Main case page ( Talk) — Evidence ( Talk) — Workshop ( Talk) — Proposed decision ( Talk) Case clerks: AGK ( Talk) & X! ( Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Newyorkbrad ( Talk) & SirFozzie ( Talk) |
There is, I think, a distinct difference between being an editor who contributes in one general content area -- i.e. Shakespeare and his plays and related matters -- and an editor who is a Single Purpose Account. The SPA pushes a specific point of view, and has little or no interest in editing otherwise. From what I can see, the description of Tom Reedy by Be Critical as an "SPA" is mistaken.
Disclaimer: I have no connection with this case, although I'm sure I've edited at least one of the pages involved at some time in the past. In my lifetime I have read with interest various claims and arguments about Shakespeare's identity, but found none of them convincing enough to jettison the accepted paradigm - but I'm not married to the status quo either, I would have no problem setting it aside if the evidence was convincing. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 02:35, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Many SPAs turn out to be well-intentioned editors with a niche interest
In regard to this remark on the evidence page:
You raised this issue of my putative 'hostility' (to which you now add the charge of mendacity) with me here. I am unable to get to the bottom of your complaint, as I cannot understand the evidence you adduce. Perhaps it is clearer to others, but serious charges like that regarding my attitude to you require much more than those diffs, which simply support no such inference. There are many mysteries in the SAQ material, and your interpretation of my neglect of one remark you made as proof of some 'hostility' will remain one of them, at least for me. Nishidani ( talk) 22:42, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Smatprt. I wonder if you could be so kind as to make your accusations commensurate with your diffs, and, in citing my remarks in diffs, construe their meaning correctly.
(a)'Nishidani shames a restricted editor, comments on his “deep pathology”.'
Pretending that the obvious needs meticulous documentation was part of the deep pathology of an earlier period in this page's history. Perhaps you don't know this, but precisely this strategy was what eventually caused a previous editor User:Smatprt, to be removed for a year. It exhausts the patience of everyone in its unilateral desire to equivocate or not hear, while pressing to home advantage some obscure cavil
(b)'Nishidani attacks the past article editors with a series of insults, including derogatory comments about these editors technical expertise, interest in policy, etc. [3]
'The whole history of this article is that some of its major editors appeared to use it as a doctrinal playground to showcase their private perspective on the question, showed no interest in mastering both the technical literature nor the policies regarding wikipedia articles aspiring to quality review.'
(c)Nishidani takes jabs at Wikipedia, administrators, continues to belittle user Smatprt, and urges another editor not to be a “cheerleader” for Nina. [4]
(d)'Nishidani takes a jab at Arbitration on Wikipedia, calling it “dysfunctional”.' [5]
Ha ha! Apparently "soon" means "three years" to Smatprt. Tom Reedy ( talk) 16:49, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
I just want to add one or two points about Smatprt's evidence. Smatprt complains of "Tom’s war on the SAQ, deleting all mention of the SAQ from every article on Wikipedia that he could find, misinterpreting WP:COATRACK and WP:ONEWAY." Whether or not he "misinterprets" these policies is a matter for debate, I suppose, but I don't think he does. However, the assertion that he wishes to delete mention of SAQ from "every article" is palpably false. He has expanded some and supported the creation of new ones (such as the Derbyite theory one created by me). What he and others - including myself - oppose is the addition of SAQ material on articles that essentially have nothing to do with it - any Elizabethan/Jacobean writer or historical figure whose name has been brought up in Oxfordian literature; any article on plays, poems or other publications supposed to contain hidden messages pointing to Oxford. That, indeed, was part of Smatprt's strategy to make Oxfordianism as visible as possible on Wikipedia (and there's nothing wrong, as far as I can see, in calling this a "strategy"). A further point on "outing": though he does not mention it, the discussion Smatprt links to on Andy Jones' talk page [6] was part of an attempt by Barryispuzzled (in one of his sock personas) to get BenJonson banned as a sockpuppet of Smatprt. Andy and myself were defending Smatprt against this charge. The casual use of names was not "outing", but a clumsy attempt to be supportive. Paul B ( talk) 15:58, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Could a clerk or other uninvolved admin kindly refactor this post? It is made my an anon identifying itself as Richard Malim and therefore belongs in his section. Due to a formatting error it currently appears to be part of my evidence.-- Peter cohen ( talk) 11:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
(1)She (Nina) was right to point out that 'Bardolatry' does not belong in the lead 33. I pointed out later that wp:Lede says "specialized terminology and symbols should be avoided in an introduction."
