This sounds like even further censorship by Wikipedia. Facts are facts. This article was tagged by Adam Gopnik in a February 14 article in the New Yorker as one of the two most contentious articles on Wikipedia and a constant battleground. [1] For Wikipedia to grant it Featured Article status when the edit history of the article establishes that the entire article was essentially written during the past few months by two editors, Tom Reedy and Nishidani, stridently vocal proponents of the orthodox view of the authorship controversy, while everyone of the opposite view was constantly reverted by them, actively discouraged by them from participating through endless equivocation on Talk pages, or outright banned from editing through their machinations in concocting spurious complaints, would be to violate everything Wikipedia allegedly stands for in terms of its principle of neutrality. It's bad enough that the article is now the playground only of those who champion the orthodox view of the authorship controversy, with everyone of the opposing view prevented from contributing to it and restoring it to neutrality. To grant it Feature Article status while those conditions obtain would indicate just how far Wikipedia has strayed from its alleged principle of neutrality. 72.234.212.189 ( talk) 17:46, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Comment: Xover argues for the nomination on the grounds that "Tom has put in a tremendous amount of effort [into the article] over the past year." This is like my students arguing that they deserve an A because they worked really hard.
Its clear that Tom has worked really hard: through his industriousness, along with impressive contributions by "Nishidani," Paul Barlow, and perhaps others, the article has been well scrubbed. It is now a shiny new used car with a broken engine. Anyone who believes that conformity to established doctrine is a higher value than critical thinking should vote in favor of the motion.
Others may wish to pause before doing so. The article has a long and tumultuous history which, contrary to Tom's implication, is highly relevant to the present nomination. Most recently, informed parties who would have been involved in the editing process and helped to provide a more objective content, not to mention less awkward prose, have been bullied into leaving by Mr. Reedy and "Nishidani." Tom's reference to "high degree of stability" is an illusion, if not a *de*lusion*. Within the next six months, at least four new books, all of them endorsing or supporting an Oxfordian authorship candidacy are set to appear, some by major publishers.
The current bibliography of the article contains only a single reference the (multiple) works of Sir George Greenwood and fails to note that the arguments of J.M. Robertson, are from a historical perspective frequently unimpressive beside Greenwood's powerful cross-examination, as any number of more contemporary literary historians, such as Hope and Holston From the perspective of intellectual history this is nothing short of pathetic.
If we examine the article from a more contemporary point of view, the same prejudicial deficiencies are glaring: Mark Anderson's "Shakespeare by Another Name," arguably the most important book (along with Saint Shapiro) on the subject written in the last six years, is not only scrubbed from the reference section but is not mentioned in the entire article! There is no reference to the establishment of Brief Chronicles or The Oxfordian, both peer reviewed journals of authorship studies. There is no reference to the contemporary dynamic circumstances of the Shakespearean industry, as exemplified, for example, by William Leahy's new Shakespeare and His Authors: Critical Perspectives on the Authorship Question.
It should also be noted, for the record, that the nominator has a conflict of interest. Having been party to the negativism, lack of good faith, and etc. which has brought the article to its present uncomprehensive, pedestrian and prejudicial state, when the *application* of good faith might have produced more impressive results, he now wants his handiwork to be treated as a model of Wikipedia process.
In short, the article has suffered markedly from the single-minded prejudices of the recent crew of editors, and I would have concur with contributor 72.234.212.189, regardless of the circumstances of his or her situation, that the article hardly qualifies for nomination to this category let alone "election." Thank you for your thoughtful perusal of these comments.-- BenJonson ( talk) 17:33, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
I sure hope so because I find them juvenile. Regarding the statement that the journal has been rejected as a [WP:RS]] I will confess that not being a Wikipedia junky I was not aware of those discussions. Nevertheless, it does interest me a great deal that you would ignore the substance of my comments above regarding the standing the journal is achieving within the scholarly community of which it is part and go on insisting that just because a group of Wikipedia editors who are for the most part wholly uninformed of the content of the journal, and have never made any credible criticism of its content, that that is some sort of credit to Wikipedia. Its merely an indication of how incompetent Wikipedia often is at adjudicating complicated questions and how easily epithets replace real discussion on controversial topics. Your response is no more credible than your initial opinion, on which you have not yet commented, that it would be a good idea to approve this as a featured page because Tom put so much work into it. I can hear the violins playing in the background. -- BenJonson ( talk) 03:44, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
REQUEST: I would like to request that commenters refrain from talking about Nishidani and Tom Reedy or any other user and focus only on the article itself. I find such personal talk unprofessional, unhelpful, and annoying in this space. All of the stuff about Tom and Nishidani and the rest was settled in the Arbcom case. Everyone had their "day in court." Now it is time to talk about actual content. If you want to talk about editors, rather than content, there are other places for that. Wrad ( talk) 18:11, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Editors are relevant. Tom Reedy brought them up: 'an intensive editing process by many excellent editors'. This is manifestly not the truth. The edit history of the article shows that it is the product of two editors, Tom Reedy and Nishidani, both indefatigable proponents of the orthodox view. Their view is that anything which opposes the orthodox view is the pushing of a non-neutral point of view, which is manifestly ridiculous in an article which is purportedly about the authorship controversy. The reality is that the article as it now stands does nothing but disparage the non-orthodox view. It does not present any of the essential arguments which make the non-orthodox view compelling, and which gave rise to the authorship controversy in the first place and which have kept it an ongoing topic of interest for decades. 72.234.212.189 ( talk) 18:46, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Cardinal to the claim that this Wikipedia Article warrants featured article status is the assertion that the Shakespeare Authorship Question constitutes a 'fringe belief'. This by itself suffices to disqualify the claim on the grounds of non-neutrality. If someone were to claim that Shelley had written Lord Byron's works, that would certainly constitute a 'fringe belief'. But it is clear that the two situations are not the same, because the questions about the Shakespeare Authorship not only show no sign of diminishing after at least 150 years, but are increasing in scope and influence year by year. When a major best-selling orthodox Stratfordian author like James Shapiro sets aside four years of his life to write a novel type of 'refutation' of anti-Stratfordian theory ('Contested Will'), and when more of the masters of evidence of the US Supreme Court lean towards authorship scepticism, than towards orthodoxy, along with innumerable other signs, then this is blatantly no longer a 'fringe belief', but rather a 'minority belief'. It is indeed a kind of bunker mentality, supported by circular definitions of legitimate scholarship, that denies this obvious and ever more overwhelming flood of data. Featured Article status must therefore be opposed on the grounds of the article's clear non-neutrality. Sucamilc ( talk) 22:24, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
'Be open and welcoming.' (Wikipedia guidelines.) Thank you, Xover. Sucamilc ( talk) 22:51, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Rm from main page by Bishonen: Thank you for confirming that on this subject Wikipedia has wholly abandoned its ethical responsibility to allow all sides of a discussion to be heard. The only saving grace of course is that the entire transcript is archived. I suppose to be consistent you should probably delete this comment also. Best regards,-- BenJonson ( talk) 01:59, 2 March 2011 (UTC), MA, PhD, Associate Professor.
Continued below. Not relevant to reviewing the article. Please post that type of discussion here in the first place!
@Bishonen: Thank you for the clarification. I suppose I mistook the astounding remark "I've just moved volumes of nonsense to the talk page I will consider administrative actions for disruption applied to involved individuals" at face value as being the sort of thing a responsible administrator writes in a "community" that is seeking the truth. "volumes of nonsense?" "consider administrative actions for disruption applied to involved individuals?" Really now, LaserBrain, was it necessary to categorize the material you removed in such a prejudicial mannner and to issue these threats against people who are merely standing up for common decency? Apparently so. And that's a damn pity. I apologize for misunderstanding, but this kind of high-handed admining does nobody any good and gives Wikipedia a bad name. If you need to move something, why not just say "I moved XYZ" instead of writing your own prejudice all over the page that remains so that anyone turning to the now moved material will already know what he or she is supposed to think about it? Bishonen -- you're a hero for the neutrality of your correction. Please consider applying your own comments about disruption when you review the history of the editing of the page in question. 95% of the disruption has come from the parties now controlling the editing. Thanks.-- BenJonson ( talk) 03:22, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
My moderate argument about the absence of the criterion of 'neutrality' was also included in the designation of 'nonsense', something which would seem to confirm the point made. In the case of Shakespeare, Doctor Johnson gave as the criterion of an established author that "He has long outlived his century, the term commonly fixed as the test of literary merit." (Johnson, 'Preface to Shakespeare') By the same criterion, the Shakespeare Authorship Question has long outlived its century, and shows no sign of diminishing, as I pointed out. This is directly relevant to the question of 'neutrality', in relation to the claim of 'fringe beliefs', one of the issues on which comment was INVITED, yet adminstrators immediately moved it, by a sort of conditioned reflex, to this talk page. The standards of logic employed on behalf of orthodoxy here are infantile. Any sensible and even-handed Stratfordian would squirm to observe - only thay cannot, because it has been moved to this backwater - the tactics employed on their behalf. Sucamilc ( talk) 19:27, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Naturally, if you ban, or remove from this page, all dissenting positions, you can achieve ‘stability’, and eliminate ‘edit wars’. But this is manifestly Orwellian strategy (in the sense of 1984). Of course, by the same token, by the mad logic of Wikipedia procedures, I do not doubt it will prevail. Yes, indeed, we love Big Brother. Sucamilc ( talk) 21:34, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
I've blocked Sucamilc as a disruptive SPA and obvious sock/meatpuppet. I second the request first placed on this nomination not to engage these types of accounts—it only encourages them when they realize they have an audience. -- Andy Walsh (talk) 22:40, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
{{edit semi-protected}}
Comment: I'm fully aware of all the work that has gone into this very comprehensive article, but I wonder if readers will wonder about its balance and neutrality when they check the footnotes and find that of the 232 footnotes 222 (96%) are for sources that support Shakespeare of Stratford and/or argue against an alternative candidate. And of almost a hundred references only eight are anti-Stratfordian, which appears to be the subject of this article. And only one of four external links is anti-Stratfordian. No one would expect a 50-50 split, but the emphasis seems so lopsided as to appear to betray a (hidden?) bias. Appearances do matter, especially if this is going to be a featured article. I'm not sure what we can do at this point, but I fear that the credibility of the editors and indeed of Wikipedia itself and how its policies and guidelines are applied in controversial articles may risk coming in for some significant criticism. Should we re-visit this article and its sources?
