Talk:William Cecil, 1st Baron Burghley

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
	This article is supported by WikiProject Peerage.

"King Harold" - Harold I (Harold Harefoot) or Harold II (Harold Godwinson)? / Elinnea 15:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Serious POV

There was nothing heroic about Cecil or his policy; it involved a callous attitude towards struggling Protestants abroad. - Just one example of the many POV comments that pervade the latter half of this article. If no one raises any objections, I will rewrite this and other sentences. Walton monarchist89 16:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure, just remember that statements like this are sourced to the 1911 EB, and your own personal statements may be sourced only to you. Any controversial statements should be quoted and cited to some secondary work, and you can't be the author :) Wjhonson 08:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

But it isn't marked with a ref to the EB, so at the moment it just looks like uncited POV/OR. Probably better to put it in quote marks and include a direct EB citation, for the sake of clarity. Walton monarchist89 09:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

When the article was created, it was copied, entire, from the 1911 EB. Each statement wasn't marked, just the whole article was. I believe the 1911 EB is actually online, in a pristine form, so it can be googled to see what it did or didn't say previously. Wjhonson 18:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The previous section as well, where it notes his lack of courage. The Burghley of this article is about as close to reality as Richard Attenborough's performance in the film Elizabeth, where he's played as a fussy old man obsessed with the queen's bedsheets. Not at all. I think it's acceptable to tone down the Brittannica bias, without altering statements of fact, in order to give an NPOV balance.--Shtove 14:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Of course the objection to that might be that you are white-washing the article with your own pov. Now if you could actually cite your sources that would probably be fine. Wjhonson 08:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

True. The EB article isn't so bad, now that I read through it. Bit light on the later, more important years. Burghley is a big subject - one of England's outstanding statesmen - and a lot has been written about him from various POVs. The handiest balancing source would probably be the latest DNB. Anyone?--Shtove 16:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)