuable service to the academy) a positive argument for the theory cannot be constructed because it is purely inferential. I mentioned above that the problem is one of a lack of thorough understanding of fact, inference, proof, and probability. Generally Nelson has this. I've seen no evidence those who criticize him do. In any case, this is all immaterial to the problems of this page. One last point. Most first-rate poets in English wrote better than the de Vere whose poems we know, at the same age. No one wrote better than Shakespeare. Nishidani (talk) 21:14, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I note the words 'Alan's book has been reviewed, often favourably', from which I deduce that even among non-historians there have been unfavourable reviews of Alan's book, and of course there have been no reviews of it at all by professional historians. Daphne Pearson's book began life as a dissertation for a Ph.D. in history, and of course was eventually reviewed by professional historians, and as you note above, has been 'severely criticized by specialists'. If Alan's book were to be reviewed by professional historians, who is to say whether it might not get the same treatment, considering the factual errors it contains?

Well I've read several reviews calling is exhaustive, definitive, etc. The only point he's criticized on his that it's jolly hard reading given the number of primary documents reproduced. Not a classic narrative history. Pearson's book is badly organized, and she makes, it is said, deductions that are not always persuasive, etc. But at the same time has a host of invaluable, exhaustvely analysed material on an obscure topic, land. This is customary with secondary sources, that they are subject to nit-picking which however in no way undermines their use as secondary sources in academia. Go through most academic books with a fine toothcomb and, as Paul Barlow said, you'll find a good deal to correct, much less, if they go through the peer-review before approval process common at places like Yale and Harvard etc., than the hopeless mess of popular books that simply repeat or mingle and patch in a lot of material from similar books in the genre. Nishidani (talk) 07:43, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

In any event, my question was about the criteria which Wikipedia uses to determine what is, and what is not, a reliable source, and who makes that determination. This has nothing to do with my own qualifications, or with anyone's qualifications, for that matter, although you keep coming back to that point. It has to do with Wikipedia's criteria. On what basis has Wikipedia determined that Alan's book is a reliable source, and that Brief Chronicles is not a reliable source, and who makes those determinations? Just asking, because I really don't know.

Nina Green205.250.205.73 (talk) 00:29, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Nina, see WP:RS and WP:FRINGE. Basically, Wikipedia reflects the establishment status quo, or the scholary consensus, if you will. Its accepted sources are reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, such as current academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks. No original research is allowed as a source, see WP:OR. Primary sources can only be used to verify the text and cannot be cited exclusively to verify a statement or interpretation. I.e. I can use a primary source to make sure a quoted section is spelled right, but I can't use it to counter a secondary source.

Nelson is an accepted source because he is a recognized orthodox scholar with a university connection and his book was published by a university press.

Books, journals, and Web sites that advocate a point of view in opposition to the mainstream academic consensus (such as Oxfordism) are not considered reliable sources. In other words, you cannot source an article about Oxford using Looney or Ogburn.

Brief Chronicles is not a reliable source because it advocates a position directly opposed to the academic consensus that William Shakespeare of Stratford was the primary author of the works attributed to him, and so is a fringe journal with no real academic peer review that mainstream academics accept.

Fringe sources are considered primary sources for the topic of Oxfordism, and so cannot even be used as stand-alone sources in the Oxfordism article. They can be used to describe what Oxfordism is, but even then they have to be accompanied by a reliable mainstream source and it has to be made clear that the view is not accepted by mainstream scholars.

I know it's confusing, and that's why misunderstandings and clashes about what is a usable source often occur. Here's an example that might help:

In the Oxfordian article, I can say something like, "Oxfordians believe that Oxford had to hide his authorship because of the stigma of print, a social convention that supposedly restricted their literary works to private and courtly audiences—as opposed to commercial endeavours—at the risk of social disgrace if violated." I can then source that to a passage in Ogburn and another mainstream source such as Shapiro. Better yet, I can source it to Shapiro quoting Ogburn, thereby turning Ogburn into a secondary source.

What I cannot do is say, "Oxford had to hide his authorship because of the stigma of print, a social convention that restricted their literary works to private and courtly audiences—as opposed to commercial endeavours—at the risk of social disgrace if violated," and then source that to Ogburn only. I have to make it clear that it is a view held by Oxfordians, not a true statement by the academy.

That's a real simple example but I hope it gives you a better idea of what we're talking about when we say "reliable source". Tom Reedy (talk) 05:30, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Also see WP:Rs#Scholarship: "Care should be taken with journals that exist mainly to promote a particular point of view. A claim of peer review is not an indication that the journal is respected, or that any meaningful peer review occurs. Journals that are not peer reviewed by the wider academic community should not be considered reliable, except to show the views of the groups represented by those journals." Tom Reedy (talk) 19:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Nishidami writes: "Nelson's inferences, which come from one of the ranking world authorities on Elizabethan primary documents" -documents which he is is unable to read in the original. Only two Stratfordians, Mrs.Pearson and Mr. Nelson, have done any original research on the Earl of Oxford. And since Nelson has relied on Daphne who does read Latin, for scores of his references,we must logically conclude that Daphne has the superior academic authority. However as Oxfordian Paul in a peer reviewed article has shown that in many respects her own work is also filled with errors, the only logical conclusion is that there is no Stratfordian "ranking world authority" on the life of the Seventeenth Earl Of Oxford.Charles Darnay (talk) 22:21, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

The ranking status of scholars is determined by university positions, publishers, peer reviews etc. It is not determined by imaginary Dickensian characters. Of course even the greatest scholars get things wrong. The more wide ranging and the more original ones research, the more room there is for slip ups over details. Archival research entails a lot of note-taking and organisation of material. Anyone who is collating a mass of original scholarship and drawing new conclusions, will find it very difficult to "cover all bases" over details. As I say, the more original the work, the more likely it is that errors will slip in, because even expert peer reviewers will not have the information with which to identify them. The problem is compounded if all concerned also have to contend with a publisher's deadline. But it is not up to us to decide these matters. As Nishidani says, this all pales into insignificance compared with Oxfordian literature. I read two pages of Anderson once, but simply could not continue because the number of preposterous inferences, non-sequiturs and instances of misinformation had become overwhelming. Ogburn was worse. Nelson's errors, such as they are, are trivial in comparison. Paul B (talk) 12:06, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

"It is not up to us to decide these matters."Speak for yourself,Paul.By their fruits we shall know them, and you.

Are you are seriouslhy claiming that the hundreds of historical errors in Nelson's book were the result of a publisher's deadline? The fiends didn't even give him time to learn Latin.That by publishing numerous malicious "errors" , the ever accelerating quantity of the same renders him the more academically crediible.

If so, Mao Tse Tung's "History of the Chinese Revolution" must be one of the most scholarly tomes of all time. Or how about the collected speaches of Dr.Fidel Castro? Or consider the work of Dr.Goebels who certainly held access to one of the largest collections of Judaica in world history.What's more, none of the above three ever received a negative academic review during the entire course of their tenure in power.

Nishidmi attempted to exalt Nelson to the position of a world wide authority.Your criteria of what constitues s world wide authority are deplorably inadequate as formulated .And if original research were not banned here,I would entertain you with my personal researches into Houston Baker(former head of PMLA)who,abetted by some 87 other peer reviewed members of the Duke falculty,gave a peer review to now disbarred District Attorney Mike Nifong(who posseses a higher degree in law) and his Great Duke Rape Hoax.

Or(and this is directly pertinent to the present point as distinct from your overreaching generalizations)we might consider the case of peer reviewed Donald Foster whose works on Shakespeare and the Jon Benet Ramsey murder case(among others) are on record as containing more logical and historical errors than all of Pearson,Nelson and any Oxfordian biographers of Oxford who ever lived.And Tom Reedy guru David Kathman placed his admiration for Foster's labors on permanent record in the DNB Shakespeare article.

By the way,while you are clairifyiing your previous criteria, please specify the specific two pages in Mark Anderson(who is has never been a subject of discussion here and is therefore irrelevent to the exposure of Nishidami's egregrious editorial misconduct) in which you pretend to find errors equivalent to the total of those contained in Nelson's book.Otherwise show the belated honesty to delete the above misinformation. Charles Darnay (talk) 19:10, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Your laughable references to Goebbels, Castro and Duke rape case (!) just indicate a total lack of a sense of proportion and even relevance. You write "'It is not up to us to decide these matters.' Speak for yourself, Paul. By their fruits we shall know them, and you." Well, we don't rely on quotations from Jesus; we rely on Wikipedia policy, which is to be found in WP:RS and WP:V. So, no, I am not speaking for myself. I am speaking for Wikipedia. As it happens, you also misrepresent Jesus, but frankly, that's irreleveant. My bet is that you have never undertaken any original research in your life, so you have no idea how difficult it is to cover all bases when uncovering new material. Actually, it's almost impossible. Your comments about how many errors are "on record" regarding Don Foster are meaningless, since you have no source for them. As for Anderson, the pages in question were on the Ashbourne portrait. Paul B (talk) 20:59, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

What to accept

Do we have to accept the original view of Will Shaksper as the author of the "Shakespearean" plays only because this explanation has been around the longest? If in November of 2010, no one had even been told who wrote these plays and we had to start from scratch looking for evidence, and you piled up all the evidence (hard, such as it, and circumstantial, which is voluminous) for all the different candidates, who would come out on top? Edward de Vere. There simply is no contest. So why, when say who wrote the plays, do we defer to the view that has been around the longest? Frankly, the view that the sun revolves around the Earth, that the Earth is flat, and that God put on Earth on the creatures as they are now are views that have been around a lot longer than evolution, that the Earth is round, and that the Earth revolves around the sun. Should we therefore continue to believe the former views and ignore the latter explanations? I don't think so. We need to state forthrightly that Edward de Vere was the authors of these plays, because the evidence overwhelmingly points in that direction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.6.122 (talk) 01:36, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

This explains all those coincidences that you take for "circumstantial evidence", the very same type of evidence used by 74 other candidates. You might want to pick up a book about authorship attribution; it would answer your question about why that type of evidence is not used to identify authors. Tom Reedy (talk) 02:46, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

What constitutes original research

I just read this on the Wikipedia page on original research:

>If no source exists for something you want to add to Wikipedia, it is "original research".<

I'm a little surprised because my earlier editing of the article in which I cited primary sources was entirely deleted on the ground that it was 'original research'. But it wasn't original research by Wikipedia's definition. I was merely citing primary sources for certain facts, which Wikipedia allows. Original research, by Wikipedia's definition, is adding something for which no source exists. A very different thing. Nina Green205.250.205.73 (talk) 01:51, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

That's not "Wikipedia's definition", Nina, that's the fallacy of the undistributed middle you've got there. Also, I'm afraid it doesn't make any difference that you were only citing primary sources to support statements which were already in the article. It's not the dialogical editing process that needs to not make claims based on primary sources; it's the text of the article as it exists now. You can't expect the reader to study the History tab and go "oh well that's all right then, the person who added the sources 'merely provided sources for statements in the article which were unsourced'". Bishonen | talk 22:15, 19 November 2010 (UTC).