In general, specialized terminology and symbols should be avoided in an introduction. Mathematical equations and formulas should not be used except in mathematics articles. Where uncommon terms are essential to describing the subject, they should be placed in context, briefly defined, and linked.
(2)'She was also right to point out that "Not All Authorship Theories Postulate A Conspiracy" 34 - and eventually, 'all' was deleted after intervention of a neutral editor. Note that in each case her point was initially dismissed by the Shakespeare team.
The neutral editor was Hamiltonstone who, if I recall, changed it after he found suggestions amenable to her point from others. I had suggested 'generally', and I think he cited that there. You yourself acknowledged that I had proposed modifying 'all' myself here i.e., that in response to Nina's point I had suggested a compromise. Your suggestion there is a 'Shakespearean team' that consistently ignored her points, even when valid, misrepresents a complex set of negotiations. The effect is to give the impression that Nina naively walked into a wall or coterie of coordinated Shakespeare control freaks. The record is far more nuanced. Nishidani ( talk) 12:30, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Regarding this: "Another valid point she made was 'I felt like I was reading Shapiro' [7] - too much of the content and style of the article is based on Shapiro's book."
Have you read Shapiro's book? Because I don't see how anybody who has could make that statement. Shapiro concentrates on an entirely different aspect of the authorship than the Wikipedia article does, though he necessarily does work in some well-plowed fields. Although he is cited 60 times, often he is only added as a backup cite to show that another, older cite is still considered valid, so he is cited 36 times as the only source for a statement or fact. Wadsworth is cited 40 times, and Schoenbaum and Bate 28 each, Love 26 times. If you follow that diff, you'll see that Nina's purpose in saying that was to suggest that the article contained plagiarism, just one more of several straws she grasped in an attempt to kill the article's chances at FA. Tom Reedy ( talk) 19:14, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
I can't see why Reedy is singled out there. In that thread, Paul Barlow, then Xover and Tom Reedy all questioned the use of the New York Times piece. They argued it was methodologically flawed, given its tendentious phrasing, to give a verdict patently at odds with what a large number of comments by Shakespeare scholars, as opposed to teachers, think of these theories. We all accept that anti-Stratfordian views are entertained by a small minority of the public, of which diverse English department teachers may be an exiguous constituency. Several of us are opposed to attempts to confuse this 'small minority of opinion' out there as representative of what the Shakespearean academic mainstream, i.e., what period scholars engaged with Shakespeare's works and life think. There is a very substantial number of citations throughout all threads indicating unambiguously that, as opposed to college teachers of English, academics who work and publish on Shakespeare dismiss the antiStratfordian literature as absurd, cranky or not noteworthy. In any one year, 650 new books, 1,500 articles, and 100 doctoral dissertations devoted to Shakespeare beg for attention (Jack Lynch, Becoming Shakespeare 2007 p.285). Of the 1000 doctoral dissertations passed over the last decade, a controversial one by Roger Stritmatter, fits this definition. One in a 1000 is not a 'small minority'. If academic works by tenured scholars, working on the Elizabethan period and deeply sceptical of the mainstream view, constitute a 'small minority' of such specialist publications, Nina or Smatprt or anyone else is welcome to list them, and show thereby that we are incorrect. They don't ever do this. They just refer back to a single newspaper piece(coming from a source, the NYTs, whose resident Shakespearean contributor was a sceptic, and whose apparent bias drew public letters of protest from the Shakespearean establishment). As Xover put it,'This survey does not support changing how we represent scientific consensus from ~0% to 22%. Period.' There were very good reasons why several wikipedians rejected the utility of that ref. for the misleading impression it gave with respect to what other sources say. It certainly wasn't a quirk of Reedy's to do so. Nishidani ( talk) 03:39, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
(a) The fringe theory article should indeed make the distinction between fringe-within-academia and completely-off-the-wall-batshit-crazy. Many items move from the former into the latter category over time, when a formerly arguable academic hypothesis becomes solidly refuted but lives on in crank publications. A useful criterion is that academic mainstream may be wrong at any given moment but forces itself to make progress over time, while fields of crackpottery simply grow weirder over time, possibly fracturing into subsects but never making any progress.