PametPuma (
talk) 14:29, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
PametPuma (
talk)
14:29, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Further reason for opposition: behavioral problems. A particularly contentious article is likely to suffer from problems of WP:AGF, WP:OWN, and WP:CIVILITY. The process followed by the SAQ article editors has been exemplary of this problem. It may not be possible to edit SAQ in line with Wiki ideology, but it would be a shame to flaunt such a conclusion by making this FA. Restored from Discussion. Jdkag ( talk) 21:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
"Good behavior/process (e.g., adherence to WP:AGF, WP:OWN, and WP:CIVILITY) is a fundamental WIKI requirement for all articles, one that is not met by the SAQ page. Given the assumptions of the current editors regarding editors of differing viewpoints and regarding how those differing viewpoints should be treated, it is not likely that the SAQ page will meet fundamental WIKI requirements in the near future." The effort to push this through is an ideological attempt of one party to the dispute to prevail in a power struggle that has nothing at all to do with an article that actually meets even a minimal standard of competency. I would merely add the prediction that should this nomination go through, it will in the future only harm Wikipedia, especially in view of the history of bullying behavior documented on the talk pages of the entry. Is that specific enough? Or do I need to start citing all the authorities who have been removed or misrepresented from the article in the attempt to bring it into ideological conformity with the assumptions of the editors who have recently pushed everyone else out of the way? -- 68.55.45.214 ( talk) 01:23, 18 March 2011 (UTC) Moved from main page. Nikkimaria ( talk) 22:49, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
There you go again, Paul. I cite facts; you label me. What is conspiratorial about noticing that certain facts correlate? We all know that correlation is not causality, but causality does require correlation. I hate to think of the state of human knowledge if we all applied your apparent belief that correlation should be ignored because it might lead to theories about causality about which we happen to disagree. That way lies totalitarianism. As you can tell, I am myself less interested in how Wikipedia defines "actionable" than in having a real conversation in which reason prevails over insults. So far, one party to the conversation isn't doing to well in that project. As has been stated repeatedly, I "wonder what that means"? Should I be banned for not jumping through your hoops? Others far more knowledgeable of, and interested in, Wikipedia policy have already stated in various wikipedially correct terms why the nomination for FA status of this article is wrong.-- 131.118.144.253 ( talk) 17:47, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
4) Bullying: When I attempted to repair a few of these grammatical faults (I teach grammar for a living), someone immediately reverted them without explanation and I was labelled a "vandal". Methinx ( talk) 02:01, 18 March 2011 (UTC) Moved from main page. Nikkimaria ( talk) 22:49, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
{{ edit semi-protected}} I don't understand why Hope & Holston's book The Shakespeare Controversy: An Analysis of the Authorship Theories, 2d ed. (2009) is not listed as a reference. It is the best source for the authorship question as it was written from a neutral point-of-view. And I don't understand why Shapiro's book is accepted as a reliable source. The book is not footnoted at all. Failure to properly document one’s work is a big no-no in the world of historical research. No one knows what "facts" in his book are derived from which source. Wikipedia may be misattributing "facts" with Shapiro's book when the "facts" should be attributed to their original source(s). Knitwitted ( talk) 12:40, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Why don't you give the link to the 2003 article so people can read for themselves what was reported? Wright never made any statement stronger than "probable". Excerpts from the two articles (emphasis mine):
Wright had seven years to research and publish, as he had said he planned to do. That he didn't is no one's fault but his, and nobody would expect Shapiro to sit on his original contribution that proved it was a forgery Tom Reedy ( talk) 15:38, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
I've interleaved responses to Jdkag's comments. Paul B ( talk) 16:51, 15 March 2011 (UTC): Actionable items:
Paul B ( talk) 16:41, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Response by jdkag: Editors with different viewpoints are welcome? First, I have no interest in this subject other than in providing information to Wiki readers. However, when I added one reference to one candidate citation on the SAQ list page, increasing the number of references from 33 to 34, I was immediately reverted, and I was accused in the ensuing discussion of bookspam, of trying a publicity stunt, of pushing POV, of edit warring (a false accusation, as I did not revert), of trying to reduce the level of Wikipedia by citing self-published work (also a false accusation), and in general of violating Wiki standards. Paul, you also accused me of not really wanting to improve the article; Nishidani stated near the beginning of the discussion that I would probably ignore whatever he said and try to edit the article anyway; Tom said I was wasting everyone's time. It's all here. Anyone who has studied the SAQ issue and found it plausible is automatically considered an unreliable source by the current tag team of editors, the result being that the article cannot accurately present the reasons for which the SAQ issue exists. Over the centuries, many educated people, fully capable of reviewing the evidence for Stratfordian authorship (as Nishidani calls them, "sundry lawyers and judges," though the list also includes university presidents, academics, scientists, and historians) have come to the conclusion that the evidence is wanting. The article portrays such people as being argumentative and self-serving and the general tone of the article is one of blunt disrespect for the issue. Editors who want to change the article, in order to treat the subject with more respect, are shown the same disrespect that I was shown. Jdkag ( talk) 19:11, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
More specifically I am referring to the following statement by Tom Reedy:
This is the last step of the long struggle (14 months, according to the same proponent in the opening paragraph of the proposition above) of a group of editors' concerted effort to first take control of the page, and then to rewrite it with the specific goal of creating a 'written-in-stone' (i.e., a stable, FA status article) document on Wikipedia. The goal was therefore, from the beginning, to be able to pre-empt any future attempts, after the release of the movie, to review and/or to revise the "official," accepted, mainstream version of the history and status of the SAQ/question.
Now this is obviously a very skillful and talented group of experienced and committed editors ('professional' editors, of the type that are online daily for many, many hours, actively editing for those many hours; as opposed to 'amateurs' such as myself, editors who edit mainly during the weekend and who are constantly struggling with the technology/wiki) that is supported by a considerable number of mainstream administrators inside Wikipedia, as one can readily see by reviewing the development of the recent ArbCom case on the controversy regarding the same page/subject/article here. They are all identified with one side of the SAQ controversy, the so-called "Statfordian" side.
This group of committed "Statfordian" editors have managed in the process to take control and complete ownership of the page; and they have also managed to completely muzzle and ban from it any opposition that remained within it to their ultimate goal spelled above. They managed to achieve these non-trivial goals through skillful and relentless litigation against their opponents (the "Anti-Stratfordians" or "Oxfordians," so to speak) within all the available instances of Wikipedia, culminating in the ultimate instance already mentioned (ArbCom), which finally endorsed all their initial goals and purposes.
This here is just the last hurdle on their path to achieving their ultimate goal on a rather timely fashion, considering the rather 'sensitive' deadline or target date spelled out above.
