Talk:Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford

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]
	This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.
	This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Peerage.

Contents 1 References Added, December 2006 2 Whitewashing his pederasty? 3 Edits by User:Vero-Nihil-Verius 4 Trying Again with [[User:Vero-Nihil-Verius] 5 Notability concerns 6 Addition of "murderer" to intro

[edit] References Added, December 2006

I've add some of the most obvious references to support this article. I also lightly edited the section of literary associations and a few other passages of the article, for economy, clarity, and comprehensiveness. I respectfully request all those involved in building this article to follow wiki policies and refrain from gratuitous insult. This is not hlas. If this request is not respected, I will file a complaint with the appropriate authorities. --BenJonson 02:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by BenJonson (talk • contribs) 02:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC).

I don't know what's been going on in the past, but this article has got to be restored to a rational form (1911, if necessary) and locked. The Oxfordian cult has taken it over.

John W. Kennedy 02:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Kennedy, your violent language is not appropriate to this forum. If you have a criticism of existing language in the entry, it should be stated. Then those involved in editing this page can discuss your proposed changes. References to "bullshit" and the "Oxfordian cult" are entirely unwarranted. --BenJonson 00:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I did an overhaul, keeping the 'Oxfordian' stuff separate to stress that it's not accepted by most historians. The Singing Badger 13:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Singing Badger: I don't quite understand how "most historians" are relevant here. Most historians have never even heard Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford. Your own qualifications do, however, deserve to be questioned. Have you, for example, ever read B.M. Ward's 1928 biography of Oxford? If not, why do you feel that you're an authority to edit the work of other writers who have? What exactly are your qualifications? And why haven't you challenged John W. Kennedy's unprofessional displays of prejudice? --BenJonson 00:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Whitewashing his pederasty?

Why are de Vere's flings with Italian boys repeatedly being deleted from this article?! Haiduc 20:04, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Got a reputable source? We're being more careful about deleting unsourced claims these days. Stan 00:00, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

How about this? [1]

Also, this: [2].

Those phrase as accusations, not proof. It would be better to cite from the book that one of the websites mentions, which probably has more detail about who was doing the accusing and when. Stan 16:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Oxford's first and most reliable 20th century biographer, B.M. Ward (1920), correctly categorized these statements as the "preposterous slanders" (222) of Charles Arundel and Henry Howard, who were in Winter 1581 being investigated, partly on Oxford's information, for plotting against Queen Elizabeth I to place a Catholic monarch on the throne. In the 20th century these accusations have been revived primarily by Dr. Alan Nelson, the Berkeley Professor whose book, Monstrous Adversary, manages to quote the Arundel-Howard libels at some length without ever mentioning the historical context of their testimony, an abuse that no real historian would ever tolerate and which should not be tolerated by wikipedia--BenJonson 00:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edits by User:Vero-Nihil-Verius

Brand new User 67.49.8.182 vandalized the article by deleting material and cites without explanation (see [3]. In addition, identical edits were made by what I can only suppose is one of his sock puppets, brand new user Vero-Nihil-Verius, who today repeatedly made the same mass deletions and reverts. This thread is at [4]. The bulk of the edits have to do with deleting references and cites to the Encyclopedia Brittanica and replacing them with original material cited to Stratfordian Alan Nelson, as well as a gossipy moralistic book he wrote about Oxford. I will continue to challenge his edits while reporting him through the proper channels.Smatprt 01:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

• This is a content dispute, not vandalism. The proper approach is to ask the user to explain his/her edits on this page. I have asked him/her to do so. Discussion here will probably lead to an acceptable outcome, and the RfC process can be used if need be. Describing User:Vero-Nihil-Verius's edits as vandalism is in my view not true, but whether it is or not, he or she has the right to expect that other users will assume good faith. AndyJones 08:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
• In passing, I will add that an ANON choosing to register and getting a user name is not sockpuppetry. AndyJones 09:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