(b) I would be inclined to agree that the Shakespearean authorship thing would qualify as an example of the fringe-within-academia category, while the Apollo hoax stuff is solidly in the off-the-wall-batshit-crazy one.
"It has been computed that of the lunatics at present under ward or at large in the British Isles, a good third suffer from religious mania, a fifth from a delusion that they belong to the Royal Family, while another fifth believe either that they are Shakespeare, or that they are the friends or relatives or champions of somebody else, whose clothes and reputation ‘that Stratford clown’ managed to steal; or, anyhow, from touching up the Authorised Version to practising as a veterinary surgeon."
Perhaps as part of the solution to the problem we have here we could, as a wikiproject, draw up a guideline on how authorship issues are to be dealt with on Wikipedia. I don't think this would be a cure-all. Our problems are serious enough that something else is needed, but I think it would help. The guideline would set up standards for how the issue is dealt with both on SAQ focused articles and in more mainstream articles that might have some overlap. Wrad ( talk) 21:17, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
---Just want to illustrate the kind of international stage this dispute is on right now. Wrad ( talk) 03:45, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Contensted Will (See especially the last paragraph carrying onto the next page. Shapiro's examination of the state of SAQ on Wikipedia leads him to conclude that on Wikipedia: "Persistance and the ability to get in the last word, rather than expertise, are rewarded.") In the academic Shakespeare world, Wikipedia is becoming a poster child for the undermining of expertise.
Wrad (
talk) 18:58, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Bertaut writes the following "One of the main principles of 'Stratfordian editors' (I use that term with tongue firmly in cheek) here on Wikipedia is that no 'proper' Shakespearians engage with the theory, either to support or refute it, but this is no longer tenable with the publication of Shapiro's Who wrote Shakespeare?". Bertaut is repeating a claim repeatedly made by anti-Stratfordians as evidence that SAQ is in some sense a legitimate scholarly field. But Shapiro's book is just one in a long line of books replying to anti-Stratfordian claims. It's not new at all. In chronological order, others include: GH Townsend, William Shakespeare Not an Impostor, George Routledge (1857), Wadsworth, Frank, The Poacher from Stratford: A Partial Account of the Controversy over the Authorship of Shakespeare's Plays, University of California Press (1958); HN Gibson The Shakespeare Claimants (1962); George McMichael, Shakespeare and His Rivals: A Casebook on the Authorship Controversy, Odyssey Press (1962); Irvin Matus Shakespeare in Fact (1994); Dobson, Michael (2001), "Authorship controversy", in Dobson, Oxford Companion to Shakespeare, Oxford University Press (2001); Kathman, David, "The Question of Authorship", in Wells, Stanley; Orlin, Lena C., Shakespeare: an Oxford Guide, Oxford University Press (2003); Scott McCrea, The Case for Shakespeare: The end of the authorship question, Greenwood (2005). That's just a selection of the main texts, not including numerous articles, reviews etc or technical discussions of Baconian ciphers and other specific arguments.