Now, leaving aside all these political and legal processes for the generation of social knowledge, and even leaving aside the specific merits or clear weaknesses and strong biases of the proposed article, my question to any independent and uncommitted editors still following this process now, as I have for the past 5 or 6 months, is rather simple:
Not in my view. (Disclosure - I am a skeptical in my basic philosphical and historical outlook; this is not my field of specialty and I don't have any a priori ideological committment in the core controversy. I don't know if Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare or if anybody else did it using his name as a pseudonym instead, for whatever reason. It is indeed, in my view, a very interesting historical mystery. I did not directly edit the page. I was involved in the talkpage discussions for a short while and I was nominated in the initial ArbCom request for arbitration as one of the 'outside' editors supporting the minority skeptical opposition views.) warshy talk 02:00, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
72.234.212.189 ( talk · contribs) | Six edits, five of them to this FAC. |
Methinx ( talk · contribs) | 14 edits since 2009, all of them apparently to "[add] information strengthening de Vere claim…". |
Jdkag ( talk · contribs) | 132 edits, all but 43 concerning the SAQ and its "POV" issues for reflecting the academic consensus. |
PametPuma ( talk · contribs) | Two edits, both to this FAC. |
Knitwitted ( talk · contribs) | 49 edits, not one of them an article edit, 20 of them to this FAC or FAC talkpage. |
Sucamilc ( talk · contribs) | Four edits, all of them to this FAC. Currently blocked as a disruptive SPA and obvious sock/meatpuppet. |
BenJonson ( talk · contribs) | A committed Oxfordian who appears to be working with Knitwitted to call in opposition voters. |
Ssteinburg ( talk · contribs) | Eight edits, all to this FAC and talkpage. |
This was semi-protected by CIreland on March 3 diff; the semi-protection was for 2 weeks and expired on March 17. Given the above chart, would it make sense to semi-protect again? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:53, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm responding here to the response to my post on the main discussion page (which seems now to be locked) which claims my suggestion would be a "clear violation" of Wikipedia policy. Pillar five of Wikipedia’s Five pillars states: “Wikipedia does not have firm rules. Rules on Wikipedia are not carved in stone” and that “the spirit of the rule trumps the letter of the rule”. It goes on to say, “be bold”. I’m suggesting we be bold enough to admit that, on this subject, “neutrality” (objective of the second pillar) is a virtual impossibility in a unified article. If we cannot achieve “neutrality” we can achieve the “spirit” with a solution that is fair with a two-part article divided between the two opposing points of view. A feature article controlled by Stratfordian partisans (as it is now) will violate the "spirit" of Wikipedia and create an even high level of animosity between the two sides. -- Ssteinburg ( talk) 07:39, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
First of all, I want to note I may have posted to the wrong heading here, but I trust that will be forgiven. I’m new here. Who is “we”? Are you in fact speaking on behalf of Wikipedia and are you going to be deciding who and what will be getting or not getting “equal time”? A “featured article”, according Wikipedia’s “Portal: Feature content”, states that “featured content” is the “best that Wikipedia has to offer”. I think Wikipedia is wonderful thing (problematic as it is), but the idea of “featured content” is something I find dangerously problematic, evidenced, if nothing else, by the ownership and partisanship displayed in the article in question, the accompanying discussion, and language such as “fringe” and the comparison of anti-Stratfordianism to “Creationism”. I don’t see how such blatant partisanship can be squared with Wikipedia’s second “pillar” of “neutrality”. Or, does neutrality not extend to “featured articles”? I wouldn’t want to be perceived as an advocate for Creationism, however, the comparison is useful if we consider what would likely ensue if a similar attempt were made to craft a “neutral” article on the subject of evolution versus creationism. It would be an exercise in futility. In my opinion, that is what we have here. This will end either in recognition of that or with Stratfordians being victorious. I fear it will be the latter. If that is “the best Wikipedia has to offer” where does that leave us with regard to controversial topics? Does Wikipedia want to set itself up as the arbiter of truth in every controversy? Obviously, it leaves us with Wikipedia violating its tenet of “neutrality”. So, I guess what I’m saying is that I’m not just objecting to this particular “featured article”, but to the concept of “featured articles” in general that deal with controversial subjects. Again, this can only be mitigated if the end product is, in fact, acceptable to both sides. You say, “a good case could be made that this his artixcle shoud treat the subject in a descriptive and cultural-historical sense entirely”. I’m inclined to agree with you, however, I think that, in that case, you’ve dispensed with any justification for a “featured article”. One final thought. Whether we are speaking of anti-Stratfordianism, Creationism, or whatever, what has been set in motion here is a bit like a court procedure where the defendant must depend on the prosecution to make his case. It a fundamentally absurd proposition. -- Ssteinburg ( talk) 19:33, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
I’m trying to understand, I really am, but frankly, your argument seems to me like special pleading for a “skewed”, vague ‘academic’ definition of “neutrality”. I find nothing in Wikipedia’s information pages that supports what you’re saying. Granted, Wikipedia’s stated mission goals are problematic. I sympathize and I expect the process to be imperfect. I would expect acknowledgment of the obvious however. The article as written is not “neutral”. Again, the only way that it could be so viewed is if both sides agree to what is written. That isn’t about to happen and, as you say, that isn’t the objective. In fact, one side is very angry about the current state of the article. However, that leaves me (again) with a big problem with your characterization of the state of article and the state of cooperation. If, as you say, “the idea that an article has to be acceptable to both sides of a controversial topic is very much mistaken”, that does pretty much leaves you as the arbiter of truth doesn’t it? In which case, the idea of cooperation is nothing but a pretense that serves the promotion of your point of view. As I’ve been saying (or trying to say), it is one thing for you to state your point of view and to claim that authority is on your side. It is quite another to claim that you’ve produced a “neutral” perspective on this subject and to give it special status and endoresement as a featured article. That is my objection. In view of the transparent partisanship we see here (on both sides), I encourage all involved to simply admit the obvious and stop pursuing the impossible. But again, I think one side smells victory, and I am not hopeful of an outcome that is consistent with Wikipedia’s goals or the pursuit of truth. -- Ssteinburg ( talk) 20:48, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
I’ve studied the policy. I see nothing but polemic in your responses, and, as close to victory as you appear to be, I would expect nothing else. I’ve stated my objections. Enough.-- Ssteinburg ( talk) 21:15, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. On the basis of the “Fringe theory” information, I withdraw my specific complaint regarding the use of the word “fringe” (though I do think the term is inappropriate and misleading in this case). However, my objection to Mr. Reedy’s mischaracterization of the “consensus” that has been reached on this article still stands, as does my concern that Stratfordians are attempting to use a featured article to endorse their point of view. The information you directed me to affirms (to me at least) that neutrality and consensus are central objectives/policies. The fact of the matter is that this article has become a battle ground. Contributors have been banned. Animosity and resentment are highly evident. If a modicum of “consensus” is not possible, the article should be tabled. It should definitely not be granted featured article status claiming a “consensus” that does not exist. -- Ssteinburg ( talk) 07:40, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I expect this will be my last post to the wondrously mysterious and ironic Wiki-world, an Orwellian dimension where “neutrality” is enforced by censorship, where allegedly open and collegial intellectual discussion is channeled by means of terminology such as “fringe” and “sockpuppets”, where dissenters are bombarded with bureaucratic double-speak. “Read the rules!” “Read the rules!” And then be whisked away! But, let me speak directly. Tom. I had been careful not to tamper with your precious “article” (yet). I hadn’t actually expected that expressing opinions about it would be punishable offense. I see I’ve made the mistake that many before me have made: I took Wikipedia’s “Five pillars” seriously. Silly me. Silly me for believing that “flexible rules” and invitations to be “bold” meant what they mean in the dictionary. Those who want to play this game will need “read the rules” and “read” YOUR dictionary. But then, we are talking about the Stratfordian Tradition aren’t we. And what’s happening here is so very consistent with the scholarship of that “tradition”. Publish your article Tom. Publish your article. (If this ends up posted twice, I apologize)--
Ssteinburg (
talk)
08:25, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't know if it would be useful to anyone else, but for my own convenience I have copied the FAC to my sandbox page and edited it into three sections: Comments, support, and oppose, and also numbered the latter two. Tom Reedy ( talk) 18:30, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
I saw the table in Tom Reedy's comment at #Warshy (moved from main page) which lists everyone whose good faith has been questioned regarding their participation in this FAC. I've left a notice about discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBSAQ for each person listed in that table (except the IP), with a message that is based on {{ uw-sanctions}}. If the editor listed in the table continues to make inappropriate comments after this notice, they are eligible for being reported at WP:Arbitration enforcement. In my opinion, if there is reason to move someone's comments out of the FAC because of behavioral issues, the following notice may be left on their talk page by any editor (not just an admin):
Proposed notice |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose, at their own discretion, sanctions on any editor working on pages broadly related to Shakespeare authorship question if the editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you engage in inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article ban. The committee's full decision can be read at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare authorship question#Final decision. |
-- EdJohnston ( talk) 17:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Ed, see my response here: User_talk:Jdkag#Defense_against_WP:Advocacy_Accusation. I think you have overreacted to Tom's accusations. Jdkag ( talk) 15:08, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
General comment about the progress on this FAC. Many of the Opposes entered are not actionable, although some actionable comments have not been addressed on this page. That some arguments have been visited and revisited in talk archives, or some comments have been reviewed on talk, doesn't resolve actionable concerns raised on this page. Because the FAC to this point includes mostly unactionable opposes, with some actionable commentary unresolved here (another reviewer expressed my concern that the lead is argumentative), it is likely that I will restart the FAC once Ealdgyth's comments are resolved to everyone's satisfaction, and authorize Nikkimaria to more aggressivly move unactionable opposes off the page, while asking nominators to address actionable issues here (not on article talk), if any remain. I am concerned that the Lead/Overview seem to be covering the same territory, and my one and only source check ("... a relatively small but highly visible and diverse assortment of supporters, including some prominent public figures, [1]) didn't seem to support the text, although I could have missed it. Please ping me once Ealdgyth is satisfied, and we'll see where things stand. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:51, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
General response to SandyGeorgia's general comment: Sandy, your proposal has some practical advantages, but seen from the angle of the creators of the article, it amounts IMO to rewarding Randy in Boise for disruption, and asking an unreasonable amount of doubled work from Tom Reedy, Paul Barlow, Nishidani, Johnuniq, etc—in short, from the mainstream Shakespeare scholars that Wikipedia is fortunate to have. (No telling how many we'll have after this FAC.) I wouldn't be surprised if Tom is about ready to throw in the towel at the prospect of starting over, and at the failure of the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare authorship question arb case and its discretionary sanctions to have the effect arbcom expected and desired. I'm far from sure that the FAC will actually "restart" even if it "is restarted": the nominators may withdraw it instead. The best specialists aren't necessarily the most patient ones. Bishonen | talk 04:03, 27 March 2011 (UTC).
Here are some suggestions for how to improve the article:
in historian John Stow's list of "Our moderne, and present excellent Poets", printed posthumously in Edmund Howes' edition of his Annales (1615), which reads: "M. Willi. Shake-speare gentleman".'
My witful pen hath run most dry of ink.
I leave with you my words on which to think.
Should you this mess find gainful means to sort,
I shall bestow upon you my support.
--
Cryptic C62 ·
Talk
18:33, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Near journey’s end, the three lay down to rest.
Just short of their far goal a greening hill
Rose sheer before them, and, beyond the crest,
The wood of Arden, and its guardian, Will.
A yearlong haul across a desert waste
Among marauding tribes and thinning game
Had left them all but listless as they faced
This final challenge to their earnest aim.
Out of the dusk, kind figures from the peak
Now shambled down to share their cryptic lore,
And gently told them how to thread the bleak
Thorn-riven upward path and, lastly, swore:
‘Woe on anyone straggling here who blinks
On meeting at Pisgah’s Pass, a Sandy Sphinx.'