Read this: Primary, secondary and tertiary sources, especially "All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors."

Instead of looking for a loophole that would allow you to do what several experienced editors have told you is not allowed, why not just learn how Wikipedia wants it done? It's not that difficult, and it would save a lot of grief and time that could be better spent creating content. Tom Reedy (talk) 05:57, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Tom, thanks for your input. I'm most definitely 'not looking for a loophole'. I'm trying to find a way to make the article more factually accurate. The Wikipedia policy you've quoted above supports my position. I made no 'interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources'. I merely cited primary sources to support statements which were already in the article and had been there for months before I ever saw the article. In other words, I merely provided sources for statements in the article which were unsourced. Yet despite the fact that what I did is consistent with Wikipedia policy, and was commented on and permitted to stand by a Wikipedia editor at the time I made the edits, all the sourcing I'd added to the article was deleted recently. I would suggest that what we have to keep in mind here is that in this article we're not dealing with the authorship issue. We're dealing with Oxford's biography. My sourcing of statements in the article was consistent with Wikipedia policy, and made the article more factually accurate. Nina Green205.250.205.73 (talk) 16:54, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Nina, Nishidani was the editor who originally cut them from the main page, and I didn't review them all at the time since I trust his judgement, but if you'll copy all of those passages that used a primary source here (perhaps in a new section), we can go over them one-by-one. You may be right, and if you are they can be restored, but IIRC the ones I did peruse were obvious interpretations and not mere facts. (The one I remember concerned the second husband of Margery Golding.) Tom Reedy (talk) 19:12, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Tom, that seems fair. Could we start with this one?

Shortly after his marriage, at the age of twenty-two, Oxford was licensed to enter on his lands by the Queen's letters patent of 30 May 1572.ref The National Archives C 66/1090, mm. 29-30 ref NinaGreen 205.250.205.73 (talk) 22:39, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

That didn't quite work out. The reference turned into a footnote. I'll try it again:

Shortly after his marriage, at the age of twenty-two, Oxford was licensed to enter on his lands by the Queen's letters patent of 30 May 1572. Reference cited: The National Archives C 66/1090, mm. 29-30.

Nina Green205.250.205.73 (talk) 22:42, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, that one looks to be pretty innocuous, but can you give a link to the source also (which I'm sure you did at the time) so we can actually see it?

Also, the way to indent is with colons. One colon=one indent, 2 colons=2 indents, etc. And if you sign with four tildes (~), it will automatically sign your IP address. If you go to your user page and register your name, it will automatically sign with you name when you enter 4 tildes. Tom Reedy (talk) 02:50, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by 'a link to the source'. Oxford's licence to enter on his lands is a document in the National Archives, so the NA catalogue number I've given is the ultimate source. I ordered a copy of the document a long time ago, and transcribed and translated it, and it's posted on the Documents page of my website. I googled C 66/1090 just now, and the document on my website was the first thing that popped up, so it's available for anyone who wants to read it.

Incidentally I checked Daphne Pearson's book online just now, and she not only gives the wrong document number, but the wrong date. She had the document number right in her unpublished dissertation (footnote 242), but has it wrong in her published book (see p. 29, and footnote 54 on p. 31). She didn't have a date in her unpublished dissertation, and she has the wrong date in her book.

Oxford's licence to enter on his lands was a turning point in his life, marking the end of his wardship. It would be useful to readers to include it in the article, and to give an accurate date and reference.

Nina Green205.250.205.73 (talk) 05:22, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Here's the link to C 66/1090.

Well I can see all kinds of problems with interpretations in that source, Nina. I don't have time right at the moment to go into it, but I will later on today. For one thing I believe your idea of "fine" as pertaining to land conveyance is conflated with a fine imposed for an offense. But more later. Tom Reedy (talk) 12:54, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Tom, you wrote:'For one thing I believe your idea of "fine" as pertaining to land conveyance is conflated with a fine imposed for an offense'. You couldn't be more wrong about that. There are transcripts of several dozen Elizabethan fines involving Oxford's lands on the Documents page on my website, and they have nothing to do with offences and everything to do with land transactions. See, for example, Fitch, Marc ed., Feet of Fines for Essex, vols. V and VI, which has descriptions of these fines involving Oxford's lands, from whence I got the catalogue numbers so that I could order copies from the National Archives and transcribe and translate them for my website. This is one area where I have expertise other editors of this page don't have. I'm familiar with the various types of Elizabethan legal documents such as fines, I can read the various Elizabethan scripts in which the original documents are written, and I can translate the formulaic and specialized law Latin they're written in. I've transcribed and translated several hundred of these Elizabethan legal documents involving Oxford's lands. Because I have this expertise, I can help make the article more factually accurate where other editors of this page would be at a loss. Nina Green205.250.205.73 (talk) 16:34, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure you're right. I have very little knowledge in this area. I was going by the language you used, specifically "levied". My impression is that fines were issued and recorded, not levied, which to me (in my admitted ignorance, again) implies a penalty and not a land conveyance.

I have asked for some help from the OR noticeboard. Opinions from disinterested editors is almost always helpful. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:19, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

This might help to clarify Wikipedia's problem. The date on which Oxford entered on his lands (and the reference for that date) is important to the article because this was a turning point in Oxford's life, and particularly in his finances. But Wikipedia can't cite Daphne Pearson's book or Alan Nelson's book for this fact in Oxford's life because Pearson and Nelson are in conflict with respect to both the date (Pearson has 31 May, Alan has 30 May) and the reference (in footnote 54 on p. 31 Pearson wrongly cites 'P.R.O. C66/1091/3159, m. 29-30, return of lands to the earl of Oxford, 31 May 1572', while in a footnote on p.456 Nelson cites Calendar of Patent Rolls, 1569-72, p. 159). If Wikipedia editors check Alan's reference on p. 159 of the Calendar of Patent Rolls (which, incidentally, is an eminently reliable secondary source), they'll find that it's directly in conflict with Pearson's footnote both as to the date and the NA catalogue number. So how do Wikipedia editors choose between citing Nelson or Pearson when they're in direct conflict with each other? What do Wikipedia's rules say about that? Nina Green205.250.205.73 (talk) 17:32, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed that Daphne Pearson gives yet a third different citation for the document which establishes Oxford's entry on his lands. In this case, she gives 'P.R.O. C66/1090/3159 (Lat.)'. It really is quite astonishing to find three different citations given by Pearson for the same document. This last one is in footnote 18 on p.29 of her article on the De Vere Harlakenden lawsuits in the Spring 1999 issue of The Elizabethan Review (vol. 7, no. 1). Surely this sort of thing is a problem for Wikipedia. Nina Green205.250.205.73 (talk) 19:12, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Nina, how is that a third one? She obviously has made several mistakes in citing P.R.O. C66/1091/3159, m. 29-30, because C66/1091 doesn't exist, nor does C66/1091/3159, and C66/3159 is from 26 Chas II, but P.R.O. C66/1090/3159 is the same as P.R.O. C66/1091/3159, m. 29-30--she just left out the membrane numbers (but they're both wrong).

Above you wrote, "But Wikipedia can't cite Daphne Pearson's book or Alan Nelson's book for this fact in Oxford's life because Pearson and Nelson are in conflict with respect to both the date (Pearson has 31 May, Alan has 30 May) and the reference ..." How does Pearson's error affect Nelson's cite? He has the right date and a good cite, yes? So in answer to your question, "So how do Wikipedia editors choose between citing Nelson or Pearson when they're in direct conflict with each other?", the editors choose Nelson. From my understanding this is the way primary sources are used: "All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." So in this particular case it would be referenced by Nelson as a secondary source.

To determine which source, Pearson or Nelson, has priority, WP:RS says, "Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable. If the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses, generally it has been at least preliminarily vetted by one or more other scholars." Both Nelson and Pearson have been reviewed, and the reviews I have read rate Nelson above Pearson as far as accuracy and scholarship, so he would be preferred over Pearson.

As far as using your transcriptions and translations of primary sources, WP:V says, "...self-published media, such as books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs, Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications."

I suggest you read WP:RS and WP:V. It takes repeated reading to get a grasp of Wikipedia policies. I'm still learning almost every day. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:55, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

PS: I doubt we'll get any input from uninvolved editors. Any topic related to the SAQ in any way has long been worn out as far as uninvolved editors are concerned.

Tom, you wrote:

How does Pearson's error affect Nelson's cite? He has the right date and a good cite, yes? So in answer to your question, "So how do Wikipedia editors choose between citing Nelson or Pearson when they're in direct conflict with each other?", the editors choose Nelson.

But without my input, the editors wouldn't have even realized there was a conflict between Nelson's and Pearson's citations, right? That's my point. I have expertise which other editors of this article don't have.