• • Sorry - wholesale deletions (over 3,000 letters deleted on last edit) of properly referenced material is indeed vandalism. (Sure, it was also POV editing to the extreme, deleting everything the user apparently disagrees with and leaving only references to an Alan Nelson, who from what I can gather is a homophobe obsessed with sexual missconduct, as well as an unsupported extremist writer). Wiki also says "Assume good faith" need not apply to obvious vandalism. Had the user not used an ANON as well as a brand new user name to make identical deletions, I might assume good faith, but that is not the case. It is obvious the new user name was created for the sole purpose of this specific vandalism. Trading in Encyclopedia Brittanica for a personal website is a content dispute? Oh, please. Smatprt 15:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

• • • Vero-Nihil-Verius here. My edits to this article hardly constitute vandalism. I am keeping the facts straight. Smatprt corrupted this article in a major overhaul with numerous mistakes, such as claiming Oxford has been known as "Lord Vere" rather than "Lord Bulbeck" up to the age of twelve. He has recognized that error, but continues to propagate other misinformation, only a little of which I will bother to enumerate here. Among other misinformation, Smatprt continues to revert to the claim that after Oxford’s father died his mother “remarried soon thereafter” (an obvious ploy to emulate the situation in Hamlet). This is simply not a known fact, as I have specified in my revision.
    • Smatprt continues to assert that Oxford “was taught Latin by his maternal uncle, Arthur Golding”. It is reasonable to speculate that he was, but this is not a known fact.
    • Of Oxford’s £1,000 annuity, Smatprt now interjects that it “may have been granted for his services in maintaining a group of writers and a company of actors”. The documentary evidence contradicts this assertion at every turn. Oxford’s first biographer, B.M. Ward, had speculated that the £1,000 annuity the queen had granted to Oxford in 1586 was for ‘some secret service’, namely, being ‘the chief agent in providing the winter entertainments’. Unfortunately, Ward’s suggestions were extremely misleading, and just provocative enough to have been compounded by numerous Oxfordians ever since. The phrasing in Oxford’s 1586 annuity is clear enough, however, in that it should continue until the impoverished earl was “otherwise provided for to be in some manner relieved.” The reason for the annuity is confirmed in the dowager countess of Oxford’s letter to Robert Cecil written soon after Oxford’s death, in which she stated that “the pencyon of a thousande poundes was not giuen by the late Queene to my Lord for his life, and then to determine, but to continew vntill she might raise his decay by some better prouision.” Around the same time, King James referred to Oxford’s annuity in a letter to Cecil when Lord Sheffield was dogging him for a pension greater than a £1,000 pension: “I had already told him, never greater gift of that nature was given in England. Great Oxford when his state was whole ruined got no more of the late Queen.”
    • Smatprt complains about material being cited from Stratfordian Alan Nelson’s biography, yet has no qualms entertaining conjectures by Oxfordian biographer Mark Anderson about refuting Stratfordian claims that certain Shakespeare plays were written after 1604 (I have corrected his page reference which Smatprt entered incorrectly as 400-405 [397-403 is correct], and have also included reference to William Farina’s bio since it refutes the Stratfordian chronology claims in much greater detail than Anderson). I am looking for some balance here, and if Smatprt will notice, Nelson’s assertions that the university degrees were “unearned” are contradicted by the long contemporaneous quote which follows from John Brooke, which basically gives the lie to Nelson.
    • There are several other problems with Smatprt’s revisions that I don’t have time to elucidate here, but please rest assured that I will continue to monitor this article to keep it fair and factual: Nothing is Truer than the Truth. VNV 16:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Vero: You state the "Ward's suggestions [regarding the grant] are "extremely misleading." I don't understand the basis for this characterization. Its been eighty years since Ward wrote, and no one, to my knowledge, has effectively challenged his interpretations of the evidence. Yes, it is true, Irvin Matus has floated the somewhat preposterous notion that QE1 gave the annnuity just to keep Oxford out of the poorhouse. If you want to talk about misleading, we should start with that. More significantly, there is a question of method at stake. Just because an anonymous person -- you -- claims that Oxford's leading 20th century biographer (a place he still holds, despite Alan Nelson's astoundingly dishonest 2003 "biography") was wrong, that his opinion should be deleted. This is like killing a fly with an atom bomb. The appropriate measure is not to delete Ward's interpretation, but to place it in a larger context. Cite what Ward said, then cite, if you like, what Matus said. This provides wiki readership with what it needs: the knowledge that the facts are dispute here, and may stand different and sometimes contradictory interpretations. You state that you are "looking for balance," but your actions, at least in this case, raise a doubt as to whether that is true. The grant has been for several decades one of the most intriguing and controversial facts of Oxford's biography. B.M. Ward discovered it. He provided a convincing demonstration linking the grant to Oxford's theatrical activities. If we are really seeking balance, his opinion should remain on the record. The Countess'had an obvious motive to construe the grant as she did after Oxford's death. She could hardly have written, "The Queen wished my late husband to edify the court with his dramas, so will you please, King James, renew it for me?" Duh. As for your other edits, I agree with at least some of them and am gratified by any attempt to keep the page as close as possible to the known facts. I happen to suppose that Oxford's mother did remarry very swiftly. But it is true that we don't know exactly how long the elapsed time -- and, believe it or not, the analogies between Oxford and Hamlet hardly require that it was so (see, for example, Supreme Court Justice John Paul's Stevens' excellent analysis of the comparison in his 1991 "Shakespeare Canon of Statutory Construction." --BenJonson 00:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad VNV is now explaining himself (after the fact). Unfortunately, wholesale edits of sourced material will not stay. The edits I have made are sourced to published researchers - not my research as VMV implies. If you want to challenge these researchers, feel free. But you simply can't delete what has been previously published and sourced. Also - in keeping the facts straight - why move his picture? Why reformat quotes to make the copy less readable? Why make so many edits in so many sections rather that one section at a time? Why place Nelson's claims (the lie) before contemporary documents?Smatprt 19:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Also - regarding the Bulbeck/Vere edit: It was not my edit that added the words "as he was styled from birth" - I did say "the 12 year old Lord Vere" -but I never said he was known under that title as you state above. In fact, it was your edit that added the "as he was styled from birth" notation (re:Bulbeck) in the middle of a mass edit. I liked your phrase "as he was styled from birth" with the addition of the Lord Bulbeck title. Having said that, your deletions of "Oxford's Men" (Brittannica), Oxford's poetry samples (Fullers) and other legitamate edits still looks like vandalism to me. I am trying to "assume good faith", but your recent revert is making that assumption very hard. Smatprt 21:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