--
Nishidani (
talk)
21:32, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks to the reviewers, who would not settle for low content, but (contrary to the fashion of these times, where none will sweat but for promotion), patiently worked to improve this article. I hope these rites have brought them and the authors true delights. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 23:05, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Sandy, just my impression: It seems that our procedure here has been to topic ban the expert editors who dispute the neutrality of the article (and have suggested other sources and explanations of the topic), rewrite it to the satisfaction of the remaining camp, and then take it to FAC. Even after this was done, you have some serious "opposes". I suggest that you get a waiver from arbcom (if necessary) to ask User:Smatprt to give a list of what he sees as the major neutrality/referencing problems on the article. You may ultimately reject his input (or he may not be willing to participate), but you should at least ask for it. Some of the proponents of the FAC dismiss any/all references to books and articles with which they disagree as fringe. If ever there was an article where the delegates ought to insist on comprehensiveness and the neutral representation of all serious viewpoints, this, meseems, is it. All the best. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 13:41, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
I am sure that you and Tom and probably everyone else are acting in good faith. But the main problem is that we have banned the other team and are now holding the big game. This does not seem like the best way to determine if the article is comprehensive, fair and balanced. All the best, -- Ssilvers ( talk) 14:16, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm not questioning the ban, I'm just saying that his comments are missing at the FAC. Obviously, if he comments, his comments should be concise and to the point, and if they have no merit, you can, of course, point that out. I don't mean to make any accusations, but on its face, it looks terrible to take this to FAC without his comments. I have no idea if he even would wish to comment. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 15:57, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm not saying to scrap anything, I'm just saying that we should get his comments on the article as it exists today before calling this an FA. I have not commented on the FAC, and I do not feel qualified to do so. But I don't see why anyone would "protest too much" getting comments from someone who was a major contributor to the article over a period of years. OK, I'm unwatching this discussion, as I have nothing further to add. Best regards, -- Ssilvers ( talk) 16:58, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
I can't imagine why Paul B. would call me disingenuous. Anderson's is a recent book directly on this topic, which received favorable reviews and is not mentioned in the article. This does not seem to comply with WP:AGF. I have no idea who Niederkorn is, I only know that the review appeared in the NY Times. All the best, -- Ssilvers ( talk) 00:49, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
One more time (in spite of my expressed intent to go silent here), we see that partisanship is not diminishing. As an Oxfordian, by way of example, I ask, is Scott McCrea’s work to be taken more seriously than Mark Anderson’s? Really? I have numerous specific concerns and objections about the article, but, noting the tenor of those who are exercising control over this article, and the banning that has taken place, why should I bother? Stratfordians clearly want to control the outcome, as do anti-Stratfordians, but the former appear to be in a position to do so. So, I have a new suggestion. Publish the article as is, along with all of the discussion and commentary. What could be more honest, factual, and informative than that? -- Ssteinburg ( talk) 07:54, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
As an Oxfordian, by way of example, I ask, is Scott McCrea’s work to be taken more seriously than Mark Anderson’s?
(In response to Nishidani) You have reminded us once again of the “rules” by which you play—McCrea meeting your standards as an ‘academic’ authority’, while Anderson falls short. We see that the quality and extent of scholarship in the two cases isn’t the question for you. Frankly, if I may be allowed a tiny fraction of the rank opinion, the “scholarship” with which McCrea seeks to slander all who disagree with his opinion, Mr. McCrea comes very close to setting the “low” for scholarship on this subject. But, please, continue to cite him. You reject Anderson and you accuse William Neiderkorn of “pushing his own sympathies”. That is, I think, a quite revealing criticism. You speak of Niederkorn’s “behavior”. His “behavior”? Do you people ever listen to yourselves? If Niederkorn had ‘pushed’ Stratfordian “sympathies” you would have had no objection. Obviously, for you, the demarcation between what is acceptable and unacceptable is really just a question of whose sympathies one is “pushing”. You accuse Niederkorn of “distorting evidence”. What evidence did he distort? Seriously! If you want to debate, bring on the evidence. And you say there were “protests” against Niederkorn by “leading Shakespearean scholars”. So??? Like that’s some kind of news or some kind of argument? But, since you brought it up, who were these “scholars” (I think we know the identity of two of them) and what are their academic credentials? The point is, you people have a very low tolerance for anyone who disagrees with you and you are altogether and almost all the time up tight and righteous. But, keep it up. As Xover says, it’s all on the permanent Wiki record. We hope. And one more time: you seriously think all of this is leading to an “article” reflective of “neutrality”? Do you actually believe that the term “neutrality” and this “article” can be joined together outside of an Orwellian universe? -- Ssteinburg ( talk) 13:46, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
You said, “I don't reject anything. It is policy which rejects these texts, and editors merely apply those policies.” Yes, you do “reject”. You are relying on a “policy” that, by your interpretation, favors your point of view, and you have become accustomed to getting away with this sort dissembling logic in this forum. I did not “ignore” your “main point” regarding McCrea. You count the man a “scholar” based on his credentials. I look at his work and say the man isn’t a scholar, and that Anderson is. Here we are separated by academic bling versus substance. You are the one who brought Niederkorn into the discussion so that you could again play the credentials gambit. Who are the, “scholars” who “have said, in letters to the NYTs . . .”? Who? You’re evading my question. Excuse me, but you have, “studiously erased, from the page” something posted on the page”. Erased? Xover said everything said is here is here forever? Who is right? And, when you speak of my “attempt to personalise what is a consensual understanding of policy restrictions”, is this English? Have I fallen down the rabbit hole? And you say my “attempt” is “ineffectual”. Well, I have little hope of it being effectual with you and your colleagues, but I see you expect your sweeping opinions to be accepted as somehow substantive. Have you conducted a survey of the effectiveness of my “attempts…”? You suggest I have not read McCrea's “study”. I’ve read it several times. I’m amazed every time I read it. I’m sure you are familiar with the follow quote from his book,
“What happens when the intelligentsia embrace a conspiracy theory? Doesn’t a kind of thinking become legitimized? Reasoning like that of the Authorship theorists [heretics] has led juries to believe in police conspiracies and thus to dismiss valid evidence and acquit murderers. Similar reasoning has led many Americans to believe that a government cover-up prevents anyone form learning the truth about UFOs or the assassination of John F. Kennedy; their distrust has fueled the militia movement and made the 1995 Oklahoma bombing seem almost inevitable. Today, Holocaust denial is ridiculous, but what about three hundred years from now, when the survivors are all dead and the original films of them are carefully preserved in vaults, the province only of scholars, as is the case with Shakespeare today?”
Well, we’ve heard similar words from Greenblatt haven’t we. So, why not from McCrea? Can you quote me something like this from Anderson? I’ll be happy to drop the “Orwellian cliché” when it ceases to be appropriate. I have Popper handy. I think he would say you are being too clever by a mile. You say, “This is not the place to rehearse grievances”. You mean, not a place for the other side to “rehearse grievances”. But this is, you say, a place, “to raise specific ideas and issues which might prove useful in improving the text”. Since you challenge me, I will accommodate you on that in a later post. But you continue with, “which is concerned with the scholarly refraction of a fringe idea, its history and content.” Which brings me to raise the issue again, that the term “fringe idea” is your way of stacking the deck and is not a logical description of anti-Stratfordianism which is, in fact, an alternative theory. Now, I realize I’m wasting my figurative breath, but there is nothing anti-historical or anti-scientific in doubting Shaksper’s authorship. Historically, that’s been doubted since at least 1597 (Marston) and 1598 (Hall). How about addressing that in your article? -- Ssteinburg ( talk) 18:31, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
I have moved the following paragraph from where it had been accidentally placed in #Comments from Cryptic C62. Johnuniq ( talk) 08:44, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I miss-posted this to the previous section, and I've added slightly here. Thanks, Paul, for the correction regarding Marston and Hall (haste makes waste). We wouldn’t need to read McCrea to know that Strats dispute the identity of Labeo, though they certainly haven’t explained it. “very obscure references”, “esoteric utterances”, probably not to Shakespeare? As opposed to the “clear” references to Shakespeare by Robert Greene and Henry Chettle? Certainly “clear” to McCrea. The relevance of the McCrea passage is that he makes sweeping generalization by which he presumes to sweep away everyone who disagrees with his point of view. That’s good scholarship to you? The point, regarding Anderson, is that he doesn’t employ that kind of scholarship. He probably doesn’t have the training for it. For once, Nishidani, we agree, "pointless". -- Ssteinburg ( talk) 20:11, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Following up to the comment by Paul B, ““Since you have read McCrea, you must know that the identity of this "Labeo" is disputed.””. Now that I’ve gone back and checked McCrea, he concludes with the very interesting comment (page 138) that, “Probably Hall had Samuel Daniel or Michael Drayton in mind [as opposed to Bacon]. I’m not sure that works, but the point is, McCrea’s final answer is that Labeo (author of V & A) was not Shakespeare. The implication being, clearly, that Shakespeare was not a real person. So, to be clear, McCrea ‘disputes’ the identification with Bacon, but he does not ‘dispute’ that Marston doubted “Shakespeare” was the true author. Thus, I repeat that, historically, doubt about Shakespeare’s authorship is traceable to Marston and Hall, and I suggest that, for historical clarity, this be reflected in the SAQ. Or, do you have a more substantial witness than McCrea on this topic?-- Ssteinburg ( talk) 21:09, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Could one of the nominators please add a summary here of editors Supporting, Opposing, and those Commenting without a declaration-- without characterizing those editors, please? I can read the characterizations already added above. Thanks :) I'm beginning to wade through-- will take some time, but will be easier if everything (permalinks, links to talk pages, unsigneds, etc are cleaned up). Where does Cryptic's review stand? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:04, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Should Nishidani be listed as a nominator? He's doing a lot of responding on the FAC, and is among the top editors. What about Xover? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 05:48, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Congratulations to the nominators and the reviewers for their persistence and diligence. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:52, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
This sounds like even further censorship by Wikipedia. Facts are facts. This article was tagged by Adam Gopnik in a February 14 article in the New Yorker as one of the two most contentious articles on Wikipedia and a constant battleground. [1] For Wikipedia to grant it Featured Article status when the edit history of the article establishes that the entire article was essentially written during the past few months by two editors, Tom Reedy and Nishidani, stridently vocal proponents of the orthodox view of the authorship controversy, while everyone of the opposite view was constantly reverted by them, actively discouraged by them from participating through endless equivocation on Talk pages, or outright banned from editing through their machinations in concocting spurious complaints, would be to violate everything Wikipedia allegedly stands for in terms of its principle of neutrality. It's bad enough that the article is now the playground only of those who champion the orthodox view of the authorship controversy, with everyone of the opposing view prevented from contributing to it and restoring it to neutrality. To grant it Feature Article status while those conditions obtain would indicate just how far Wikipedia has strayed from its alleged principle of neutrality. 72.234.212.189 ( talk) 17:46, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Comment: Xover argues for the nomination on the grounds that "Tom has put in a tremendous amount of effort [into the article] over the past year." This is like my students arguing that they deserve an A because they worked really hard.
