This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 30 days

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Arts and Entertainment / Peerage and Baronetage / Politics and Government This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Low-importance).

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on June 24, 2017.

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

Dr. Stritmatter

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bruh I posted a link to the diff clearly showing you are the originator of the objectionable phrase. You posted a link to the edited page. I think you're the one who needs to brush up on how to post WP article links. Tom Reedy (talk) 00:33, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks to all involved in creating and improving this article. However, there are more improvements needed.

The last paragraph in the sub section Foreign Travels is not about foreign travels. It's about the courtship and marriage of his sister Mary. Frankly, who cares? This has no relevance to the Foreign Travels topic.

It has vanishigly little relevance to his own summary biography and the editors volunteering may perhaps consider whether this increases or decreases value to the reader. It's only relevance to the Foreign Travels paragraph is that his future in-laws the Berties may, or may not, have attempted to help his estranged Cecil in-laws reunite their daughter his allegedly unfaithful wife (ie after he returned from Italy) to end her ongoing humiliation. In this regard a biographer might hypothesize that the Berties and the Cecils made common cause, and helped reunite the Earl of Oxford with the allies cuckoldress Countess of Oxford. However, it is not clear this information even if true belongs in a summary encyclopedia article (as opposed to a long format book or conspiracy theory blog podcast?) and it definitely doesn't belong in the WP article section called Foreign Travel.

Does it?

Re the graf beginning "In February 1577 it was rumoured..." 71.184.117.73 (talk) 14:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Beware a typo above, read "allies cuckoldress" to be "alleged..." 71.184.117.73 (talk) 14:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Partly done. I moved last two paragraphs from the Foreign travel section, concerning his estrangement from Anne & that of the courtship & marriage of his sister Mary, to the Quarrels, plots and scandals section. They do not belong in the former & seem better suited to the latter. I am leaving it to other editors as to the relevance of including the material. Peaceray (talk) 21:43, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]