• Smatprt’s reversion to his/her previous overhaul of this article continues to propagate numerous factual errors and ignore my own explicit corrections of these same errors. It hardly matters whether these errors have been previously published; they are wrong. With all due respect, and without intending to sound pretentious (though it no doubt will anyway), I am a scholar on the cutting edge of Shakespearean Authorship research--unlike Smatprt--and am utilizing, as far as possible, the most up-to-date and accurate data. Stratfordians have made more than their share of mistakes, but so have Oxfordians. I am trying to do a service here in the interest of historical verisimilitude. Smatpt’s revisions demonstrate a casual irresponsibility.

• Picture on the left vs. right? Fine, whatever. It’s been on the right for a couple of years. It doesn’t matter. I’ll put it on the left if it makes Smatprt happy.
• Smatprt asks “Why reformat quotes to make the copy less readable?” I disagree; the simple indented block quotes are more aesthetically pleasing than the clunky and unnecessary quotation marks (the indented blocks are already in quotation marks; these comic book quotation marks are redundantly placing quotes within quotes).
• The reason why I’m making “so many edits in so many sections rather that one section at a time” is because I’m trying to fix the damage that Smatprt and/or others have wreaked on this article in the past couple of weeks.
• I’m hardly a fan of Nelson (quite the opposite), but Smatprt’s whining about him does not deserve a response.
• I’m pleased Smatprt likes the phrase "as he was styled from birth" but I didn’t write it; I only corrected “Lord Vere” to “Lord Bulbeck”. If Smatprt didn’t write the phrase, then someone else did; it is of no consequence.
• The citations from the Britannica article are entirely unnecessary. The information cited in these instances can be found in any number of sources. In any event, the mention of “Oxford’s Men”, for instance, is encompassed later in the article that the earl maintained both adult and children's theatre companies. With regard to Smatprt’s complaints about my deletion of source material--I am citing primary sources and Short Title Catalogue numbers which Smatprt’s repeated reversions continue to omit.
• The Sample Poems are out of place in the article proper, but I have added a link within the article to Oxford’s poetry.
• I will not be able to continue to expend this much time, let alone energy, answering to Smatprt. I am merely letting it be known that I will continue to amend this article accordingly. I have not, by the way, due to time limitations, visited the Wikipedia Oxfordian theory page, having only monitored and quietly supervised the Edward de Vere page for some years now as an anonymous user. I’m frightened to think what I might find there at this point. VNV 01:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Vero: don't give up. Just out of curiosity, how would you summarize your critique of Nelson's work? --BenJonson 00:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I have attempted an edit combining the last 2 edits. However, I will not tolerate the deletion of information and sources, regardless of whether VNV has deemed them "wrong". VNV's states:" It hardly matters whether these errors have been previously published; they are wrong." If that is the case then post your counter argument and source it to a published source - not some personal website hosted by unpublished or fringe "scholars". In particular:

• Oxford's Men. No, actually, they are not named later in the article. Besides, this information is hardly contentious, so I must ask why the deletion? It seems that VNV's edits push a POV that Oxford was not heavily involved in theatrical activities.
• Diana price's challenge to May and Kathman is to the point and gives May the lie, as you would say. In VNV's shoes, I would say that they are "wrong". But instead of simply deleting May's comment, I posted the Price argument in response.
• Similarly, Oxford's poetry certainly deserve a small sampling. "out of place"?? Sample poems from a recognized poet? Please. Why not let readers see this material? Again, it seems that VNV's POV is to alter the Oxford bio, highlighting gossip and inuendo, and lowballing his art wherever possible.
• Picture left or right it does not matter, but I simply question why on earth you would care and include it in your mass edits. "I'ts been on the right for a couple of years" is kind of silly as a response, yes?
• either quote format - it matters little in the grand scheme of things.