Its clear that Tom has worked really hard: through his industriousness, along with impressive contributions by "Nishidani," Paul Barlow, and perhaps others, the article has been well scrubbed. It is now a shiny new used car with a broken engine. Anyone who believes that conformity to established doctrine is a higher value than critical thinking should vote in favor of the motion.
Others may wish to pause before doing so. The article has a long and tumultuous history which, contrary to Tom's implication, is highly relevant to the present nomination. Most recently, informed parties who would have been involved in the editing process and helped to provide a more objective content, not to mention less awkward prose, have been bullied into leaving by Mr. Reedy and "Nishidani." Tom's reference to "high degree of stability" is an illusion, if not a *de*lusion*. Within the next six months, at least four new books, all of them endorsing or supporting an Oxfordian authorship candidacy are set to appear, some by major publishers.
The current bibliography of the article contains only a single reference the (multiple) works of Sir George Greenwood and fails to note that the arguments of J.M. Robertson, are from a historical perspective frequently unimpressive beside Greenwood's powerful cross-examination, as any number of more contemporary literary historians, such as Hope and Holston From the perspective of intellectual history this is nothing short of pathetic.
If we examine the article from a more contemporary point of view, the same prejudicial deficiencies are glaring: Mark Anderson's "Shakespeare by Another Name," arguably the most important book (along with Saint Shapiro) on the subject written in the last six years, is not only scrubbed from the reference section but is not mentioned in the entire article! There is no reference to the establishment of Brief Chronicles or The Oxfordian, both peer reviewed journals of authorship studies. There is no reference to the contemporary dynamic circumstances of the Shakespearean industry, as exemplified, for example, by William Leahy's new Shakespeare and His Authors: Critical Perspectives on the Authorship Question.
It should also be noted, for the record, that the nominator has a conflict of interest. Having been party to the negativism, lack of good faith, and etc. which has brought the article to its present uncomprehensive, pedestrian and prejudicial state, when the *application* of good faith might have produced more impressive results, he now wants his handiwork to be treated as a model of Wikipedia process.
In short, the article has suffered markedly from the single-minded prejudices of the recent crew of editors, and I would have concur with contributor 72.234.212.189, regardless of the circumstances of his or her situation, that the article hardly qualifies for nomination to this category let alone "election." Thank you for your thoughtful perusal of these comments.-- BenJonson ( talk) 17:33, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
I sure hope so because I find them juvenile. Regarding the statement that the journal has been rejected as a [WP:RS]] I will confess that not being a Wikipedia junky I was not aware of those discussions. Nevertheless, it does interest me a great deal that you would ignore the substance of my comments above regarding the standing the journal is achieving within the scholarly community of which it is part and go on insisting that just because a group of Wikipedia editors who are for the most part wholly uninformed of the content of the journal, and have never made any credible criticism of its content, that that is some sort of credit to Wikipedia. Its merely an indication of how incompetent Wikipedia often is at adjudicating complicated questions and how easily epithets replace real discussion on controversial topics. Your response is no more credible than your initial opinion, on which you have not yet commented, that it would be a good idea to approve this as a featured page because Tom put so much work into it. I can hear the violins playing in the background. -- BenJonson ( talk) 03:44, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
REQUEST: I would like to request that commenters refrain from talking about Nishidani and Tom Reedy or any other user and focus only on the article itself. I find such personal talk unprofessional, unhelpful, and annoying in this space. All of the stuff about Tom and Nishidani and the rest was settled in the Arbcom case. Everyone had their "day in court." Now it is time to talk about actual content. If you want to talk about editors, rather than content, there are other places for that. Wrad ( talk) 18:11, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Editors are relevant. Tom Reedy brought them up: 'an intensive editing process by many excellent editors'. This is manifestly not the truth. The edit history of the article shows that it is the product of two editors, Tom Reedy and Nishidani, both indefatigable proponents of the orthodox view. Their view is that anything which opposes the orthodox view is the pushing of a non-neutral point of view, which is manifestly ridiculous in an article which is purportedly about the authorship controversy. The reality is that the article as it now stands does nothing but disparage the non-orthodox view. It does not present any of the essential arguments which make the non-orthodox view compelling, and which gave rise to the authorship controversy in the first place and which have kept it an ongoing topic of interest for decades. 72.234.212.189 ( talk) 18:46, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Cardinal to the claim that this Wikipedia Article warrants featured article status is the assertion that the Shakespeare Authorship Question constitutes a 'fringe belief'. This by itself suffices to disqualify the claim on the grounds of non-neutrality. If someone were to claim that Shelley had written Lord Byron's works, that would certainly constitute a 'fringe belief'. But it is clear that the two situations are not the same, because the questions about the Shakespeare Authorship not only show no sign of diminishing after at least 150 years, but are increasing in scope and influence year by year. When a major best-selling orthodox Stratfordian author like James Shapiro sets aside four years of his life to write a novel type of 'refutation' of anti-Stratfordian theory ('Contested Will'), and when more of the masters of evidence of the US Supreme Court lean towards authorship scepticism, than towards orthodoxy, along with innumerable other signs, then this is blatantly no longer a 'fringe belief', but rather a 'minority belief'. It is indeed a kind of bunker mentality, supported by circular definitions of legitimate scholarship, that denies this obvious and ever more overwhelming flood of data. Featured Article status must therefore be opposed on the grounds of the article's clear non-neutrality. Sucamilc ( talk) 22:24, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
'Be open and welcoming.' (Wikipedia guidelines.) Thank you, Xover. Sucamilc ( talk) 22:51, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Rm from main page by Bishonen: Thank you for confirming that on this subject Wikipedia has wholly abandoned its ethical responsibility to allow all sides of a discussion to be heard. The only saving grace of course is that the entire transcript is archived. I suppose to be consistent you should probably delete this comment also. Best regards,-- BenJonson ( talk) 01:59, 2 March 2011 (UTC), MA, PhD, Associate Professor.
Continued below. Not relevant to reviewing the article. Please post that type of discussion here in the first place!
@Bishonen: Thank you for the clarification. I suppose I mistook the astounding remark "I've just moved volumes of nonsense to the talk page I will consider administrative actions for disruption applied to involved individuals" at face value as being the sort of thing a responsible administrator writes in a "community" that is seeking the truth. "volumes of nonsense?" "consider administrative actions for disruption applied to involved individuals?" Really now, LaserBrain, was it necessary to categorize the material you removed in such a prejudicial mannner and to issue these threats against people who are merely standing up for common decency? Apparently so. And that's a damn pity. I apologize for misunderstanding, but this kind of high-handed admining does nobody any good and gives Wikipedia a bad name. If you need to move something, why not just say "I moved XYZ" instead of writing your own prejudice all over the page that remains so that anyone turning to the now moved material will already know what he or she is supposed to think about it? Bishonen -- you're a hero for the neutrality of your correction. Please consider applying your own comments about disruption when you review the history of the editing of the page in question. 95% of the disruption has come from the parties now controlling the editing. Thanks.-- BenJonson ( talk) 03:22, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
My moderate argument about the absence of the criterion of 'neutrality' was also included in the designation of 'nonsense', something which would seem to confirm the point made. In the case of Shakespeare, Doctor Johnson gave as the criterion of an established author that "He has long outlived his century, the term commonly fixed as the test of literary merit." (Johnson, 'Preface to Shakespeare') By the same criterion, the Shakespeare Authorship Question has long outlived its century, and shows no sign of diminishing, as I pointed out. This is directly relevant to the question of 'neutrality', in relation to the claim of 'fringe beliefs', one of the issues on which comment was INVITED, yet adminstrators immediately moved it, by a sort of conditioned reflex, to this talk page. The standards of logic employed on behalf of orthodoxy here are infantile. Any sensible and even-handed Stratfordian would squirm to observe - only thay cannot, because it has been moved to this backwater - the tactics employed on their behalf. Sucamilc ( talk) 19:27, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Naturally, if you ban, or remove from this page, all dissenting positions, you can achieve ‘stability’, and eliminate ‘edit wars’. But this is manifestly Orwellian strategy (in the sense of 1984). Of course, by the same token, by the mad logic of Wikipedia procedures, I do not doubt it will prevail. Yes, indeed, we love Big Brother. Sucamilc ( talk) 21:34, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
I've blocked Sucamilc as a disruptive SPA and obvious sock/meatpuppet. I second the request first placed on this nomination not to engage these types of accounts—it only encourages them when they realize they have an audience. -- Andy Walsh (talk) 22:40, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
{{edit semi-protected}}
Comment: I'm fully aware of all the work that has gone into this very comprehensive article, but I wonder if readers will wonder about its balance and neutrality when they check the footnotes and find that of the 232 footnotes 222 (96%) are for sources that support Shakespeare of Stratford and/or argue against an alternative candidate. And of almost a hundred references only eight are anti-Stratfordian, which appears to be the subject of this article. And only one of four external links is anti-Stratfordian. No one would expect a 50-50 split, but the emphasis seems so lopsided as to appear to betray a (hidden?) bias. Appearances do matter, especially if this is going to be a featured article. I'm not sure what we can do at this point, but I fear that the credibility of the editors and indeed of Wikipedia itself and how its policies and guidelines are applied in controversial articles may risk coming in for some significant criticism. Should we re-visit this article and its sources?