Bertaut's first assertion ("one of the main principles of 'Stratfordian editors'... here on Wikipedia is that no 'proper' Shakespearians engage with the theory, either to support or refute it") is therefore clearly not true in fact. No editor here has ever said that at all to my knowledge, and the current SAQ page amply refutes that assertion since it refers to all the books listed above and gives the history. Shapiro's book differs from the others in one significant way. He's not interested in making a point-by-point refutation of anti-Stratfordian arguments, but rather placing them in historical and cultural context. He wants to explain them as ideologies in their time, appealing to emotional and intellectual proccupations of particular eras (including our own era of internet conspiracy theories and on-line debate). What this represents is a shift towards seeing SAQ arguments as historically/culturally interesting phenomena, worthy of discussion as an object of study, not as theories to be refuted. Indeed the whole premise of the book is that arguments have been so thoroughly refuted by modern scholarship that that's no longer an interesting thing to do. It was actually at the beginning of the 20th century that these ideas had their greatest academic legitimacy (see here for the context). It's sleight of hand to present Shapiro's book as evidence of increased legitimacy given to SAQ arguments when in fact it represents the opposite. An analogy: early Christian writers spent a lot of effort trying to prove that pagan gods such as Zeus and Apollo don't really exist, because they were arguing with people who believed in them. Modern scholars who study Greek myths do not refute arguments for the existence of Zeus and Apollo, rather they look at why people believed what they did and what those beliefs meant to them. That's not because the real existence of Zeus and Apollo has somehow become more widely accepted since late antiquity, but because it's no longer a live issue at all. Paul B ( talk) 09:27, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
The resolution of historical questions depends on evidence and this is where historians and lawyers have to be consulted, as they, and not literary academics and critics, are the experts in the field of evidence
Of course, a doctorate in the subject of literary history is absolutely unnecessary, as long as you have a degree in litigation or criminal law. Perhaps we can ask Alan Dershowitz or summon up, with the assistance of Percy Allen's medium, who was in direct contact with Shakespeare's world, the spirits of Learned Hand or Oliver Wendell Holmes, or Clarence Darrow to figure out where literary historians and period specialists went wrong. . .I can see I'm not going to catch much sleep tonight as, like counting sheep, the names of several hundred historians, ancient and modern, pass through my mind as I review their qualifications in law to find out whether I should trust them any more. Payback time will come, I guess, when the Supreme Court's decisions on tort arbitration or taxation law are delegated to people with a degree in literature. Nishidani ( talk) 11:55, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
More Things states "'Paul, above, can’t locate the part of WP:FRINGE which legitimises Nina’s demand for an RS for fringe theory. It’s here: “The governing policies regarding fringe theories are the three core content policies, WP:Neutral point of view, WP:No original research, and WP:Verifiability." No, that's not it at all. That's just a list of policy links. More Things is misdescribing what I said here. Nina demanded an RS using the exact word "fringe". There is no such policy, and as I said elsewhere, WP:FRINGE would be unworkable if there were. It is analagous to asking for a reliable source that uses the exact word "notable" in order for the subject of an article to pass WP:NOTE. 'Fringe' and 'notable' are terms chosen by the Wikipedia community to describe particular judgements made about topics. We do not expect the outside world to use those exact words. If a theory is described as "utterly preposterous nonsense in which no scholar believes" are we to exclude it from the "fringe" category because the author happened not to use the word "fringe"? And yet that is what Nina was insisting upon. [8] Any number of sources that used other words with the same meaning were arbitrarily excluded by her interpretation of the guidelines. Furthermore, there are some fringe theories that are so fringe that they are not even discussed in RS. That too is addressed in WP:Fringe and would include aspects of SAQ. Paul B ( talk) 16:26, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