So what's the next step? We could add the statement to the article, citing Nelson. You wrote above: 'He has the right date and a good cite, yes?' Nelson has the right date, and I suspect his citation is accurate (I have a copy of the actual document, but I don't have a copy of that volume of the CPR). But what value has Alan added? None. He has merely cited the CPR, 1569-72, p. 159, and quoted verbatim from the description on that page which was written by the authors of the CPR, not by Alan. So why would the Wikipedia article not direct readers to the real source of the statement, that is, CPR, 1569-72, p. 159? That would make sense to me. If Alan adds value to something, and doesn't just copy verbatim from another source, then one needs to consider citing him. But if Alan's just copying from an eminently reliable secondary source, why not give the credit where it belongs, and cite that source? Nina Green205.250.205.73 (talk) 23:42, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia demands secondary sources and forbids citing primary sources to stay away from original research. If you will read those two articles I linked to, you will learn what the Wikipedia policies are. Original research has its place, but Wikipedia is not that place. Tom Reedy (talk) 00:05, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Tom, you've lost me. The Calendar of Patent Rolls is not original research. It is one of the most accepted secondary sources among historians. Are you seriously contending that Wikipedia cannot cite the Calendar of Patent Rolls? Nina Green205.250.205.73 (talk) 02:37, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the Calendar of Patent Rolls is a primary source. See the article Calendar of Patent Rolls. I can only repeat my quotation of Wikipedia policy: "All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." This conversation seems to be going around and around. Have you read the policies I linked to? Here they are again: WP:RS and WP:V, and also WP:OR.

That means that, as per Wikipedia policy, if you use the original National Archive record or the Calendar of Patent Rolls description to source the statement that Oxford was licensed to enter on his lands by the Queen's letters patent of 30 May 1572 in a Wikipedia article, it must be referenced to a secondary source because the original is in Latin and not readily accessible to the average reader. Please read the appropriate policies before you repeat your objection to Wikipedia policies. I understand that you have no such policy for your Web site, but this is Wikipedia, with its own policies and guidelines. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:55, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Tom, you are confusing two different dictionary definitions of 'primary'.

2. Of the highest rank or importance; principal, chief.

3. a. That is not subordinate to or derived from anything else; that is the source or cause of something; fundamental; original.

In the link to the Calendar of Patent Rolls article, the word is used in sense 2, 'principal', not in sense 3, 'original'. The article makes it clear that the original or primary source documents are in Latin, and therefore the CPR is the principal secondary source which historians consult to find summaries in English of the content of the original primary source documents and the reference numbers under which the original primary source documents can be found in the National Archives. The CPR is clearly a secondary source. It is derived from the original primary source documents. It is not the original primary source documents themselves.

Moreover this is not a case of either 'original research' or the 'interpretation' of primary source documents, so I don't know why you have brought those topics up again. It's a matter of the sourcing of a simple statement of fact for which the source is the Calendar of Patent Rolls, which is clearly by definition a secondary source since it is a published digest in English of the original documents in Latin. It's no wonder you feel the discussion seems to be spinning in a circle when you keep bringing up points which aren't relevant to the sourcing of a simple statement of fact. Nina Green205.250.205.73 (talk) 16:32, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Nina, you can stop adding colons. One I outdented (that line thingey above that brought my comment back to the left of the page) it starts all over again. The only purpose of progressive indentation is to make clear who is replying to whom.

The CPR is clearly a primary source when it is used as a reference for an article on Oxford. The fact that it is of a secondary derivation is not relevant to it being a source for an encyclopedia article, as it does not establish notability for Oxford nor discuss or analyse the entry how it relates to him, but is merely an index list of entries in the patent rolls. See both Secondary source and WP:PRIMARY. And yes, WP:OR is relevant to this because your use of your original research to source a statement is what brought this whole thing on.

What do you have against using Nelson, since the primary source supports his statement? I realise you're not used to doing things the Wikipedia way, but it is based upon scholarly methodology and if one insists on editing Wikipedia articles one must at least attempt to understand how they should be sourced. Arguing against the policy of the encyclopedia is useless. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:39, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about the colons, and thanks for the help with that.

I'm not arguing against Wikipedia policy. That would be futile and counter-productive. I'm arguing against your narrow and misleading interpretation of Wikipedia policy, which turns a well-established secondary source used by all historians of the period, the Calendar of Patent Rolls, into a primary source. If the CPR is a primary source, as you would have it, what are the original documents themselves? Both the original 16th century documents in Latin in the National Archives and a recently-published digest of their contents in English cannot both be primary sources. Your interpretation of the meaning of 'primary source' in this instance is clearly wrong, is inconsistent with Wikipedia policy, and is far too limiting. In effect, it restricts the Wikipedia article on Edward de Vere to becoming nothing more than a promotional vehicle for Alan Nelson's book. There are some instances in which Alan's book should be cited because Alan has added value or has independently researched a point. But where Alan has merely copied the English digest from the CPR, which is clearly itself the secondary source for the statement in question, Alan has added no value, and the proper citation for this factual statement is to the CPR. It's very important to get this matter of the secondary sources on which historians of the period rely sorted out for purposes of this Wikipedia article because there are many of them, such as the Calendar of Patent Rolls, the various Calendar of State Papers, Emmison's Feet of Fines for Essex etc., which are pertinent to statements in the article. To ban all these highly respected and widely-used secondary sources in favour of exclusive citations from Alan Nelson's book is to turn the article into a mere promotional piece for Alan Nelson's book, as I said earlier. Nina Green205.250.205.73 (talk) 18:05, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you are arguing against Wikipedia policy, and I have seen no evidence whatsoever that you've read what the policies are, nor that you've even read the article about secondary sources that I linked to.

The CPR is a well-established source for historians, yes, but Wikipedia editors are not historians, and I doubt seriously any historian would consider it to be a secondary source.

You need to read those policy articles to which I furnished links before accusing me of misinterpreting policy. For the purposes of this article all of those sources you named are considered primary sources, and they are not "banned", but their use is restricted. If you think not, please quote the relevant Wikipedia policies that support your contention.

You are misrepresenting the use of Nelson. No one is arguing for "exclusive citations from Alan Nelson's book". Please re-read my earlier messages, as well as my quotations from policy. Having to continually reiterate the same statements with no indication or acknowledgment that you've even read--much less comprehended--them is tiresome.

I also suggest you state your case and ask for opinions at the OR noticeboard. If I am wrong, they will let us know. Apparently nothing I say is having any effect nor is likely to. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:31, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Tom, here is what is says at the secondary source link you provided above:

In scholarship, a secondary source[1][2] is a document or recording that relates or discusses information originally presented elsewhere. A secondary source contrasts with a primary source, which is an original source of the information being discussed; a primary source can be a person with direct knowledge of a situation, or a document created by such a person. Secondary sources involve generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of the original information. Primary and secondary are relative terms, and some sources may be classified as primary or secondary, depending on how it is used.

That's as clear as it can possibly be. A primary source is 'an original source of the information being discussed'. The Calendar of Patent Rolls is NOT the original source of the information being discussed. The original source of the information is the 16th century documents written in Latin on parchment on the patent rolls in the National Archives. The Calendar of Patent Rolls is a modern printed digest in English which synthesizes the contents of those original documents, and is by definition a secondary source which involves 'synthesis' of the original 16th century documents. You are wrongly and unnecessarily limiting and restricting the sources which can be cited in the article. We really do need to get this matter cleared up so that work on the article can move forward. Every time you cite something from Wikipedia policy, it turns out to directly contradict your position. Surely that should tell you something. Nina Green205.250.205.73 (talk) 22:07, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Please read and comprehend the entire sentence. "Secondary sources involve generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of the original information." The CPR does none of those, neither "generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation". It is instead an abstract and a calendar index, and as such is a secondary source in relation to the records it calendars, but it is a primary source in relation to an article about Oxford. "Primary and secondary are relative terms, and some sources may be classified as primary or secondary, depending on how it is used." Do you not understand the difference?

I don't know why you keep going on about this. Policy allows these to be used, as long as it is (to repeat myself for the third or fourth time) referenced to a secondary source, which in this case would be Nelson.

In any case, you can ask for opinions from knowledgeable editors at the OR noticeboard (to repeat myself for the third time). I am not trying to win an argument here. I have gone way further in trying to explain to you what the policy is than should be necessary. You obviously need to find somebody who can explain it to you better than I can. Tom Reedy (talk) 00:19, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Tom, I've said many times that there are numerous factual errors in Alan's book, and that one has to be very cautious about citing him. It now turns out that Alan's citation is wrong. There is nothing on p. 159 of CPR, 1569-72 which pertains to Oxford. The reference is on p. 450. It reads:

3159.) 30 May 1572. Licence for Edward Deveere, Earl of Oxford, son and heir and elder issue male of John Deveer, late earl of Oxford, to enter upon his lands; issues from the time when Edward attained the age of 21. [m.29] [m.30]

Alan has copied this entry on p. 83 of his book, but his citation for it, on p. 456 of his book, is CPR, 1569-72, p. 159, which is wrong. The entry is on p. 450 of that volume. I have a pdf file of the page which I could send you. Unfortunately I can't post a pdf file to this discussion page.

So the bottom line is that Daphne's date and citation are both wrong, and Alan's citation is wrong. What are we to cite as a reference for this statement of fact other than the Calendar of Patent Rolls? Nina Green205.250.205.73 (talk) 15:56, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

So that's where Daphene got 'P.R.O. C66/1090/3159 (Lat.)', with the last four numbers being the CPR reference. And there are numerous factual errors in every book; this one--if it proves to be one--is certainly very minor.

I'll look at Alan's cite later today. Are you sure he uses the same book/citation style as you do? Because often reference numbers change as repositories change their systems, although I don't think that's the case here, since Nelson is earlier than Daphne. I find it hard to believe that two independent researchers would get the same citation wrong. One or the other is using a different reference or a different system. and have you checked his Web site to see if this has been acknowledged and corrected? Tom Reedy (talk) 16:38, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I came to the same conclusion, i.e. that Daphne took 3159 from the CPR. By a historian's standards, that's an egregious error. Those numbers are there merely for the purpose of enumerating items sequentially in the CPR volume itself. They are never used in citing primary source documents. The correct primary source reference is the one on my website, C 66/1090, mm. 29-30. If one tried to order a copy of the original document from the National Archives using 3159, the NA wouldn't know what to do with it. It's not part of their cataloguing system.

One also has to wonder whether Alan's erroneous 'p. 159' isn't just 3159 with the '3' eliminated. It seems clear from his book that Alan didn't examine the original primary source document. He merely copied the entry from the CPR. It's also open to debate whether Daphne ever examined the original document either. Her use of the 3159 from the CPR suggests she didn't. But I may be wrong about that.

So we're left with the question of what do we cite for this statement of fact if not the CPR. Nina Green205.250.205.73 (talk) 17:40, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I sent you an e-mail so that you could send me that PDF.