PametPuma (
talk) 14:29, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
PametPuma (
talk)
14:29, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Further reason for opposition: behavioral problems. A particularly contentious article is likely to suffer from problems of WP:AGF, WP:OWN, and WP:CIVILITY. The process followed by the SAQ article editors has been exemplary of this problem. It may not be possible to edit SAQ in line with Wiki ideology, but it would be a shame to flaunt such a conclusion by making this FA. Restored from Discussion. Jdkag ( talk) 21:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
"Good behavior/process (e.g., adherence to WP:AGF, WP:OWN, and WP:CIVILITY) is a fundamental WIKI requirement for all articles, one that is not met by the SAQ page. Given the assumptions of the current editors regarding editors of differing viewpoints and regarding how those differing viewpoints should be treated, it is not likely that the SAQ page will meet fundamental WIKI requirements in the near future." The effort to push this through is an ideological attempt of one party to the dispute to prevail in a power struggle that has nothing at all to do with an article that actually meets even a minimal standard of competency. I would merely add the prediction that should this nomination go through, it will in the future only harm Wikipedia, especially in view of the history of bullying behavior documented on the talk pages of the entry. Is that specific enough? Or do I need to start citing all the authorities who have been removed or misrepresented from the article in the attempt to bring it into ideological conformity with the assumptions of the editors who have recently pushed everyone else out of the way? -- 68.55.45.214 ( talk) 01:23, 18 March 2011 (UTC) Moved from main page. Nikkimaria ( talk) 22:49, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
There you go again, Paul. I cite facts; you label me. What is conspiratorial about noticing that certain facts correlate? We all know that correlation is not causality, but causality does require correlation. I hate to think of the state of human knowledge if we all applied your apparent belief that correlation should be ignored because it might lead to theories about causality about which we happen to disagree. That way lies totalitarianism. As you can tell, I am myself less interested in how Wikipedia defines "actionable" than in having a real conversation in which reason prevails over insults. So far, one party to the conversation isn't doing to well in that project. As has been stated repeatedly, I "wonder what that means"? Should I be banned for not jumping through your hoops? Others far more knowledgeable of, and interested in, Wikipedia policy have already stated in various wikipedially correct terms why the nomination for FA status of this article is wrong.-- 131.118.144.253 ( talk) 17:47, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
4) Bullying: When I attempted to repair a few of these grammatical faults (I teach grammar for a living), someone immediately reverted them without explanation and I was labelled a "vandal". Methinx ( talk) 02:01, 18 March 2011 (UTC) Moved from main page. Nikkimaria ( talk) 22:49, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
{{ edit semi-protected}} I don't understand why Hope & Holston's book The Shakespeare Controversy: An Analysis of the Authorship Theories, 2d ed. (2009) is not listed as a reference. It is the best source for the authorship question as it was written from a neutral point-of-view. And I don't understand why Shapiro's book is accepted as a reliable source. The book is not footnoted at all. Failure to properly document one’s work is a big no-no in the world of historical research. No one knows what "facts" in his book are derived from which source. Wikipedia may be misattributing "facts" with Shapiro's book when the "facts" should be attributed to their original source(s). Knitwitted ( talk) 12:40, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Why don't you give the link to the 2003 article so people can read for themselves what was reported? Wright never made any statement stronger than "probable". Excerpts from the two articles (emphasis mine):
Wright had seven years to research and publish, as he had said he planned to do. That he didn't is no one's fault but his, and nobody would expect Shapiro to sit on his original contribution that proved it was a forgery Tom Reedy ( talk) 15:38, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
I've interleaved responses to Jdkag's comments. Paul B ( talk) 16:51, 15 March 2011 (UTC): Actionable items:
Paul B ( talk) 16:41, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Response by jdkag: Editors with different viewpoints are welcome? First, I have no interest in this subject other than in providing information to Wiki readers. However, when I added one reference to one candidate citation on the SAQ list page, increasing the number of references from 33 to 34, I was immediately reverted, and I was accused in the ensuing discussion of bookspam, of trying a publicity stunt, of pushing POV, of edit warring (a false accusation, as I did not revert), of trying to reduce the level of Wikipedia by citing self-published work (also a false accusation), and in general of violating Wiki standards. Paul, you also accused me of not really wanting to improve the article; Nishidani stated near the beginning of the discussion that I would probably ignore whatever he said and try to edit the article anyway; Tom said I was wasting everyone's time. It's all here. Anyone who has studied the SAQ issue and found it plausible is automatically considered an unreliable source by the current tag team of editors, the result being that the article cannot accurately present the reasons for which the SAQ issue exists. Over the centuries, many educated people, fully capable of reviewing the evidence for Stratfordian authorship (as Nishidani calls them, "sundry lawyers and judges," though the list also includes university presidents, academics, scientists, and historians) have come to the conclusion that the evidence is wanting. The article portrays such people as being argumentative and self-serving and the general tone of the article is one of blunt disrespect for the issue. Editors who want to change the article, in order to treat the subject with more respect, are shown the same disrespect that I was shown. Jdkag ( talk) 19:11, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
More specifically I am referring to the following statement by Tom Reedy:
This is the last step of the long struggle (14 months, according to the same proponent in the opening paragraph of the proposition above) of a group of editors' concerted effort to first take control of the page, and then to rewrite it with the specific goal of creating a 'written-in-stone' (i.e., a stable, FA status article) document on Wikipedia. The goal was therefore, from the beginning, to be able to pre-empt any future attempts, after the release of the movie, to review and/or to revise the "official," accepted, mainstream version of the history and status of the SAQ/question.
Now this is obviously a very skillful and talented group of experienced and committed editors ('professional' editors, of the type that are online daily for many, many hours, actively editing for those many hours; as opposed to 'amateurs' such as myself, editors who edit mainly during the weekend and who are constantly struggling with the technology/wiki) that is supported by a considerable number of mainstream administrators inside Wikipedia, as one can readily see by reviewing the development of the recent ArbCom case on the controversy regarding the same page/subject/article here. They are all identified with one side of the SAQ controversy, the so-called "Statfordian" side.
This group of committed "Statfordian" editors have managed in the process to take control and complete ownership of the page; and they have also managed to completely muzzle and ban from it any opposition that remained within it to their ultimate goal spelled above. They managed to achieve these non-trivial goals through skillful and relentless litigation against their opponents (the "Anti-Stratfordians" or "Oxfordians," so to speak) within all the available instances of Wikipedia, culminating in the ultimate instance already mentioned (ArbCom), which finally endorsed all their initial goals and purposes.
This here is just the last hurdle on their path to achieving their ultimate goal on a rather timely fashion, considering the rather 'sensitive' deadline or target date spelled out above.