So all those people who have called the SAQ a fringe theory travelled to the future in a time machine, read WP:FRINGE, and then returned to their own time and called it a fringe theory? I can't quite put my finger on it, but there's something wrong with that scenario, but the word "ridiculous" keeps popping up. The term "fringe belief" or "fringe theory" perfectly describes the position of the SAQ in academic discourse. The reasons we chose not to use the term "lunatic fringe" (in either the article or the notes) or allude to the many suggestions that anti-Stratfordians suffer from some form of mental dysfunction are (1) Fringe policy states "restraint should be used with such qualifiers to avoid giving the appearance of an overly harsh or overly critical assessment. This is particularly true within articles dedicated specifically to fringe ideas", and (2) simple courtesy and decency. I know some very intelligent Oxfordians who are good people and not at all like some of the editors involved in this case. The beliefs they have may be illogical, wrong-headed and impervious to reason, but I doubt that any of us would 'scape whipping on those terms. Tom Reedy ( talk) 16:36, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
I think your dispute is with Wikipedia, not me, specifically WP:RS and WP:FRINGE. I can only refer you further to this discussion on the "fringe theory" talk page (in fact, almost that entire page) and this discussion on the fringe theory noticeboard, where Smatprt argued that the SAQ was a fringe theory. The "discussion" with Nina, if you want to call it that, was carried out over several pages and several weeks, and if anything is a classic example on her part of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT than anything else. Tom Reedy ( talk) 12:59, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
The traditional theory that Shakespeare was Shakespeare has the passive to active acceptance of the vast majority of English professors and scholars, but it also has had its skeptics, including major authors, independent scholars, lawyers, Supreme Court justices, academics and even prominent Shakespearean actors. (William Niederkorn, an anti-Stratfordian, non-Shakespearean scholar)
The Stratfordians can, however, legitimately claim that almost all the great Elizabethan scholars who have interested themselves in the controversy have been on their side (N.H.Gibson)
An idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field
There is a comment on that section (the "helpers" issue, not the wit) here. Bishonen | talk 23:42, 25 January 2011 (UTC).
(drive-by post, apologies in advance if it comes across as anything less than polite!) MoreThings, I really wish you'd have presented the argument above, re use of “fringe” in the article, on the talk page before we ended up here! That's a good well-reasoned argument, resting on valid foundations and framed in a constructive way, that it would have been possible to discuss in a collegiate way (that's contrasted with other exchanges on the article's talk age, not with your own previous comments, and so not in any way intended as a criticism; in fact it's intended as a straight-forward compliment!). I suspect I would have disagreed anyway—cf. Tom's link to what the WP:RS have to say about it—but this I would have been happy to discuss and to look for a compromise (Tom and Nish deliberately left out “lunatic fringe” because it was too harsh for an encyclopedia article; you could argue that they should have included it by the same reasoning as your argument above). I think you also need to be aware that we're used to any attempt to meet the other side half way being seized on as an opportunity to challenge whether Authorship is subject to the policy on the Wikipedia term of art “fringe theory” (which, while you may dislike it, is still a content guideline on enwiki). Thus any attempt to challenge “fringe” in the article is very likely to be conflated (either by the challenger, or the “defender”, or both) with a challenge to the applicability of WP:FRINGE; and everyone will react accordingly (this is what happens in an environment where capacity for trust has been exhausted). It also strikes me that “anyone can challenge” is not a carte blanche to “challenge everything (that I don't like), every time, repeatedly”; there has to be some limit to the “nuisance” challenges (if you'll pardon the prejudicial choice of word) if we're ever to make progress on the article(s). -- Xover ( talk) 08:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm surprised Xover thinks that More Things' statement was well argued. He repeats Nina's absurd claim that the actual word fringe must be used "Unless you're going to argue that the RS said one thing but really meant "fringe belief" then you have to provide RS saying "fringe belief". No you don't. The guideline has never worked that way, nor does its wording support that frankly impossible reading of it. Participants in the fringe theory discussion board have never read it that way. More Things also asserts that "Because of WP:FRINGE editors start scanning RS