• Citations to Britannica "entirely unnecessary"? This article was marked asking for sources. That is one of the things I have tried to do. Soory - but it has been drummed in - cite sources or see deletions from editors like Andy.Smatprt 06:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I must agree here on at least the principles: there is no excuse for deleting sources or relevant information. When the published authorities disagree (e.g. May and his critics) the article should acknowledge that. If the wording needs to be rephrased, that is one thing, but it is not acceptable to delete relevant and authoritative sources or relevant facts (although there will naturally be some disagreement about the criterion of relevancy). Along those lines, I have added a bibliography section. At present it only contains Ward, but I invite everyone to add sources as we develop the page.--BenJonson 00:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• • Smatprt writes: “Oxford's Men. No, actually, they are not named later in the article. Besides, this information is hardly contentious, so I must ask why the deletion? It seems that VNV's edits push a POV that Oxford was not heavily involved in theatrical activities.” I didn’t say ‘Oxford’s Men’ were **named** later in the article (and my deletion of it has nothing to do with it being "contentious"), I wrote that Oxford's Men are “encompassed later in the article that the earl maintained both adult and children's theatre companies.” Smatprt seems particularly concerned about **naming** Oxford’s adult acting troupe “Oxford’s Men”, but why then not his children’s troupe “Oxford’s Boys”? Oh dear me, the Britannica article omits it. Speaking of which, Smatprt writes: “Citations to Britannica ‘entirely unnecessary’? This article was marked asking for sources. That is one of the things I have tried to do. Soory - but it has been drummed in - cite sources or see deletions from editors like Andy.” And just what are the THREE items Smatprt uses the Britannica source for? 1): the foregoing mention of Oxford’s Men, 2) that Oxford “is most famous today as the strongest candidate proposed (next to William Shakespeare himself) for the authorship of Shakespeare's plays” and 3): that John Lyly was “the author of the novel Euphues, whom [Oxford] employed as his secretary for many years.” And we need the Britannica to confirm these things? (Why no mention of Munday—still another Shakespearean source—having been employed by Oxford? Well, I’ve added these things, in a general way, sans the Britannica source.) FYI, I am the one who originally wrote, in defense of the fact that Oxford’s extant letters make no mention of a dramatic career: “although it is known that Oxford maintained both adult and children's theatre companies and was a patron of several writers.” And this POV pushes Oxford as not having been heavily involved in theatrical activities? Where is Smatprt coming from?
  • Smatprt wants to interject Diana Price’s comments into the article proper, when there is a link immediately after her name that can take readers directly to her commentary. Smatprt complains about my “deleting May’s comment” when there is in fact no direct quote by May at all. There is only an indirect reference to May’s stigma of print article (with a link to the article that Smatprt continues to delete), and a subsequent reference to Price’s rebuttal of May, also with a link (which Smatprt continues to leave in). The scale is fairly balanced here, until Smatprt continues to tip it. One of the foremost reasons, in any case, that Ms. Price’s direct quotes are out of place in this article is because Smatprt quotes her as saying “The earl of Oxford published nothing during his lifetime.” This is just flat out wrong. How about, among other things, “Cardanus’ Comforte, translated into Englishe. And published by commaundment of the right honourable the Earle of Oxenforde. Anno Domini 1573” on the title page, which contained both a prefatory letter by Oxford to Thomas Bedingfield as well as verses by Oxford, prefaced with “The Earle of Oxenforde to the Reader”?
  • Regarding the inclusion of sample poems by Oxford in the article proper, Smatprt asks “Why not let readers see this material?” There is not one, but TWO links in the article to TWO different websites that will take readers to Oxford’s COMPLETE attributed poetic oeuvre. All the reader has to do is click the mouse. Smatprt goes on to complain that my “POV is to alter the Oxford bio, highlighting gossip and inuendo, and lowballing his art wherever possible.” This accusation is absurd on its face.
  • Smatprt writes: “Picture left or right it does not matter, but I simply question why on earth you would care and include it in your mass edits. "I'ts been on the right for a couple of years" is kind of silly as a response, yes?” Look, I don’t care. I thought I’d made that clear. Smatprt was the one who seemed to care when he/she (‘he’ I suspect) first moved the picture from right to left and then, after I moved it back, wrote “why move his picture?” Believe me, it wasn’t my intention to move the picture one way or the other, but rather than re-keying, I was merely returning existing text into place that I had for that paragraph that happened to have the picture placement on the right (the same block of text that’s been in place for the last couple of years).
  • Explaining myself in this fashion is certainly tedious. Frankly, I can’t believe I’ve taken the time once again to answer Smatprt in such detail. This will be the end of it. VNV 20:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Trying Again with [[User:Vero-Nihil-Verius]