Now, leaving aside all these political and legal processes for the generation of social knowledge, and even leaving aside the specific merits or clear weaknesses and strong biases of the proposed article, my question to any independent and uncommitted editors still following this process now, as I have for the past 5 or 6 months, is rather simple:
Not in my view. (Disclosure - I am a skeptical in my basic philosphical and historical outlook; this is not my field of specialty and I don't have any a priori ideological committment in the core controversy. I don't know if Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare or if anybody else did it using his name as a pseudonym instead, for whatever reason. It is indeed, in my view, a very interesting historical mystery. I did not directly edit the page. I was involved in the talkpage discussions for a short while and I was nominated in the initial ArbCom request for arbitration as one of the 'outside' editors supporting the minority skeptical opposition views.) warshy talk 02:00, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
72.234.212.189 ( talk · contribs) | Six edits, five of them to this FAC. |
Methinx ( talk · contribs) | 14 edits since 2009, all of them apparently to "[add] information strengthening de Vere claim…". |
Jdkag ( talk · contribs) | 132 edits, all but 43 concerning the SAQ and its "POV" issues for reflecting the academic consensus. |
PametPuma ( talk · contribs) | Two edits, both to this FAC. |
Knitwitted ( talk · contribs) | 49 edits, not one of them an article edit, 20 of them to this FAC or FAC talkpage. |
Sucamilc ( talk · contribs) | Four edits, all of them to this FAC. Currently blocked as a disruptive SPA and obvious sock/meatpuppet. |
BenJonson ( talk · contribs) | A committed Oxfordian who appears to be working with Knitwitted to call in opposition voters. |
Ssteinburg ( talk · contribs) | Eight edits, all to this FAC and talkpage. |
This was semi-protected by CIreland on March 3 diff; the semi-protection was for 2 weeks and expired on March 17. Given the above chart, would it make sense to semi-protect again? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:53, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm responding here to the response to my post on the main discussion page (which seems now to be locked) which claims my suggestion would be a "clear violation" of Wikipedia policy. Pillar five of Wikipedia’s Five pillars states: “Wikipedia does not have firm rules. Rules on Wikipedia are not carved in stone” and that “the spirit of the rule trumps the letter of the rule”. It goes on to say, “be bold”. I’m suggesting we be bold enough to admit that, on this subject, “neutrality” (objective of the second pillar) is a virtual impossibility in a unified article. If we cannot achieve “neutrality” we can achieve the “spirit” with a solution that is fair with a two-part article divided between the two opposing points of view. A feature article controlled by Stratfordian partisans (as it is now) will violate the "spirit" of Wikipedia and create an even high level of animosity between the two sides. -- Ssteinburg ( talk) 07:39, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
First of all, I want to note I may have posted to the wrong heading here, but I trust that will be forgiven. I’m new here. Who is “we”? Are you in fact speaking on behalf of Wikipedia and are you going to be deciding who and what will be getting or not getting “equal time”? A “featured article”, according Wikipedia’s “Portal: Feature content”, states that “featured content” is the “best that Wikipedia has to offer”. I think Wikipedia is wonderful thing (problematic as it is), but the idea of “featured content” is something I find dangerously problematic, evidenced, if nothing else, by the ownership and partisanship displayed in the article in question, the accompanying discussion, and language such as “fringe” and the comparison of anti-Stratfordianism to “Creationism”. I don’t see how such blatant partisanship can be squared with Wikipedia’s second “pillar” of “neutrality”. Or, does neutrality not extend to “featured articles”? I wouldn’t want to be perceived as an advocate for Creationism, however, the comparison is useful if we consider what would likely ensue if a similar attempt were made to craft a “neutral” article on the subject of evolution versus creationism. It would be an exercise in futility. In my opinion, that is what we have here. This will end either in recognition of that or with Stratfordians being victorious. I fear it will be the latter. If that is “the best Wikipedia has to offer” where does that leave us with regard to controversial topics? Does Wikipedia want to set itself up as the arbiter of truth in every controversy? Obviously, it leaves us with Wikipedia violating its tenet of “neutrality”. So, I guess what I’m saying is that I’m not just objecting to this particular “featured article”, but to the concept of “featured articles” in general that deal with controversial subjects. Again, this can only be mitigated if the end product is, in fact, acceptable to both sides. You say, “a good case could be made that this his artixcle shoud treat the subject in a descriptive and cultural-historical sense entirely”. I’m inclined to agree with you, however, I think that, in that case, you’ve dispensed with any justification for a “featured article”. One final thought. Whether we are speaking of anti-Stratfordianism, Creationism, or whatever, what has been set in motion here is a bit like a court procedure where the defendant must depend on the prosecution to make his case. It a fundamentally absurd proposition. -- Ssteinburg ( talk) 19:33, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
I’m trying to understand, I really am, but frankly, your argument seems to me like special pleading for a “skewed”, vague ‘academic’ definition of “neutrality”. I find nothing in Wikipedia’s information pages that supports what you’re saying. Granted, Wikipedia’s stated mission goals are problematic. I sympathize and I expect the process to be imperfect. I would expect acknowledgment of the obvious however. The article as written is not “neutral”. Again, the only way that it could be so viewed is if both sides agree to what is written. That isn’t about to happen and, as you say, that isn’t the objective. In fact, one side is very angry about the current state of the article. However, that leaves me (again) with a big problem with your characterization of the state of article and the state of cooperation. If, as you say, “the idea that an article has to be acceptable to both sides of a controversial topic is very much mistaken”, that does pretty much leaves you as the arbiter of truth doesn’t it? In which case, the idea of cooperation is nothing but a pretense that serves the promotion of your point of view. As I’ve been saying (or trying to say), it is one thing for you to state your point of view and to claim that authority is on your side. It is quite another to claim that you’ve produced a “neutral” perspective on this subject and to give it special status and endoresement as a featured article. That is my objection. In view of the transparent partisanship we see here (on both sides), I encourage all involved to simply admit the obvious and stop pursuing the impossible. But again, I think one side smells victory, and I am not hopeful of an outcome that is consistent with Wikipedia’s goals or the pursuit of truth. -- Ssteinburg ( talk) 20:48, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
I’ve studied the policy. I see nothing but polemic in your responses, and, as close to victory as you appear to be, I would expect nothing else. I’ve stated my objections. Enough.-- Ssteinburg ( talk) 21:15, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. On the basis of the “Fringe theory” information, I withdraw my specific complaint regarding the use of the word “fringe” (though I do think the term is inappropriate and misleading in this case). However, my objection to Mr. Reedy’s mischaracterization of the “consensus” that has been reached on this article still stands, as does my concern that Stratfordians are attempting to use a featured article to endorse their point of view. The information you directed me to affirms (to me at least) that neutrality and consensus are central objectives/policies. The fact of the matter is that this article has become a battle ground. Contributors have been banned. Animosity and resentment are highly evident. If a modicum of “consensus” is not possible, the article should be tabled. It should definitely not be granted featured article status claiming a “consensus” that does not exist. -- Ssteinburg ( talk) 07:40, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I expect this will be my last post to the wondrously mysterious and ironic Wiki-world, an Orwellian dimension where “neutrality” is enforced by censorship, where allegedly open and collegial intellectual discussion is channeled by means of terminology such as “fringe” and “sockpuppets”, where dissenters are bombarded with bureaucratic double-speak. “Read the rules!” “Read the rules!” And then be whisked away! But, let me speak directly. Tom. I had been careful not to tamper with your precious “article” (yet). I hadn’t actually expected that expressing opinions about it would be punishable offense. I see I’ve made the mistake that many before me have made: I took Wikipedia’s “Five pillars” seriously. Silly me. Silly me for believing that “flexible rules” and invitations to be “bold” meant what they mean in the dictionary. Those who want to play this game will need “read the rules” and “read” YOUR dictionary. But then, we are talking about the Stratfordian Tradition aren’t we. And what’s happening here is so very consistent with the scholarship of that “tradition”. Publish your article Tom. Publish your article. (If this ends up posted twice, I apologize)--
Ssteinburg (
talk)
08:25, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't know if it would be useful to anyone else, but for my own convenience I have copied the FAC to my sandbox page and edited it into three sections: Comments, support, and oppose, and also numbered the latter two. Tom Reedy ( talk) 18:30, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
I saw the table in Tom Reedy's comment at #Warshy (moved from main page) which lists everyone whose good faith has been questioned regarding their participation in this FAC. I've left a notice about discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBSAQ for each person listed in that table (except the IP), with a message that is based on {{ uw-sanctions}}. If the editor listed in the table continues to make inappropriate comments after this notice, they are eligible for being reported at WP:Arbitration enforcement. In my opinion, if there is reason to move someone's comments out of the FAC because of behavioral issues, the following notice may be left on their talk page by any editor (not just an admin):
Proposed notice |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose, at their own discretion, sanctions on any editor working on pages broadly related to Shakespeare authorship question if the editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you engage in inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article ban. The committee's full decision can be read at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare authorship question#Final decision. |
-- EdJohnston ( talk) 17:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Ed, see my response here: User_talk:Jdkag#Defense_against_WP:Advocacy_Accusation. I think you have overreacted to Tom's accusations. Jdkag ( talk) 15:08, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
General comment about the progress on this FAC. Many of the Opposes entered are not actionable, although some actionable comments have not been addressed on this page. That some arguments have been visited and revisited in talk archives, or some comments have been reviewed on talk, doesn't resolve actionable concerns raised on this page. Because the FAC to this point includes mostly unactionable opposes, with some actionable commentary unresolved here (another reviewer expressed my concern that the lead is argumentative), it is likely that I will restart the FAC once Ealdgyth's comments are resolved to everyone's satisfaction, and authorize Nikkimaria to more aggressivly move unactionable opposes off the page, while asking nominators to address actionable issues here (not on article talk), if any remain. I am concerned that the Lead/Overview seem to be covering the same territory, and my one and only source check ("... a relatively small but highly visible and diverse assortment of supporters, including some prominent public figures, [1]) didn't seem to support the text, although I could have missed it. Please ping me once Ealdgyth is satisfied, and we'll see where things stand. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:51, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
General response to SandyGeorgia's general comment: Sandy, your proposal has some practical advantages, but seen from the angle of the creators of the article, it amounts IMO to rewarding Randy in Boise for disruption, and asking an unreasonable amount of doubled work from Tom Reedy, Paul Barlow, Nishidani, Johnuniq, etc—in short, from the mainstream Shakespeare scholars that Wikipedia is fortunate to have. (No telling how many we'll have after this FAC.) I wouldn't be surprised if Tom is about ready to throw in the towel at the prospect of starting over, and at the failure of the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare authorship question arb case and its discretionary sanctions to have the effect arbcom expected and desired. I'm far from sure that the FAC will actually "restart" even if it "is restarted": the nominators may withdraw it instead. The best specialists aren't necessarily the most patient ones. Bishonen | talk 04:03, 27 March 2011 (UTC).
Here are some suggestions for how to improve the article:
in historian John Stow's list of "Our moderne, and present excellent Poets", printed posthumously in Edmund Howes' edition of his Annales (1615), which reads: "M. Willi. Shake-speare gentleman".'
My witful pen hath run most dry of ink.
I leave with you my words on which to think.
Should you this mess find gainful means to sort,
I shall bestow upon you my support.
--
Cryptic C62 ·
Talk
18:33, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Near journey’s end, the three lay down to rest.
Just short of their far goal a greening hill
Rose sheer before them, and, beyond the crest,
The wood of Arden, and its guardian, Will.
A yearlong haul across a desert waste
Among marauding tribes and thinning game
Had left them all but listless as they faced
This final challenge to their earnest aim.
Out of the dusk, kind figures from the peak
Now shambled down to share their cryptic lore,
And gently told them how to thread the bleak
Thorn-riven upward path and, lastly, swore:
‘Woe on anyone straggling here who blinks
On meeting at Pisgah’s Pass, a Sandy Sphinx.'
