Talk:William Cecil, 1st Baron Burghley

message: I suggest that we confront the POV issue head-on and that someone create a separate "Historical Perspectives" section. It could include a summary or quotes from the EB article; it should incorporate the Cobbett take currently headed "Description" (inappropriate as Cobbett wasn't a contemporary).  (Though it's great writing, whether or not you agree with it!)  We should state explicitly that Cecil is someone whose actions and character are the subject of discussion and controversy. And that this is partly due to how people feel about the issues he was involved with (the Reformation, the succession, the nature and future of English forms of government, the nature and future of historical events in England). And that this highlights the importance of his place in English history--whether one thinks highly of him or not. John Guy's recent bio of Mary Queen of Scots certainly provides some fodder--Cecil as Mary's nemesis, and as a not entirely a true servant to Elizabeth.Myrmidon2000 (talk) 13:16, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: An interesting debate, thanks for sharing it. I don't have much to add except that I'm not sure Burghley's DNB entry would help very much.  The Britannica text quoted in the article was written by the Elizabethan historian Prof Albert F Pollard (1869-1948) and, as his Wikipedia entry reminds us, Pollard also wrote over 500 entries in DNB, so what's the betting Burghley's DNB entry is also largely by Pollard?! Daniel Longhurst 22:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Serious POV

message: But at Edward's royal command he signed it; he was the last of the councillors to do so. [1] - Is the author of this page sure he signed it? I believe he refused and compromise by holding his hand over the document as witness to the device. This is one of the acts which allowed him to stay relatively neutral during the transition from Jane Grey to Mary I (albeit he was obviously, at least on paper, a supporter of Northumberland's plans and thus a servant of Grey). Mary I thus accepted his loyalty.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.149.31.231 (talk) 08:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Edward's royal command

message: At this time, the entry contains the following sentence:
: "But service under Warwick (by now the Duke of Northumberland) carried some risk, and in his diary Cecil recorded his release in the phrase ex misero aulico factus liber et mei juris."
:: What does "ex misero aulico factus liber et mei juris" mean, or are only those who suffered through latin (a subject which was not available in my public school) supposed to get it?
::: the phrase means, roughly, "having been set free from the miserable court and my jurisdiction."--BenJonson (talk) 14:14, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks! Ileanadu (talk) 22:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Latin and other foreign languages in English wikipedia entries

message: Well it’s been over a year since these POV issues were raised and there still seems to be a fairly large amount of non referenced POV. If the POV is coming from reference-able sources then I think it would be best to add inline citations and to change the sentence structure to make it clear that these are the opinions of specific biographers. The way it is now unless someone comes to the talk page and reads this section they probably wouldn’t realize that this was not all just original research. It looks like a somewhat time consuming job so before I tackle it I want to make sure no one else is already putting in the effort (plus I don’t want to step on any toes).Colincbn (talk) 02:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Congratulations if you feel fit to tackle this terrible article! The main problem with it from the start, I believe, was that it was lifted entirely from the 1911 EB. In Burghley's case this was not a good decision, as it was an entirely uncritical eulogy, sprinkled with some distasteful attacks on other people. These were not difficult to remove, the problem is that the article still largely is a peacocky evaluation of his supposed character instead of including facts. So you see the bias of this article was/is inherent as it cosisted from the start out of a biased "account". A few points have in between been worked on, but it is still a mess (when I came across it the first time there were even two footnotes sections, one in the middle of the article). Buchraeumer (talk) 16:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes I can certainly see what you mean! I would definitely like to clean this up a bit. The first thing I will need to do is look for some other sources to cite as I try removing the POV. At the same time there are a lot of good facts in the current revision that I want to keep. I suppose I can simply cite the E.B. article for most of that. Well I'm off to scour the web for info...Colincbn (talk) 06:34, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  The conslusion of section "Private life" (To say that he was Machiavellian... principles might find some scope.) is unsuitable for WP, unless it can be attributed to some reputable sources. Are all policians Machiavellian? Did 16th century politicians prefer efficiency over princliple? How do we know what Burgley may have felt? While I do agree with these comments, I'm afraid that they may have to go, unless someone adds a citation. The Yeti 12:52, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Article still has POV Issues

message: Some sources seem to give Cecil's bith year as 1520, rather than 1521. Can anyone clarify? Many thanks, Whitenoiseuk (talk) 09:34, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: ODNB doesn't know: "born on 18 September 1520 or 1521". Probably should be changed. --Old Moonraker (talk) 10:00, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Variation in date of birth

message: Vague talk about 
an "underground" appears in the article. I will delete it if the underground is not specified.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.154.12.105 (talk) 12:12, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: See "In Parliament".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.154.12.105 (talk) 12:15, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It now has three references. This is possibly too many, but I see that IP editors are still disputing it. A quote (truncated here) cites "the treasonous practices of the Jesuit underground". --Old Moonraker (talk) 05:50, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vague 

message: An interesting source is "Philip II" by William Thomas Walsh.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dunsany1 (talk • contribs) 08:51, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source 

message: In the summary lead this page states two Prime Ministers were descended from his dynasty but only the Victorian 3rd Marquess of Salisbury is named in the section on family and descendants. Who was the other PM descendant? I am aware Arthur Balfour, Salisbury's immediate Downing Street successor, was a maternal blood nephew of Salisbury but did the writer of the article intend to include him among the two?Cloptonson (talk) 15:57, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I have spent some time going through articles on all other PMs apart from the 3rd Marquess of Salisbury, and cannot find one with a patrilineal or matrilineal ancestor going back to William Cecil (Burghley) apart from Arthur Balfour, whose mother was sister to the 3rd Marquess and therefore also descended from Burghley. So I think the two must have been meant to include Balfour.  Sbishop (talk) 08:38, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Who was the other Prime Minister descended from him?

message: The Nicholas White section has no citations. It seems like the article in general could use a bit more citations, but especially the Nicholas White section. Chillfroi (talk) 23:28, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for that feedback! Will do! Historianmummy (talk) 06:22, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  More citations 

message: Aside from being succeeded by him, what does Cecil and Smith's correspondence have to do with anything? Can someone expand upon that? Uh Kay Shuh (talk) 22:32, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cecil and Sir Thomas Smith