I would cite Nelson, because he has the date correct, and then note that his supporting cite is in error, giving the correct CPR ref along with it, similar to the note in the Rev. Miles Bodley sntry here. The important consideration is that the article is factual, and that appears to be the best practical solution. I'll e-mail Alan and ask him about it. Tom Reedy (talk) 02:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Where is the Wikipedia policy statement which provides that Wikipedia editors are to correct the errors in Alan Nelson's book rather than cite the Calendar of Patent Rolls which has the correct date and the correct reference in case a reader wanted to consult the original document? Nina Green205.250.205.73 (talk) 02:48, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Nina, complete accuracy in an encyclopedia is a moving target, and is the reason why Wikipedia has a noticeboard devoted to almost every aspect of writing an encyclopedia, such as neutral point of view, reliable sources, etc. See this opinion for the RS noticeboard, especially the comment, “Many sources contain errors. They are still reliable, though we try not to reproduce the errors. We rely on the good sense of editors to keep out the errors as best we can.”

See this discussion, especially the comments, “Every reliable source has errors, and the more reliable the source the more self-reflective it is about identifying and correcting these errors”, and “Having an error correcting mechanism is one of the things that makes a reliable source reliable. The fact of a visible error correcting mechanism is an affirmative indicator that a source is reliable.” As you know, Alan has a Web site on which he posts errata found in his books.

This discussion also is useful, especially the comment, "No source is absolutely "reliable" or absolutely "unreliable". We have to look at the specifics of the situation. Lots of sources are reliable when looked at in general terms, but end up being unreliable for something specific. When two or more reliable sources disagree with one another, you have to ask why? If it is possible that the disagreement is due to one of the sources making a simple error, then we can attempt to determine which source made the error (ie which is the most reliable source in terms of that specific fact). If we think can not determine who made the error, we should neutrally discuss what each source says, (essentially treating the disagreement as if it were a difference of opinion/POV per WP:NPOV)."

All of those comments are support enough to use my suggestion. We're not building an inflexible, brittle structure that is so hidebound by policies that it ignores common sense, neither is it possible to write policies that predict every specific problem that will come up.

Again, you need to follow the policy on primary sources, i.e. their use is restricted mainly to support or augment a secondary source. Only in very particular circumstances would you use a primary source by itself, and in this case it is not necessary. In any case this weary discussion has run its course as far as I'm concerned. You've responded to very few of my points, and any further explanation on my part would be only more repetition along the same lines that I have repeated at least three times. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:52, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Tom, what I see here is bias. You argue that Alan's erroneous citation for Oxford's entry on his lands should be cited, rather than the Calendar of Patent Rolls. You even have a personal relationship with Alan such that you stated above that you would contact Alan about the matter. This is astonishing. How can Wikipedia be viewed as objective with this sort of thing going on? Nina Green205.250.205.73 (talk) 04:19, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Would you at least do me the kindness of paying attention? I'm not arguing; I made a common sense suggestion. I did not say that "Alan's erroneous citation for Oxford's entry on his lands should be cited, rather than the Calendar of Patent Rolls.", I said his book should be cited as a source for the fact, which he has correct, and then the CPR included along with a note correcting his citation.

As far as any "personal relationship", I met the man twice a couple of years ago. I daresay you know him better than I, since he gives you credit on his site. He has a publicly-available Web site at which he solicits corrections and gives his e-mail address for that purpose. Your purpose does not seem to be to edit Wikipedia, but to push your original research into this article using much the same WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT tactics that anti-Stratfordians use so well. Find somebody else to play with; I've wasted too much time trying to explain Wikipedia policy to someone who's really not interested, and I'd rather edit articles than spin my wheels on this idiocy. It's no surprise that no other editor has contributed to this discussion, even though I've asked. One look at your passive-aggressive merry-go-round posts is enough for anybody with less patience than I have. Tom Reedy (talk) 04:36, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

You are arguing for an exception to be made in citing Alan's book for which there is no Wikipedia precedent. Wikipedia does not knowingly cites sources which contain errors. What you are arguing for is in direct contravention of the Wikipedia policy you quoted above:

“Many sources contain errors. They are still reliable, though we try not to reproduce the errors. We rely on the good sense of editors to keep out the errors as best we can.”

You are not trying to 'keep out the error', as per Wikipedia policy. You are arguing in favour of citing Alan's book, thus inevitably directing the reader to Alan's erroneous reference. Moreover you are arguing in favour of citing Alan's erroneous reference when you have the option of citing instead one of the most highly-respected sources used by historians of the period, the Calendar of Patent Rolls. In this instance it matters not whether the CPR is a primary or a secondary because Wikipedia policy clearly states that primary sources can be cited, although they must be used with care. In this instance, since the citation is for a simple statement of fact, 'care' is hardly an issue. Moreover the CPR is not a primary source, no matter how many times you claim that it is. It is a secondary source. The primary source in this instance is the original document in the National Archives, and there cannot be two primary sources for the same document. The argument that there can be two primary sources for the same document is completely illogical. But even if the CPR were a primary source, this is the very sort of instance envisaged by Wikipedia in which a primary source can be cited. There is no other accurate secondary source for the statement for Oxford's entry on his lands, and since we are dealing with a mere statement of fact, there is no danger of misinterpretation in citing the CPR as a source in this instance (even if the CPR were a primary source, which it is not).

It seems to me that you are treating matters involving Oxford's biography, which is the subject of this article, as though we were debating the authorship issue. We're not. We're merely trying to put together an accurate article for Wikipedia on Oxford's life. Why not yield a point, when it's such an easy one to yield? Perhaps then other editors will be motivated to get involved. Nina Green205.250.205.73 (talk) 05:15, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Tom, as you requested above, I've sent you an e-mail with pdf copies of p. 159 (Alan's erroneous citation) and p. 450 (the correct citation) from the 1569-72 volume of the Calendar of Patent Rolls. I wish I could make the pdfs available on this discussion page, but that's not possible. Nina Green205.250.205.73 (talk) 17:41, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Nina: You go, girl. I'm impressed at the breadth of your knowledge. You're doing a terrific job. Mizelmouse (talk) 17:54, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the PDFs. I e-mailed Alan and aske dhim about it and received a reply just a while ago. He wrote, "I transcribed probably a million words for the book; I suppose I can be forgiven a few incorrect page numbers", especially since he said that that Liverpool University Press published his book without hiring a copy editor to check citations.

He also wrote that academic reviews of the book have been excellent, and such reviews are one way Wikipedia assesses a source. He writes that he will correct any errors in his transcriptions of the texts, but that he isn't worried that a page number error would invalidate his book.

And BTW, I also brought to his attention some other inconsistencies and errors in the citations, such as p. 455, note 16: CPR, 1569-72, p. 159 [3094-95]. The idea that these errors disqualify his book as a source for this article is ludicrous, but if you disagree you can take it to the WP:RS noticeboard and solicit other opinions. Tom Reedy (talk) 23:01, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Tom, Alan is obviously not a third party source when you are writing to him and collaborating with him in defending his errors. Alan is someone with a dog in the fight, and in writing to him in order to defend his errors, you have disqualified yourself as an objective editor of this page. The errors in Alan's book go far beyond a few mis-cited page numbers. I've already documented much more significant errors on this Discussion page (see above), and can document many more. The number of errors goes to the heart of the question of whether Alan's book can be considered a reliable third party source by Wikipedia. As for reviews of Alan's book, here are the ones he has posted on his webpage.

http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~ahnelson/monstrous.html

One is a review on a blog by a non-specialist, another is a one-paragraph blurb, while the third is a review in an Oxfordian publication. Not one is a review by a professional historian. If you know of other reviews, please, by all means share the bibliographic details with us.

Moreover you have still not dealt with the fact that the CPR is a secondary source. To say that a modern printed volume which translates and digests the entries on the huge rolls of parchment in the National Archives on which most of the entries are written in Latin is a primary source is an absurdity. Wikipedia rules are workable, and based on common sense. That sort of illogic defies common sense. Nina Green205.250.205.73 (talk) 17:12, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Your depiction of my consulting Alan Nelson and your conclusions are just bizarre. You need to seek an opinion from WP:NOR/N. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:34, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Tom, thanks for pinpointing yet another error in Alan's references (see above). As you've noted, Alan cites the same erroneous p. 159 in the CPR for this statement in his book:

On 4 May Oxford witnessed the creation of Walter Devereux as Earl of Essex and Edward Fynes alias Clinton as Earl of Lincoln.

Because I had sent you a pdf file of p. 159 of that volume of the CPR, you were able to see that there is nothing about the creation of Walter Devereux as Earl of Essex and Edward Fynes as Earl of Lincoln on that page. Nina Green205.250.205.73 (talk) 17:24, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Tom, thanks for sending me pdfs of two further reviews of Alan's book. The first is another one-paragraph review by Achsah Guibbory, and the second, by Dr. Gabriel Heaton of the University of Warwick, whose doctorate is in English, not history, proves my point that Alan has a dog in the fight and that his book cannot be considered a reliable third party source by Wikipedia.

Monstrous Adversary may be firmly based in primary documents, but this is not to suggest that its author lacks an opinion on his subject: Alan Nelson developed a vigorous dislike for the man when researching this biography. This is the biographer’s prerogative, but leads to some uneasy moments. Oxford can hardly be blamed for having strong belief in his inherently superior honour: what Elizabethan nobleman did not? It seems a little unreasonable to count against Oxford his belief in the possible existence of the North-West passage, or his patronage of men who believed that earthquakes were expressions of God’s wrath. Nelson also seems overly willing to accept libellous accusations made against Oxford by Charles Arundel and Henry Howard.

Nelson first came to Oxford from an engagement with the ‘authorship controversy’ and, although the name Shakespeare only appears a few times in Monstrous Adversary, one of its purposes is to challenge the fanciful character of Oxford promoted by ‘Oxfordians’ from J. Thomas Loonie and Bernard M. Ward onwards.