--
Nishidani (
talk)
21:32, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks to the reviewers, who would not settle for low content, but (contrary to the fashion of these times, where none will sweat but for promotion), patiently worked to improve this article. I hope these rites have brought them and the authors true delights. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 23:05, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Sandy, just my impression: It seems that our procedure here has been to topic ban the expert editors who dispute the neutrality of the article (and have suggested other sources and explanations of the topic), rewrite it to the satisfaction of the remaining camp, and then take it to FAC. Even after this was done, you have some serious "opposes". I suggest that you get a waiver from arbcom (if necessary) to ask User:Smatprt to give a list of what he sees as the major neutrality/referencing problems on the article. You may ultimately reject his input (or he may not be willing to participate), but you should at least ask for it. Some of the proponents of the FAC dismiss any/all references to books and articles with which they disagree as fringe. If ever there was an article where the delegates ought to insist on comprehensiveness and the neutral representation of all serious viewpoints, this, meseems, is it. All the best. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 13:41, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
I am sure that you and Tom and probably everyone else are acting in good faith. But the main problem is that we have banned the other team and are now holding the big game. This does not seem like the best way to determine if the article is comprehensive, fair and balanced. All the best, -- Ssilvers ( talk) 14:16, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm not questioning the ban, I'm just saying that his comments are missing at the FAC. Obviously, if he comments, his comments should be concise and to the point, and if they have no merit, you can, of course, point that out. I don't mean to make any accusations, but on its face, it looks terrible to take this to FAC without his comments. I have no idea if he even would wish to comment. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 15:57, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm not saying to scrap anything, I'm just saying that we should get his comments on the article as it exists today before calling this an FA. I have not commented on the FAC, and I do not feel qualified to do so. But I don't see why anyone would "protest too much" getting comments from someone who was a major contributor to the article over a period of years. OK, I'm unwatching this discussion, as I have nothing further to add. Best regards, -- Ssilvers ( talk) 16:58, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
I can't imagine why Paul B. would call me disingenuous. Anderson's is a recent book directly on this topic, which received favorable reviews and is not mentioned in the article. This does not seem to comply with WP:AGF. I have no idea who Niederkorn is, I only know that the review appeared in the NY Times. All the best, -- Ssilvers ( talk) 00:49, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
One more time (in spite of my expressed intent to go silent here), we see that partisanship is not diminishing. As an Oxfordian, by way of example, I ask, is Scott McCrea’s work to be taken more seriously than Mark Anderson’s? Really? I have numerous specific concerns and objections about the article, but, noting the tenor of those who are exercising control over this article, and the banning that has taken place, why should I bother? Stratfordians clearly want to control the outcome, as do anti-Stratfordians, but the former appear to be in a position to do so. So, I have a new suggestion. Publish the article as is, along with all of the discussion and commentary. What could be more honest, factual, and informative than that? -- Ssteinburg ( talk) 07:54, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
As an Oxfordian, by way of example, I ask, is Scott McCrea’s work to be taken more seriously than Mark Anderson’s?
(In response to Nishidani) You have reminded us once again of the “rules” by which you play—McCrea meeting your standards as an ‘academic’ authority’, while Anderson falls short. We see that the quality and extent of scholarship in the two cases isn’t the question for you. Frankly, if I may be allowed a tiny fraction of the rank opinion, the “scholarship” with which McCrea seeks to slander all who disagree with his opinion, Mr. McCrea comes very close to setting the “low” for scholarship on this subject. But, please, continue to cite him. You reject Anderson and you accuse William Neiderkorn of “pushing his own sympathies”. That is, I think, a quite revealing criticism. You speak of Niederkorn’s “behavior”. His “behavior”? Do you people ever listen to yourselves? If Niederkorn had ‘pushed’ Stratfordian “sympathies” you would have had no objection. Obviously, for you, the demarcation between what is acceptable and unacceptable is really just a question of whose sympathies one is “pushing”. You accuse Niederkorn of “distorting evidence”. What evidence did he distort? Seriously! If you want to debate, bring on the evidence. And you say there were “protests” against Niederkorn by “leading Shakespearean scholars”. So??? Like that’s some kind of news or some kind of argument? But, since you brought it up, who were these “scholars” (I think we know the identity of two of them) and what are their academic credentials? The point is, you people have a very low tolerance for anyone who disagrees with you and you are altogether and almost all the time up tight and righteous. But, keep it up. As Xover says, it’s all on the permanent Wiki record. We hope. And one more time: you seriously think all of this is leading to an “article” reflective of “neutrality”? Do you actually believe that the term “neutrality” and this “article” can be joined together outside of an Orwellian universe? -- Ssteinburg ( talk) 13:46, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
You said, “I don't reject anything. It is policy which rejects these texts, and editors merely apply those policies.” Yes, you do “reject”. You are relying on a “policy” that, by your interpretation, favors your point of view, and you have become accustomed to getting away with this sort dissembling logic in this forum. I did not “ignore” your “main point” regarding McCrea. You count the man a “scholar” based on his credentials. I look at his work and say the man isn’t a scholar, and that Anderson is. Here we are separated by academic bling versus substance. You are the one who brought Niederkorn into the discussion so that you could again play the credentials gambit. Who are the, “scholars” who “have said, in letters to the NYTs . . .”? Who? You’re evading my question. Excuse me, but you have, “studiously erased, from the page” something posted on the page”. Erased? Xover said everything said is here is here forever? Who is right? And, when you speak of my “attempt to personalise what is a consensual understanding of policy restrictions”, is this English? Have I fallen down the rabbit hole? And you say my “attempt” is “ineffectual”. Well, I have little hope of it being effectual with you and your colleagues, but I see you expect your sweeping opinions to be accepted as somehow substantive. Have you conducted a survey of the effectiveness of my “attempts…”? You suggest I have not read McCrea's “study”. I’ve read it several times. I’m amazed every time I read it. I’m sure you are familiar with the follow quote from his book,
“What happens when the intelligentsia embrace a conspiracy theory? Doesn’t a kind of thinking become legitimized? Reasoning like that of the Authorship theorists [heretics] has led juries to believe in police conspiracies and thus to dismiss valid evidence and acquit murderers. Similar reasoning has led many Americans to believe that a government cover-up prevents anyone form learning the truth about UFOs or the assassination of John F. Kennedy; their distrust has fueled the militia movement and made the 1995 Oklahoma bombing seem almost inevitable. Today, Holocaust denial is ridiculous, but what about three hundred years from now, when the survivors are all dead and the original films of them are carefully preserved in vaults, the province only of scholars, as is the case with Shakespeare today?”
Well, we’ve heard similar words from Greenblatt haven’t we. So, why not from McCrea? Can you quote me something like this from Anderson? I’ll be happy to drop the “Orwellian cliché” when it ceases to be appropriate. I have Popper handy. I think he would say you are being too clever by a mile. You say, “This is not the place to rehearse grievances”. You mean, not a place for the other side to “rehearse grievances”. But this is, you say, a place, “to raise specific ideas and issues which might prove useful in improving the text”. Since you challenge me, I will accommodate you on that in a later post. But you continue with, “which is concerned with the scholarly refraction of a fringe idea, its history and content.” Which brings me to raise the issue again, that the term “fringe idea” is your way of stacking the deck and is not a logical description of anti-Stratfordianism which is, in fact, an alternative theory. Now, I realize I’m wasting my figurative breath, but there is nothing anti-historical or anti-scientific in doubting Shaksper’s authorship. Historically, that’s been doubted since at least 1597 (Marston) and 1598 (Hall). How about addressing that in your article? -- Ssteinburg ( talk) 18:31, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
I have moved the following paragraph from where it had been accidentally placed in #Comments from Cryptic C62. Johnuniq ( talk) 08:44, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I miss-posted this to the previous section, and I've added slightly here. Thanks, Paul, for the correction regarding Marston and Hall (haste makes waste). We wouldn’t need to read McCrea to know that Strats dispute the identity of Labeo, though they certainly haven’t explained it. “very obscure references”, “esoteric utterances”, probably not to Shakespeare? As opposed to the “clear” references to Shakespeare by Robert Greene and Henry Chettle? Certainly “clear” to McCrea. The relevance of the McCrea passage is that he makes sweeping generalization by which he presumes to sweep away everyone who disagrees with his point of view. That’s good scholarship to you? The point, regarding Anderson, is that he doesn’t employ that kind of scholarship. He probably doesn’t have the training for it. For once, Nishidani, we agree, "pointless". -- Ssteinburg ( talk) 20:11, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Following up to the comment by Paul B, ““Since you have read McCrea, you must know that the identity of this "Labeo" is disputed.””. Now that I’ve gone back and checked McCrea, he concludes with the very interesting comment (page 138) that, “Probably Hall had Samuel Daniel or Michael Drayton in mind [as opposed to Bacon]. I’m not sure that works, but the point is, McCrea’s final answer is that Labeo (author of V & A) was not Shakespeare. The implication being, clearly, that Shakespeare was not a real person. So, to be clear, McCrea ‘disputes’ the identification with Bacon, but he does not ‘dispute’ that Marston doubted “Shakespeare” was the true author. Thus, I repeat that, historically, doubt about Shakespeare’s authorship is traceable to Marston and Hall, and I suggest that, for historical clarity, this be reflected in the SAQ. Or, do you have a more substantial witness than McCrea on this topic?-- Ssteinburg ( talk) 21:09, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Could one of the nominators please add a summary here of editors Supporting, Opposing, and those Commenting without a declaration-- without characterizing those editors, please? I can read the characterizations already added above. Thanks :) I'm beginning to wade through-- will take some time, but will be easier if everything (permalinks, links to talk pages, unsigneds, etc are cleaned up). Where does Cryptic's review stand? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:04, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Should Nishidani be listed as a nominator? He's doing a lot of responding on the FAC, and is among the top editors. What about Xover? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 05:48, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Congratulations to the nominators and the reviewers for their persistence and diligence. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:52, 3 April 2011 (UTC)