Although not thrilled to continue, I will keep trying to discuss these changes with you, although you seem hell-bent on making them no matter what. Unfortunately, your are now acting like you own the page and are being completely random in your deletions. You might review WP:OWN Don't get me wrong - add what you want, but if you delete something that is in and properly sourced, after repeated warnings, I will again resort to stronger methods. What you are doing is now bordering on vandalism. "Deletion of properly sourced material" is vandalism. You have not "discussed" your deletions, only dictated them. And you certainly have not tried to build a "concensus" of any sort, (admittedly a tough prospect on any pages having to do with Shakespeare Authorship.) In regards to your latest communication:

• You accused me of moving the picture and then complaining that you moved my picture. Wrong and wrong. You have, once again, confused me with another editor who moved it in the midst of our conflicting edits. Please check the edit history if you must make these kinds of pointless accusations.
• Good point about Oxford's Boys. I added them in along with Oxford's Men, which you have no reason to delete.
• Good point about Munday. I added that reference in.
• Due to these edits that started with your the deletion made under your anonymous account, I will admit that with all the back and forth, some sloppy mistakes have been made on my part. No sinister motive. Just some honest mistakes. I am fixing them as they come to my attention.
• Scanning other Wiki articles I find plenty of poetry samples and even play excerpts. Sure, you can click on a link and get the whole play or anthology, but I find no reason to not have some samples. Saying you can click on a link is again, no real argument.