Nina Green205.250.205.73 (talk) 17:53, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Bio and publications of Achsah Guibbory: Ann Whitney Olin Professor of English, joined the faculty of Barnard in 2004, after teaching at the University of Illinois for many years. At Barnard, her teaching specialties include Milton, Donne, seventeenth-century literature and nation-formation, and Christian/Jewish relations and religious identities in the early modern period. She is affiliated with Barnard's Medieval and Renaissance studies program. Her book, Christian Identity, Jews, and Israel in Seventeenth-century England, has been just published by Oxford University Press (fall 2010). The research for this book was supported by a National Endowment for the Humanities Senior Research Fellowship (2002) and a Guggenheim Fellowship (2008). Her other publications include Ceremony and Community from Herbert to Milton (Cambridge University Press, 1998), The Cambridge Companion to John Donne (2006), and numerous journal articles and book chapters on seventeenth-century literature and culture.

Her review, “Recent Studies in the English Renaissance” in Studies in English Literature 1500-1900, 45:1, Winter 2005, pp. 213-254, begins, "It is remarkable how many of the books I received are about history: a number are written by historians, and published in a history series. I had expected a couple might be, but most, I thought, would be in 'Renaissance nondramatic literature,' even as the field has in many instances morphed into cultural history. So I was surprised when I kept receiving shipments of 'history' books. Perhaps the traditional boundaries between literature and history (at least on the part of 'literary scholars') really are breaking down, not only as we recognize the need to historicize, but also as we enlarge the category of 'literature' (in itself a kind of return, with a difference, to the situation in the Renaissance when disciplinary spheres were as yet not sharply differentiated, where one could be a 'literary author' and much else). It seems, however, more than that, and prompts me to ask several questions for which it is too early to provide answers."

Her one-paragraph review of Nelson:

Alan H. Nelson, in Monstrous Adversary: The Life of Edward de Vere, Seventeenth Earl of Oxford, has written a lengthy, meticulous biography of an interesting, immensely dislikeable, selfish, and self-serving nobleman, who accomplished nothing in his life (frittering away the wealth he inherited) but was connected with many important people: William Cecil, Queen Elizabeth, Charles Arundel, and Henry Howard. A few have believed he was Shakespeare, which seems most unlikely given Oxford’s lack of persistence in any serious task. We learn not only all the known details of his unexemplary life, but also about Elizabethan life among the nobles and elite. We learn, for example, how wardship worked, that Arundel, Howard, and Oxford were all connected with Catholicism and imprisoned; how a predatory, pederastic nobleman could get away with harming young boys in service and pursue similar affairs with women; how an affair could be secretly carried on in a “closet.” Oxford does not become more likeable or sympathetic as the book goes on, but it is a fascinating read and resource.

Bio and publications of Gabriel Heaton: He took his first degree at the University of Durham, and obtained his doctorate from Cambridge in 2003. He worked as a postdoctoral research fellow at the University of Warwick, editing Elizabethan entertainments and related texts for Court and Culture in the Reign of Queen Elizabeth I: A New Edition of John Nichols's Progresses. He is also the author of a number of articles on subjects including entertainments, libels, and the poet Aurelian Townshend. Dr Heaton currently works in the Department of Printed Books and Manuscripts at Sotheby's, where he is a Deputy Director specialising in post-Medieval English manuscripts. He is the author of numerous academic articles, and of Writing and Reading Royal Entertainments From George Gascoigne to Ben Jonson, published June 2010 by Oxford University Press.

His conclusion about Nelson’s book (beginning with the sentence you stopped at):

Despite its considerable scholarship, it is unlikely that Nelson’s book will change the minds of many Oxfordians: there is no clinching evidence here that proves categorically, once and for all, absolutely, that Oxford could not have written Shakespeare’s plays. Not, at least, to people who are not convinced by the fact that Oxford died before many of them were written.

Nelson has, however, done a real service to those interested in the Elizabethan court by bringing together much of the documentary record relating to a fascinating, if relatively minor, player in that world. Many of these documents, and others, can be found on ‘Oxdox’ (http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~ahnelson/oxdocs.html), which is only part of Nelson’s superb website. Nelson’s book has its flaws, but it is the work of a scholar who is as generous as he is thorough, and for that we should be very grateful.

’nuff said. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:31, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Au contraire. Too much said, and all off-topic. The issue is whether Alan's book is a reliable third party source. A third party source can't have a dog in the fight. The fact that Alan has a dog in the fight was so obvious to Gabriel Heaton that he commented extensively on Alan's bias in his review. Moreover reviews by experts in English literature have no real bearing on determining whether Alan's book is historically accurate. Alan's book was not reviewed by any professional historian. And as we know, it contains a multitude of errors, some of which have already been documented here, and many more of which can be documented. I'll just mention one more right now. On p. 306, mistranscribing a document, Alan writes that Robert Cecil and Hugh Beeston the younger are 'serjeants of Edward, earl of Oxford'. Compounding his transcription error, Alan comments:

On 1 July Oxford finally received the grant of the attainted lands. His two 'serjeants', or agents, were Cecil and Hugh Beeston.

The document actually reads 'Hugh Beeston, servant of Edward, Earl of Oxford', not 'serjeant'. You can see the document on the Documents page of my website, as well as numerous other documents which state that Hugh Beeston the younger was Oxford's servant. Nina Green205.250.205.73 (talk) 21:32, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Is Monstrous Adversary a reliable source?

There are very few reliable sources on the factual details of Oxford's life. It seems to have been assumed until now for purposes of editing this page that Alan Nelson's Monstrous Adversary is a reliable source, and that it can be cited for virtually any statement made in it without the editors of this page doing any fact-checking. That assumption has been challenged by the errors already documented on this discussion page. Here's another one. On pp. 308-9 Alan writes:

In May [1588], as Burghley noted in his retrospective Diary (ii, p. 788), Elizabeth re-granted to Oxford two ancient properties:

A Graunt of the Priory of Earles Colne, and the Mannor of Colne in Essex, to the Earl of Oxford, and the Heyres of his Body, yelding the Rent of 66l.

Oxford had of course already sold these lands to Roger Harlackenden.<

Oxford's sale of Colne Priory to the Harlakendens, and Oxford's lawsuit against the Harlakendens for fraud which followed it, are important and well-documented events in Oxford's life (see the numerous items related to the sale and the lawsuit on the Documents page of my website). It's difficult to believe that Alan could make the erroneous claim that Oxford had already sold Colne Priory to Roger Harlakenden by May 1588 when Oxford did not sell Colne Priory until February 1592. But there it is, in black and white. Nina Green205.250.205.73 (talk) 00:22, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Another example. In the index to Monstrous Adversary, Alan states that there is a reference on p. 46 to Henry Wriothesley, 3rd Earl of Southampton. The passage is as follows:

From 30 September 1566 to 2 January 1567 the second session of Elizabeth's Second Parliament convened in Westminster Hall. Among the lords sat four minors:

Att the formost forme on the southside sate these peeres as followeth: . . . Veere Earl of Oxford warde . . . Manners Earle of Rutland warde . . . . Bourchier Erle of Bathe ward . . . . Wriostheley Erle of Southampton ward . . .

A moment's thought should have alerted Alan to the fact that this could not possibly be the 3rd Earl of Southampton, who was not born until 1573. The reference is to his father, the 2nd Earl of Southampton. See the DNB entry for the 2nd Earl, who was baptized in 1545, and whose wardship was granted to the Earl of Pembroke on 14 December 1550. Nina Green205.250.205.73 (talk) 00:49, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Wikipedia doesn't go by your opinion of what qualifies as a reliable source. If you want to specifically ask about Monstrous Adversary, you need to do so at WP:RS/N. While you're at it, you might as well ask whether the Calendar of Patent Rolls is a secondary source. Until then (and I would wager afterward), Nelson is considered a reliable source and the CPR is considered a primary source. Tom Reedy (talk) 02:12, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

We have only your word for it that Wikipedia considers Monstrous Adversary a reliable source. I have not seen any Wikipedia policy which states that a work which has not been peer-reviewed, that is, a work which purports to be a historical account but which has not been reviewed by a single historian, is a reliable source for a Wikipedia article on a historical topic. Nor have I seen a Wikipedia policy which states that a work which contains a significant number of errors would be considered by Wikipedia to be a reliable source.

On a different but related topic, Wikipedia policy specifically prohibits books written by those with a dog in the fight from being considered third party sources.

It seems to me that you are constantly generalizing as to Wikipedia policies based solely on your personal interpretation of Wikipedia policies, not on the policies themselves. To date you haven't quoted a single Wikipedia policy which would qualify Alan Nelson's book as either a reliable source or a third party source.

The problem is that the editors who have written this particular article lack the background to identify errors in secondary sources. Editors of this page have background in the authorship controversy, but this article is not about the authorship controversy. It is about the historical facts of Oxford's life, and the editors of this page do not have background in that area. I do have that background, and I'm willing to share that background and make the article a first-class one. But there is a distinct lack of co-operation from other editors, who seem committed to promulgating the errors in Alan's book rather than co-operating with someone who can spot those errors. There seems to be an agenda here, rather than a commitment to writing a worthwhile and accurate article for Wikipedia. Nina Green205.250.205.73 (talk) 05:03, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

The only "agenda" here is Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I have referred you to WP:RS and WP:OR, but you have evinced nothing that would cause one to suspect you have read those policies. I have also referred you to WP:RS/N if you think I have been misrepresenting the policies. As to Alan having "a dog in the fight", I have no idea what you are referring to. If you mean authorship, his view reflects the scholarly consensus.

You are certainly welcome to edit this article and I believe that has been made clear. However, what I have been trying to make clear--to which you seem remarkably resistant--is that Wikipedia prohibits using primary sources except in conjunction with a secondary source, and considers such use of primary sources as original research. You might want to review the rationale of the admin who blocked you for this offence earlier, and his message at that time he placed on your talk page.

Sometimes I wonder whether you've read the Wikipedia policies yourself. For example, from the page you cite above:

Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.

Alan is not a third party source by Wikipedia's definition because of his known bias against Oxford, noted by Gabriel Heaton and by virtually anyone who has read his book. Moreover if Alan had a reputation for 'fact-checking and accuracy', it's been destroyed by the examples cited on this Discussion page. So are you suggesting that despite the fact that Alan is not a third party source, and despite the fact that his book contains documented factual errors, you want to continue to cite it endlessly in the article as a reliable third party source? It seems to me you are the one who needs to review Wikipedia policy, not me. And it definitely seems to me that there's an agenda here which has nothing to do with writing a high-quality factually accurate article for Wikipedia. Nina Green205.250.205.73 (talk) 18:16, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

On another note, I would say that every minute detail of Oxford's comings and goings are not important to a biography. Articles should be written in summary style and discrimination used in what to include instead of a tedious blow-by-blow description of every extant document, such as this edit, which if it goes anywhere should be in the cutline of the portrait. Tom Reedy (talk) 13:20, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

It's not my edit. Why are you asking me about it? Nina Green205.250.205.73 (talk) 16:13, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I thought a senior diplomat writing to Cecil solely on the subject of this 25 year old's patronage of the arts was astonishing, but you need not agree!Unoquha (talk) 16:48, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

That is not the sole topic he wrote to Cecil about. He reported that he had scheduled a meeting with Philip Chiverny, and that a Flemish painter had said he could be persuaded to go to England to paint because he didn't like Paris, and that he had done a very good portrait of Oxford (probably the one that the article's main image is based upon). My point is that larding an article with every detail makes for tediousness and that if that detail should be included, it should be in relation to the portrait. That section is woefully empty of where Oxford went and what he did during his travels, jumping from his leaving to his return within a few sentences, and then goes into family details. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:26, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Tom. Though it could be doubted the present portrait is as witty & significant as the device that prompted the remark, the letter shows that Valentine was intimate with his master's former ward's Paris sojourn, which was long enough to dally with a painter, and so is a detail of his travels.Unoquha (talk) 19:18, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I didn't ask you about it; I was merely giving an example of an overly-detailed edit to which this article is susceptible. The textual clue to my comment is the introductory clause, "On another note ...."

As to your other comments, I can only refer you again for the umpteenth time to WP:RS/N. Droning on and on about it here does no good at all. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:33, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Why would you drag a red herring like that into a discussion of whether Alan's book is a reliable source? Wouldn't it make sense to start another topic if you want to discuss detailed edits? Nina Green205.250.205.73 (talk) 18:04, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Here's another example from the first page of Alan's book:

On 12 April 1550 a son was born to John de Vere, 16th Earl of Oxford, probably at Castle Hedingham in rural Essex. Noting the time of birth, the Earl consulted his astrologers. The news was dire:

The mathematicians that calculated the nativity of this Earl Edward told the Earl his father than the earldom would fall in the son's time.

Alan cites Buc (1982), p. 170, that is, Arthur Noel Kincaid's edition of The History of King Richard the Third (1619) by Sir George Buc. What Alan fails to mention is that the quotation above is a marginal note in square brackets on p. 170, and on the unnumbered page which immediately follows his introduction, Kincaid states very clearly that 'in the transcripts which follow, square brackets surround passages crossed out in the original'. It makes for a dramatic beginning. The Earl consulted his astrologers. The news was dire! But in fact the passage is crossed out in Buc's manuscript. Is this the sort of thing one expects from a reliable source? Nina Green205.250.205.73 (talk) 06:20, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Being crossed out in a MS does not mean that the information is not correct, as you should know if you've read almost any MS of the time. More likely it means Buc decided not to include it if he had been able to follow it to the press. Even if the story were apocryphal, it reflects the contemporary opinion of Oxford's life. Tom Reedy (talk) 13:26, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Tom, the point is that this is not the sort of thing one expects from a reliable source. Alan doesn't tell the reader that the marginal note is crossed out in Buc's manuscript. When one adds up all the factual errors in Alan's book, and combines the total with instances of this sort of sleight of hand, one doesn't come up with a reliable source. Nina Green205.250.205.73 (talk) 15:46, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

How about this on p.9:

Edward de Vere's mother, Margery, Countess of Oxford, was the daughter of Sir John Golding. . . . . Sir John's death the previous year released [Margery] from the oversight of both biological parents. . . . .

As a source for John Golding's death, Alan cites this on p. 444:

'Memorandum that Ihon Gowldinge Esquire was buried in the temple Church in london the xxviiith of November [1547]' (p. 7)

Alan doesn't even appear to have noticed that in the text he refers to Golding five times as a knight, but provides as a source for his burial a reference which refers to him as an esquire. Nina Green205.250.205.73 (talk) 06:51, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Tracking Alan's errors to their sources often requires an enormous amount of work. On what basis did Alan knight Margery Golding's father, John Golding? Who knows? Alan cites Louis Thorn Golding's An Elizabethan Puritan on p. 443, but that can't be his source, since John Golding is never referred to as a knight in An Elizabethan Puritan. In fact he is never referred to as a knight in any source I've ever seen, yet Alan dubs him knight five times on p. 9. Similarly, what is the source for Alan's claim that Margery Golding's father was buried in the Temple church (see above)? In An Elizabethan Puritan, Louis Thorn Golding writes on p. 8:

[John Golding] was [in Essex] in 1527, for his first wife, who died in that year, was buried in Belchamp St. Paul's church on December 27th, and an altar tomb was erected for her in the chancel. He, too, was buried in it when he died twenty years after, but this tomb has long since disappeared.

We're speaking here of Margery Golding's father, Oxford's grandfather, yet Alan seems to have every fact he states about him wrong. Is this a reliable source? Nina Green205.250.205.73 (talk) 16:30, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Alan's book largely follows Ward, referencing many of the same documents that Ward turned up almost a century ago. However Alan sometimes uses Ward without crediting him. One such instance occurs on p.39, where Alan writes:

Some eight months after young Oxford entered Cecil House, Lawrence Nowell wrote to Cecil:

I clearly see that my work for the Earl of Oxford cannot be much longer required.

The original letter is in Latin, which Alan quotes in a footnote on pp.448-9:

et meam operam haud fore diu Oxoniensi comiti necessariam facile intelligam

Alan's translation is taken word for word from Ward, who writes on p.20:

[Nowell] then goes on to ask Lord Burghley that to him may be entrusted the task of compiling an accurate map because" I clearly see that my work for the Earl of Oxford cannot be much longer required."

Is this what one expects from a reliable source, using someone else's translation without citing it? True, it's only a single sentence, but nonetheless, the translation was Ward's not Alan's. Why didn't Alan cite Ward? Nina Green205.250.205.73 (talk) 16:06, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Not only does Alan have the facts he cites about Oxford's maternal grandfather wrong (see above), he's wrong on the facts about Oxford's paternal grandmother as well. On p. 10 he writes:

Edward's paternal grandmother was Elizabeth nee Trussell, daughter of Edward Trussell of Cublesdon, Staffordshire, and Margaret Don (or Done), of the family which would later produce the poet John Donne.

Having said that Elizabeth Trussell was the daughter of Edward Trussell, on p. 444 Alan then cites as his source a statement that makes her the sister of Edward Trussell:

See HMC Lothian, Blickling, p. 74, for 'An account of the manors of John de Vere, Earl of Oxford, in right of his wife Elizabeth, sister and heiress of Edward Trussell'.

How's that for confusion? In fact, Oxford's paternal grandmother was the daughter of Edward Trussell, and the sister and heiress of John Trussell. See Douglas Richardson's Plantagenet Ancestry, pp. 370 and 720, available online. Is Alan Nelson's book a reliable source? Nina Green205.250.205.73 (talk) 16:55, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Yet another egregious error. On p. 11 Alan writes:

Sir George Buc, a contemporary of the 17th Earl, retails a prophecy that in fewer years than the 13th Earl had lived -- that is, before 1583, seventy years after his death in 1513 -- the earldom would be wasted, and ancestral bones would lie scattered in the fields.

Alan cites as his source Buc (1982), pp. 169-70, that is, Kincaid's edition cited above. But when one turns to pp. 169-70, one finds that it was not a prophecy at all. It was Buc's own statement, made when he wrote the book:

And this earldom was wasted and almost all dilapidated and spoiled, and the castles and manors pulled do[wn,] and the chapel wherein this Earl John de Vere was entombed and where all the sepulchres and goodly monuments of his ancestors were erected were all defaced and demolished and razed to the ground, and the bones of the ancient earls were left under the open air and in the fields, and all [which happened] within less than threescore years after the death of the said Earl John.

The statement is clearly ridiculous. Buc went mad before his death, and one can't help but wonder what his state of mind was when he wrote this. The 13th Earl, of whom Buc is speaking, died in 1513, as Alan says above, and Buc is therefore stating that less than 60 years later, i.e. circa 1571, when Oxford reached the age of majority, the whole earldom was wasted and the bones of Oxford's ancestors were lying in the fields. Utter nonsense.

Moreover in addition to claiming something as a prophecy which his source indicates clearly was not a prophecy, and in addition to giving credence to a clearly nonsensical statement, Alan has deliberately or carelessly distorted what Buc actually said. Buc did not say 'that in fewer years than the 13th Earl had lived'. He said 'within less than threescore years after the death of the said Earl John'. This deliberate or careless distortion by Alan makes a huge difference. What Buc actually said makes these events happen by circa 1571. By distorting Buc's statement, Alan brings the date to 1583 (see above). Is Alan's book a reliable source? Nina Green —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.250.205.73 (talk) 17:57, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Tom, here's an instance of Alan citing something which would not qualify as a reliable third party source under Wikipedia policy. On p. 12 Alan quotes a letter from 'the young Gregory Crumwell'. On p. 444 Alan cites as his source 'Allen (1932), p. 16', which turns out to be none other than Percy Allen's The Life Story of Edward de Vere as "William Shakespeare". Would you cite that book as a source for anything? I wouldn't. Yet Alan did, presumably because he didn't want to take the time to look up the original letter. (Percy Allen's book can be downloaded online, by the way). Moreover Alan clearly doesn't have any idea that 'the young Gregory Crumwell' he's talking about was in later life Baron Cromwell (d.1551). Nina Green205.250.205.73 (talk) 19:40, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

A well-reviewed book on a literary/historical figure by an emeritus professor of English at one of the best research universities in the world, published by the university press of an important British university, and written more or less in the author's area of specialty, is obviously a reliable source. That doesn't mean it can't contain errors, but this whole effort is ridiculous. john k (talk) 19:45, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