I have combined our edits and will not delete your additions. Please respect mine.Smatprt 01:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

• • Smatprt's revision now sources Britannica for "Oxford Boys" and Munday having been employed as Oxford's secretary for many years--information not included in the Britannica source; has also deleted citation to The Shakspere Allusion-Book which was a citation requested for the William Basse reference to Shakespeare dying in 1616; etc., et al.VNV

VNV comment above is, once again, inaccurate. The Brittanica source is only for the sentence in which the cite appears - re: oxford being the strongest candidate proposed...". The Oxford's Boys and Oxford's Men info is uncited as it is not contentious. If a cite tag appears, it can be easily cited. Citation for Basse reference deleted by mistake. Will put back in.Smatprt 18:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, regarding VNV's "I am citing primary sources and Short Title Catalogue numbers which Smatprt’s repeated reversions continue to omit." VNV needs to check WP:CITE or WP:REF to learn about footnotes. We don't use Short Title catalogue numbers for cites here at Wiki.Smatprt 13:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Smatprt writes: >>The Brittanica source is only for the sentence in which the cite appears - re: oxford being the strongest candidate proposed...". The Oxford's Boys and Oxford's Men info is uncited as it is not contentious.<<
  • My mistake in saying Britannica was being cited for "Oxford Boys"; however, contrary to Smatprt’s assertion, Smatprt is citing Britanica for Munday having been employed as Oxford's secretary for many years, which is not included in the Britannica source (only Lyly is mentioned in that regard). Hence, the only legitimate source Britannica is being cited for is that Oxford is the strongest candidate proposed (next to William Shakespeare himself) for the authorship of Shakespeare's plays. This is common knowledge, even for those who do not agree, and sourcing the Encyclopædia Britannica is hardly necessary.
• Smatprt tells me I need to check WP:CITE or WP:REF to learn about footnotes, informing me that “We don't use Short Title catalogue numbers for cites here at Wiki.” I checked these links and the only thing I can find about “short title” has nothing to do with Short Title Catalogue reference numbers. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Smatprt does not appear to know what an STC number is.
• Regarding the inclusion of sample poetry in the article itself when there are two links in the article to two different websites that will take readers to Oxford’s entire attributed poetic oeuvre, Smatpart writes “Saying you can click on a link is again, no real argument.” I disagree; it clutters up the article unnecessarily, when the poetry is only a click away after references in the article to Oxford’s poetry. Other long citations in the article are included only when they are not available elsewhere on the Internet. VNV 16:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

• • Thanks to [[User:Vero-Nihil-Verius] for the Munday reminder. That can be easily sourced.
  • Oxford's status may be common knowledge to Shakespeare authorship buffs, but to the general public? I think not. (This is an encylopedia for the public, yes?) Also, if VNV would read the talk pages more thoroughly, he would see that the citing Oxford's status as frontrunner has been requested before, as well as a number of other cites that have been requested by numerous users.
  • There are three ways to cite articles and they are at WP:CITE. The rest of your argument makes little sense in the context I raised. And while I do know what the English Short Title Catalogue is, the point that VNV does not seem to grasp is that we don't refer to STC numbers here at Wiki.
  • I have a hard time seeing 2 short poems as "Clutter". Please peruse the numerous play pages themselves for numerous examples of play excerpts, poems, sonnets, etc. All of these are available in full online. VNV's argument is baseless.
  • Mass deletions of material still constitutes vandalism. At this stage, while VNV makes the occasional valid point on 2 or 3 items, he then makes dozens of deletions that are completely unrelated to the issues being raised.Smatprt 18:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Smatprt “easily” sourced Munday/Lyly having worked for Oxford by sending readers to Mark Alexander’s website where they have to open and then wade through 133 PowerPoint slides to find the references; it won’t do. (Smatprt should try sourcing biographers Celeste Turner for Munday, Warwick Bond for Lyly, or even the DNB if Smatprt really feels the claim that Munday and Lyly worked for Oxford needs a reference.) And one need not be a “Shakespeare buff” to know of Oxford’s status as a candidate for the works of Shakespeare; this is common knowledge unless one has had one’s head buried in the sand. Better double check those Ogburn pp. references with regard to Metamorphoses speculation. Smatprt refers me once again to WP:CITE, but still apparently does not know what a Short Title Catalogue number is. I don’t know what Smatprt’s point is by writing that the “play excerpts, poems, sonnets, etc.” are available in full online. I never said they weren’t. I said that long citations in THIS article are included only when they are not available elsewhere online; these are all relatively obscure sources, and do not include any of the foregoing “play excerpts, poems, sonnets, etc.”, hence the STC citations. VNV 05:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