The book wasn't well reviewed by anyone who could detect its historical errors. In fact it wasn't reviewed by a single historian. And even some of the literature specialists who reviewed it had negative comments about it, and in particular about Alan's manifest bias. Moreover, just because someone has a Ph.D. doesn't mean he's an expert in fields unrelated to his Ph.D. The book is not in the slightest 'written more or less in the author's area of speciality'. Alan is not a specialist in Elizabethan history. Moreover the documentation of the errors in Alan's book isn't 'ridiculous' at all. Eventually, the number of errors in a book reaches critical mass, and the work can't be considerable reliable by anyone's standards. Nina Green205.250.205.73 (talk) 20:23, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

You do not get to decide that a book is not a reliable source because you find errors of detail in it. If you can check a particular factual claim against a footnote that goes to a published primary source, and find that it doesn't match, I think that would be good reason not to rely on Nelson for that particular fact. It does not discredit the work as a whole. Any book will contain minor errors of the sort you are bringing up here. As to area of specialty, a specialist in renaissance English literature is perfectly well qualified to write a biography of a literary/historical figure from that era. With the recent interest of renaissance literary scholars in historical context, I'd say that English professors are perfectly well qualified to review the book, as well. A review of Nelson's book was published in the Renaissance Quarterly, which is an interdisciplinary literary/historical journal, although the reviewer (Andrew Barnaby) is indeed a professor of English. There's also a review in Sixteenth Century Journal, which is, again, an interdisciplinary journal. That historians have chosen not to review the book suggests mostly that Oxford is a figure of no particular interest to historians, rather than any particular evaluation of Nelson's book. This is all ridiculous, at any rate. You are a dedicated Oxfordian POV pusher, and your entire purpose here is simply to attack and delegitimize the work of those few mainstream scholars who have bothered to deal with your pet subject. This is not serious, and won't be serious no matter how many minor inconsistencies you find in Nelson's book. Go away and tend to your own website. Wikipedia is not for you. john k (talk) 22:16, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

John, thanks for the kind words. I've noticed the welcoming attitude from editors of this page, and it truly warms the heart. :-)

You wrote:

Any book will contain minor errors of the sort you are bringing up here.

Standards are certainly slipping in academia, then. :-) I hadn't expected to hear that sort of thing from someone with a Ph.D. But in fact, what you say is not true. Point me to a single historical work in which one could find this many errors of fact, transcription and citation (and that's not even taking into consideration errors of interpretation) within a few pages, and I might reconsider. Until then, I'll continue to hold the view that a book with this many errors within the first few pages doesn't fall within Wikipedia's definition of a reliable source. Nina Green205.250.205.73 (talk) 23:15, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

John, I see you are a Wikipedia administrator, and on checking the Wikipedia administrator rules, I note the following:

Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others.

Does telling someone with expertise which could benefit a Wikipedia article to get lost fall within that definition? Nina Green205.250.205.73 (talk) 00:13, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed that, after having dubbed John Golding a knight five times on p. 9, and having recorded his burial as an esquire in an endnote on p. 444, Alan has him as an esquire again on p.14:

The 16th Earl's second marriage is recorded in the parish register of St Andrew in the village of Belchamp St Paul's, Essex, under the year 1548:

The weddinge of my Lorde Ihon Devere Earle of Oxenforde and Margery the daughter of Ihon Gouldinge Esquier the firste of Auguste.

Is Alan's book reliable? Shouldn't an author with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy (see Wikipedia policy statement) correct such inconsistencies before his book goes to press? Nina Green205.250.205.73 (talk) 21:06, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Here is an instance where Alan clearly does not know what he is talking about. Referring to the Protector Somerset's extortion of the 16th Earl's lands, Alan writes on p. 17:

The promise of marriage was enforced by a bond dated 26 February [1548], with a penalty of £6000; it was further enforced (but eventually reversed) by subsequent acts of Parliament.

Somerset's extortion against the 16th Earl was most certainly reversed by a 'subsequent Act of Parliament' (see HL/PO/PB/1/1551/5E6n35 on the Documents page of my website), but it was never 'enforced' by a 'subsequent Act of Parliament'. This is an error of major proportions. Nina Green205.250.205.73 (talk) 21:36, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Here's another major error on the same topic. On p. 18 Alan writes:

The irregular circumstances of the 16th Earl's marriage help to explain the words of a sympathetic eighteenth-century historian:

Edward Seymour, Duke of Somerset, Protector of the Realm, out of his extreme avarice and greedy appetitie [sic] did under colour of justice convent before himself for certain criminal causes John Earl of Oxford and so terrify him that to save his life he was obliged to alienate to the said Duke by deed all his estates, lordships, castles, manors, &c.

On p. 446, Alan cites Louis Thorn Golding's An Elizabethan Puritan, p. 235, citing Morant, p. 293. When one checks Golding, p. 235, one finds this:

Morant's footnote, for which he gives no authority, is found in the second volume of his History of Essex, on p. 293. It reads as follows [Golding then quotes the passage I've just quoted above].

So what was Morant's source, unknown to L.T. Golding and to Alan Nelson? It was the very Act of Parliament which restored the 16th Earl's lands to him mentioned by Alan on p. 17! Here is the wording taken from the copy of the Act on my website (with a few words omitted to make comparison easier):

Where Edward, late Duke of Somerset, . . . Protector of all his Majesty’s realms, . . . of his extreme avarice & greedy appetite . . . under the colour of administration of justice, did convent before himself for certain supposed criminal causes John, Earl of Oxenford, one of the King’s most loving subjects, who personally appeared before the said Duke, and then the said Duke so circumvented and coerced the said Earl of Oxenford to accomplish the desire of the said Duke (though it were unconscionable), and used such comminations & threats towards him in that behalf that he, the Earl, did seal & subscribe with his own hand one counterpane of one indenture devised by the said Duke & his counsel bearing date the first day of February in the second year [=1 February 1548] of our said Sovereign Lord the King his reign made between the said Duke on the one party and the said Earl on the other party etc.

So what Alan calls 'the words of a sympathetic eighteenth-century historian' are really the words of the Act of Parliament which restored the 16th Earl's lands to him after Somerset's extortion! Alan obviously never looked at the Act of Parliament to which he refers on p. 17. Moreover where the Act uses the words 'supposed criminal causes', Alan, following Golding, writes 'criminal causes', thus turning what the Act of Parliament rejected into a fact. Major errors. Nina Green205.250.205.73 (talk) 23:00, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Alan ends Chapter 3 with yet another major error concerning the consequences of Somerset's extortion against the 16th Earl. On p. 19 he writes:

Somerset could threaten but not command the 16th Earl. In any case, he held power only until 1 October 1549; any residual hold was weakened with his execution in 1552 and terminated on 22 January 1553.

Leaving aside the amusing suggestion that his execution 'weakened' Somerset's hold on the 16th Earl :-), Alan is so vague here that the reader hasn't the faintest idea what he's talking about. As his authority for the vague statement that Somerset's hold 'terminated on 22 January 1553', Alan cites on p. 446:

Will of 1552 (settled by Parliament of 5-6 Edward VI); CPR, Edward VI, iv, pp. 376-7.

Once again Alan vaguely refers to that Act of Parliament which he apparently never set eyes on since he never gives a reference number for it, and did not recognize a direct paraphrase from it when he ran across it on p.235 of Louis Thorn Golding's An Elizabethan Puritan. Alan's second reference is to TNA C 66/848, which is available on the Documents page of my website. Alan's reference makes it clear that he hasn't researched this point any further than the Calendar of Patent Rolls. Yet Alan holds forth on this topic for several pages in his book, drawing conclusions right, left and center, without having looked at the original documents to determine what they actually say. Is Alan's book a reliable source? Nina Green205.250.205.73 (talk) 23:39, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Further evidence that Alan never looked at that Act of Parliament he refers to so often. On p. 21 he writes:

On 21 December [1552] Oxford signed his second but first surviving will. Since Tudor wills were often deferred until death seemed imminent, he may have felt himself in mortal danger . . . .

If Alan had looked at that Act of Parliament he would have seen, among other provisions, the following:

Provided always and that it may be enacted by the authority aforesaid that the said now Earl by his last will & testament in writing sealed with his seal of arms & subscribed with his hand shall have full power & authority by virtue of this Act to assign, limit & appoint to his lawful wife overliving him for the term of her natural life to & for her jointure the manors, lands & tenements of Tilbury, Downham etc.

In other words, because Somerset's extortion had prevented the 16th Earl from settling a jointure on his wife for her to live on if she survived him, the Act of Parliament authorized the 16th Earl to do it via a will. Does Alan mention the obvious here, i.e. that one of the principal reasons the 16th Earl needed to make a will in 1552 was not that his life was in 'mortal danger', but rather that he needed to do it to provide a jointure for his wife? No. Is Alan's book a reliable source? Nina Green205.250.205.73 (talk) 00:27, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Another instance involving the consequences of Somerset's extortion where Alan either doesn't know what he's talking about, or uses language so imprecisely that others can't possibly understand the facts correctly. On p. 21, Alan writes:

On 22 January 1553 the indenture of 1548 was revoked, thus voiding the requirement that Katherine [de Vere] must marry [Somerset's son], Henry, Lord Seymour.

The indenture was not 'revoked' by the letters patent of that date. The letters patent (TNA C 66/848 on my website) read, in my translation:

We give also & for the foresaid considerations by these presents we do grant to the said Earl of Oxford the foresaid bonds and the foresaid indentures & any of them at the will of the said Earl to be cancelled & annihilated.

In other words, the indentures, which had escheated to the Crown on Somerset's attainder, were granted to the 16th Earl by the King to do what he wanted with them (the only reasonable action being to destroy them). That is not at all the same thing as revocation of the indentures by the letters patent. Alan of course cites only the Calendar of Patent Rolls for this document, and obviously never looked at or translated the document itself. Is Alan's book a reliable source? Nina Green205.250.205.73 (talk) 00:40, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

On p. 22 Alan makes an egregious error, confusing the 16th Earl's wife with Anne, Countess of Oxford, the widow of John de Vere, 14th Earl of Oxford. Alan writes:

Early in 1553 Countess Margery found herself in a skirmish over legal instruments establishing the jointure (or marriage settlement) of Margaret Arundel, sister of the unfortunate Catherine Howard and widow of the recently executed Sir Thomas Arundel. Northumberland addressed Lord Darcy and Sir William Cecil:

[The Countess of] Oxford, having almost finished her suits in the town, desired me to know what she should do touching Lady Arundel's jointure. She has received a letter from one of the council for its delivery to Lady Arundel. But although she is her niece and gave 500 marks to her marriage . . . .