It is clear that [[User:Vero-Nihil-Verius] is now blatantly violating the vandalism rules of Wiki. He is purposely missintrepreting facts, distorting arguments and pretending not to understand. I will simply revert his continued vandalism and reprt him accordingly.Smatprt 06:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• I beg to differ. Smatprt is the one who is purposely missintrepreting facts, distorting arguments and pretending not to understand. Actually, in the latter point, I don't think Smatprt is "pretending not to understand", but truly does not comprehend.VNV

[edit] Notability concerns

This subject appears to derive notability solely from a bizarre and bigoted conspiracy theory. He is otherwise nothing but a long-dead and historically minor example of the British nobility, having accomplished nothing of note before dying ashamed and obscure. I am aware that the conspiracy theory itself is notable, but Mr. de Vere is not, unless murdering one's servants and committing an endless series of statutory rapes are sufficient to meet the criteria of notability. Unless his notability as an individual human being - separate from any popular conspiracy theory - is more conclusively established, I will likely nominate this article for deletion within the next few months. I'm sure my efforts will be frustrated by the clique that surrounds this sorry and worthless criminal, but I'll give it a shot anyway. I'm sure the Oxfordian cult will make his AfD every bit the travesty that his murder trial was, but with several tries we may eventually establish a consensus for removal. Mr. IP (talk) 06:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Addition of "murderer" to intro

As I said above, I do not feel that Mr. de Vere is independently notable beyond the conspiracy theory which surrounds him, and I believe that his article should be merged into that one. However, if he is notable, perhaps the most salient and well-recorded detail of his life is the murder which he committed as a young man. Honestly, it's one of the few things that the average man on the street may known of de Vere, and it is certainly a more prominent part of his legacy than his meager and fickle involvement in the arts. He was never brought to justice in his own age, as he was able to escape it through his high social status - portraying the murdered man as a "suicide" who must thus be denied a Christian burial - but there is no reason to cater to 16th-century social order on Wikipedia. To include in the introduction a lengthy list of de Vere's various social roles, but not to mention that he was a prominent murderer long before he ventured into other fields, is not only to deny history, but to deny justice once again to his victim, whom he not only slew but defamed. On the other hand, if we are going to hold strictly to the original verdict of his trial and refrain from calling his crime what it was, we should probably also rewrite the pertinent section of the article so that the victim will be re-described a "suicide", just as the trial declared. De Vere either is a murderer or he isn't. Either way, the most genuinely notable act of his life must be mentioned in the lead paragraph. Mr. IP (talk) 06:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Well, here's my 2p worth, on both threads. Firstly, while a lot of our man's notoriety derives from his connection to a not-very-plausible conspiracy theory about the authorship of Shakespeare's works, he is nevertheless a much-written-about person from an era when anyone with a noble title, court connections, or a substantial mention in the historical record is notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. I really don't think a deletion argument is a runner: I'd certainly oppose it, and my lack-of-sympathy with the authorship doubters here at Wikiepdia is quite well known. (Note that sixteen of the twenty earls of Oxford from 1142 to 1703 have articles.) Turning to the killing, well, yes, I abosultely agree it should be in the lead and that it is more significant to modern readers than many points already there. I think you are being far too simplistic in saying that he either is a murderer or he isn't, though. He was responsible for a killing which most modern people would regard as a murder, but the matter was investigated and he got away with it. That is both being a murderer and not being a murderer. The attempt to see it in black-and-white is futile. NOPV surely requires reporting the known facts dispassionately, and perhaps reporting the assessment of those facts made by some of the modern relaible sources. But NPOV means we must not engaging in a retrial here at the talk page, and simply label the killing as murder or not by voting or consensus. As I say, that's just my 2p-worth: I've never been much involved in the editing of this page, and I'm not intending to become too involved now. AndyJones (talk) 12:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Saying that the "murder" is the most notable act of his life is strictly your POV. In my opinion, however, it's sort of like saying the same thing about Hamlet...or Queen Elizabeth! Or saying the most notable thing about Oscar Wilde or Danny Kaye was that they were homosexuals (which carried quite the stiff penalty back in the day). Sounds kind of ridiculous to me. Unfortunately, we don't really know the circumstances do we? Was the servant a spy? Was he attempting to kill Oxford? Who the heck knows? The end result, however, we do know. He was not convicted. Period. Nor was he ever brought to trial on a slate of truped-upm charges brought by his enemies at court - treason being among them. Should they be in the lead to? I think not. Final thought - in the lead of the article on Shakespeare, would you also want to put that he was best known for suing his neighbors and hoarding grain during a famine? Probably not. Smatprt (talk) 14:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
    • My apologies, I retract these statements. I was drunk as s**t when I made the edits in question. I do think the balance of this article - and almost all others relating to Shakespearean authorship beyond the William Shakespeare article itself - lies too far toward the Oxfordian position, and, furthermore, that the article soft-pedals this man's crimes on the same unjust basis that English society once did, hewing too faithfully to a verdict that was plainly and openly a sham. However, I no longer feel that the Edward de Vere article should be stricken from the encyclopedia, nor that he should be described primarily as a "murderer" in the introduction. I continue to support much more moderate shifts in tone. Mr. IP (talk) 03:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
      • I would add, further, that Wikipedia does not portray the victims of Stalin's show trials as guilty, and in like manner should not portray the beneficiary of an Elizabethan show trial as innocent, or perhaps as anything other than a killer who got off scot-free. You could say that the passage of time and the obscurity of details should lend greater benefit of the doubt - or, more generally, that more credence must be given to one unjustly acquitted than one unjustly condemned - but I think that however you stand here, the article must do more to establish the context and nature of the trial, and to explain how heavily the odds were stacked for de Vere. Further, the killing deserves more coverage in the article generally. Certainly it was possible for an Elizabethan aristocrat to murder an innocent of a lower class and to see the incident earn no more than a footnote to his reputation, but this is a modern encyclopedia, and we tend to regard any murder committed by a celebrity as deserving significant space in a biographical article. Consider the article on Robert Blake - a man of far greater accomplishment than de Vere, if we are honest to history - about half of which is devoted to the killing of his wife and the resultant trial. De Vere's slaying of his servant should receive much greater weight in this article, and I will be happy to begin these changes myself. Still, I no longer support describing him as a murderer in the opening, which is ridiculous. The killing should be mentioned in the lead and covered more honestly and extensively, but to declare him a "murderer" would be absurdly prejudicial. Mr. IP (talk) 03:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
        • I see two problems here (aside from editing under the influence!). First, the reason that the articles here lie "too far toward the Oxfordian position" is simply because Oxford has been acknowledged by even his fiercest critics as the obvious front-running alternate candidate. He has support from academics, and the arguments made on behalf of his candidacy are often quite compelling. Until a stronger candidate emerges, the Oxfordian theory is going to get a lot of attention. Regarding the second thread - that of giving more weight to the killing of one of his servants - I have to wonder what "new" information can be added that will not be POV or OR. Describing the circumstance as a "show trial" or "a killer that got off scot free" is simply unverifiable. How are we to determine what actually happened. Why was the servant killed? What were the true circumstances? Can anyone ever really know? I just don't see how. I am also troubled by statements like the one about Robert Blake and his "accomplishments". Far greater than those of DeVere? It seems to me that this is another case of POV and personal opinion. Unless some new information is discovered from a reliable source, expanding that section or bringing it into the lead, might actually give undue weight to the event.Smatprt (talk) 05:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)