The reference is clearly to the Countess of Oxford who was the widow of the 14th Earl of Oxford, was born a Howard, was the aunt of Lady Arundel, and was still alive in 1553. The reference is obviously not to the 16th Earl's wife, Countess Margery (nee Golding). Is Alan's book a reliable source? Nina Green205.250.205.73 (talk) 00:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

On the face of it, it has all the attributes of a reliable source, but Nina's comments throw so much doubt on the scholarship of Alan H. Nelson of Berkeley that for now I should not choose to cite it myself. This throws up a conundrum for Wikipedians, as we have no mechanisms that I am aware of for judging the merits of sources. Indeed, if Wikipedia were to set itself up to stand in judgement on Professor Nelson, he and his peers would find it comical. I think for now the discrediting of academic works needs to be done elsewhere. Of course, where one of us can show from a primary source that a secondary source is wrong, challenging the statement rather than the credibility of a whole work, that is a proper way to deal with the problems a questionable work causes us. Once several such challenges have succeeded, a source is cited much less often by those who are aware of them. Moonraker2 (talk) 02:47, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

This seems like a reasonable attitude. Using (published) primary sources like the Calendar, or other secondary sources, is fine if we want to cast down on a particular factual claim. No source is infallible, and if Nelson is wrong about specific points, we should not include them in the article. That does not mean that his book is not a reliable source. As Moonraker says, it is not Wikipedia's job to decide that a book by an academic at a reputable institution, published by a reputable academic press, is not a reliable source.

I will say that I strive in my own work to avoid errors of fact and interpretation, but I've read too many books by reputable historians that make significant errors of this sort just on issues where I happen to know that they are wrong to have any illusions that even the best book is going to contain errors, and often many errors. If you go through any scholarly work with a fine-toothed comb, as Nina is doing, and check every footnote against its sources, as Nina is also doing, you're probably going to find sloppiness. This seems like a repetition, in miniature, of the David Abraham affair, except that the role of Turner and Feldman is here being played by an Oxfordian with a website. The errors Nina has been pointing to seem to, for the most part, be minor errors of chronology and the like. Nelson makes some errors about when things have happened. He misidentifies people, getting genealogical details wrong, and so forth. This is all unfortunate. Where Nelson can be shown to be in error with other reliable sources, we should not repeat his mistakes. But such mistakes are an inevitable part of the process of archival research, as numerous eminent historians noted in defense of Abraham way back when. None of the errors Nina has pointed to seem material. They are all minor errors of detail, or minor mischaracterizations of sources. One of the errors is an error of indexing! It is unfortunate that Nelson makes these errors, but they do not in any way discredit his work. Furthermore, why should we take Nina's word for all this? She blatantly has an axe to grind with "Alan" here, and we should not be using a wikipedia talk page as a forum for somebody to denigrate the work of a well-respected scholar they disagree with. Nelson is, so far as I can gather, the only mainstream academic biographer of the seventeenth earl. His work was considered reputable enough that he is the author of the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography article on Oxford. It is simply absurd for wikipedia editors to decide that his work is not reliable on the basis of some unsubstantiated minor errors pointed out by an axe-grinding Oxfordian. If Nelson is not a reliable source, then there are no reliable sources on Oxford. Any further discussion of this is a waste of time. Nelson is a reliable source, full stop. If Nina wants to point out, with published sources, specific instances in which this article follows Nelson into an error, that is fine. But simply going through the book to find minor errors in order to generally impugn his credibility is a waste of everyone's time, and is [[WP:FORUM|not what wikipedia talk pages are for]. Perhaps I was harsh in the wording of my earlier email, but the kind of business Nina has been engaging in in this section and elsewhere on this topic is not appropriate for wikipedia, and should not be tolerated. john k (talk) 04:08, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

John, don't take my word for it. You have a Ph.D. in history. If you can find anything I've said about the errors in Alan's book on this discussion page to be inaccurate, point it out. And most of the errors in Alan's book are not immaterial, despite your attempts to minimize them. Going on at length about an Act of Parliament one has never laid eyes on and drawing all sorts of erroneous conclusions about it is not an immaterial error, for example. It makes me wonder what you would consider a material error. Perhaps you could provide an example. But you're right about one thing. You wrote:

If Nelson is not a reliable source, then there are no reliable sources on Oxford.

The fact of the matter is that there aren't any books on Oxford which are totally reliable. Ward is the best of the lot, but he's almost a century out of date. Many new documents have been located since Ward turned up the bulk of the documents about Oxford many decades ago. But not everything in the article has to be sourced to a book about Oxford. Other sources which contain reliable information and which can be cited in the article include the Calendars of State Papers,the Calendar of Patent Rolls, Emmison's Feet of Fines etc. And Ward's, Nelson's and Pearson's book can be cited for certain things. It's a matter of fact-checking. And co-operation. More than anything, it's a matter of putting aside prejudices dragged in from the authorship controversy. This article isn't about the authorship controversy, and contrary to what you've said, I'm not the slightest bit interested in dragging the authorship controversy into this article. I have no axe to grind whatever, although I'm not sure the same can be said about you. This article is about the facts of Oxford's life, not about the authorship controversy. Nina Green205.250.205.73 (talk) 04:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Nina, maybe we got off on the wrong foot. I apologize for being rude to you and I will try to give you the benefit of the doubt that you are trying to make this article better. It's hard to see someone who appears to be heavily invested in the authorship controversy, as you seem to be, going on at extreme lengths about minor factual errors in the only academic biography of Oxford, and not think that this is an authorship controversy axe-grinding. But perhaps this is unfair - you don't seem to edit wikipedia much outside of this article, so maybe you aren't really aware of how our policies work and such. It might be a good idea for you to review the relevant wikipedia policies on original research and reliable sources. Both are terms of art on wikipedia that don't necessarily mean what a plain English reading might suggest. We are not looking for sources that are "totally reliable". That is impossible (even the best source will not be right about everything), and is not what the term means. A reliable source means, well, at best what Nelson's book is - a well-reviewed work by a prominent scholar, published by an academic press, about the subject of the article. Our article shouldn't simply be a précis of Nelson - if there are other reliable sources on Oxford, we should use those as well, and it's fine to check sources like the Calendars to see if our secondary sources have made errors (at least in my view - other people seem to have stricter views on that). But the article should not be based on synthesizing primary materials (which the Calendars are, in this case). Wikipedia forbids "original research" which means that it's not our job to synthesize an account of Oxford's life on the basis of published primary sources. That does mean that our article can only be as good as the sources that exist on Oxford's life, of whom Nelson, whatever his errors may be, is the most prominent. But that is inevitable. It simply isn't the job of a wikipedia article to break new ground. If the editors of the ODNB saw fit to hire Nelson to write their article on the earl, it's hard to see how the far, far less reputable reference source we are all doing our best to improve here can then go out and reject Nelson's book as a source for the article. Whatever the flaws of the sources may be, they are the sources we have, and this article has to be mostly based on them, and not on our own primary research. If this doesn't appeal to you, then, as I said before, wikipedia probably isn't the place for you. The reliance on secondary sources can be frustrating, but it's a basic principle, and absolutely necessary to insure that wikipedia doesn't get filled up with half-baked quackery invented by wikipedia editors. As I said, if there is a specific instance where we go wrong following Nelson, I think it's fine to use published primary sources to show that he is wrong, and remove the particular error. But going after the work as a whole, or insisting the article should be written primarily based on primary documents, is not going to work. john k (talk) 07:31, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

It is in fact an active choice for Wikipedia, that if all the reliable secondary sources are wrong (even if demonstrably so) then Wikipedia's treatment of a subject will also be wrong to the same degree. If Nelson is wrong in any particular, then the place to correct him is with an article in a scholarly journal, or a book published on a university press (i.e. somewhere it will be subject to peer-review). Specifically, the errors pointed out above appear to be the kind of stuff that can be the basis for one or more articles in a scholarly journal; those articles can then be pointed out on this talk page; and the other editors of the page can then consider using them as citations (the Conflict of Interest policy effectively prevents citing your own articles, no matter how reliable). This also means that pointing out errors in Nelson here is rather unproductive (it's effectively just ranting); the energy might more productively be put into pointing out errors in this article, that are sourced to Nelson and suggesting a better secondary source (note well, it must be a secondary source; we cannot cite a fact in an article to a primary source if a secondary source exists and disagrees, as that would fall under the original research policy).
Nina: I'm jumping in from the sidelines here, but to me it seems that you could be a tremendous asset to the project and a great contributor to this article; except right now you seem to be intent on fighting the system rather than working within it. Your disagreement appears to me to be with what Wikipedia is and its policies (in which case, the talk page for this single article is not the place to discuss it); and for your contributions to be constructive you will need to understand these limitations and be willing to work within them. Specifically, would it help you to know that Wikipedia's policies are in part designed to prevent an enthusiastic fourteen-year-old from Boise who has seen Shakespeare in Love from writing an article on Oxford based solely on the portrayal of the character in the film? Since anyone can edit Wikipedia, there are no checks of academic credentials, and hence we cannot accept original research; nor can we counter what the actual academics say about a subject. At best we can be selective about which secondary sources we cite, but even there we have limits (if academics disagree, we must present both versions).
The problem isn't with the quality or extent of your research; the problem is the fact that you came by the knowledge through original research rather than through reading someone else's book. PS. If you want help with understanding Wikipedia's policies we're all willing to help; but you do have to want to understand, otherwise this will never achieve anything. --Xover (talk) 09:32, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I would point out that even if we accept that every instance of error pointed out by Nina is in fact an error, then Nelson is still 99 percent correct. I don't have one book on my shelf that is error-free, and that includes Chambers, Schoenbaum, and Wells. To compare Nelson with Ward is like comparing Schoenbaum with Ireland.

I have several times suggested that Nina take her complaints to WP:RS, but she seems to be not listening. Tom Reedy (talk) 12:59, 23 November 2010 (UTC)