looking for anything that will support the use of "fringe", thereby skewing the whole article". This is not in my experience true at all. Theories about aliens building the pyramids are treated as fringe because that it what they are, not because editors look for sources to place a theory in a specific category. All that WP:FRINGE requires is evidence that a theory is rejected in the mainstream of science, scholarship etc. One of the main purposes of the guideline is to maintain the encyclodedic nature of the project, so that "fringe" ideas (or whatever term one prefers) are not imported into main article space in a way that gives them credence. It's perfectly reasonable to refer to the rumour of McCartney's death in his biography, or even to have a whole article on the Paul is Dead phenomenon (which we do). It is not reasonable to include within the McCartney article "evidence" that he really is dead, and to add to articles on various Beatles albums the "evidence" of his demise contained within their cover art and lyrics. nor would it be appropriate for the Paul is Dead article to be a battleground of arguments about whether or not he is still alive. That is the equivalent of what Anti-Stratfordian editors seek to do, and that is what WP:Fringe is designed to avoid. Paul B ( talk) 09:53, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Hey folks, I figured it would be good to touch base.. while Brad and I have had preliminary discussions about the type of things we'd expect to see in a proposed decision, we have nothing concrete yet.. (although we plan on working on it when we can).
I just wanted to give my .02 on how I feel the case is going so far, and see if this resonates with everyone.
In most Arbitration cases, what we're looking for is straight to the facts. "User X is disruptive in consensus discussion" (links to diffs of the disruption). "User Y edit-wars to keep their preferred version active without discussing it on the talk page" (links to the reverts, and attempts to engage them to discuss.)
Here, we're getting.. well, I guess a good analogy would be the 35,000 feet view. We see evidence pointing at groups or blocs of editors instead of single editors. It makes focusing our proposed decision.. well.. I was going to say more difficult, but I should say it's a different way to approach it instead.
I get the heebie jeebies when I'm asked to rule on content. The sides obviously have done all the background work, gathered the sources and presented the arguments. It's something our editors spend a significant amount of time working on. For some editors, it's their job, or primary hobby. It's difficult for me, personally to try to step into a dispute where not only do I not have an opinion on the content being discussed, I've never really dug into the content area in the first place.. I have to say, the only time I saw a reference to the "Shakespeare authorship question" prior to this was a throwaway comment in Eric Flint's alternate-history "1632" series.
We're reviewing this area from a conduct viewpoint, and may have further questions for the parties, but I wanted to see where everyone thinks we are at (from a process viewpoint, I'm not going to discuss potential evidence, or findings, or remedies..)
SirFozzie ( talk) 23:03, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
If it's any help, I think this is more like Jesus myth theory than Climate change. There is a genuine concern among those who prefer to examine the alternatives, that the only way you get to be the voice of the mainstream in the "was there a guy called Jesus who founded Christianity?" debate is if you follow the mainstream church view, and you only do that if you have some kind of vested interest in the guy. One of the repeated flashpoints in the Shakespeare articles is that the mainstream view are all professors of English at Oxford, and the only way you get to be one of those is by agreeing that the guy from Stratford wrote all the plays, and if anyone else attempts to analyse the evidence and comes to a different conclusion, they are rejected as a mainstream source because they are not a professor of English at Oxford. This is where 'scientific fringe' differs from other 'fringe', because there is usually a cognitive and methodological difference between a fringe science theory and a theory that is on the cutting edge of science, and awaiting a Kuhnian paradigm shift before it becomes textbook. In cases such as 'did Jesus exist' or 'did Shakespeare write the plays', appeals are made to things like the weight of history, occam's razor, implausibility etc, which are not the equivalent to appeals to a scientific methodology. I would be wary of labelling SAQ as fringe, or stretching our fringe science principles too far, as it is not a 'scientific' dispute. Elen of the Roads ( talk) 00:50, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Elen of the Roads, you wrote:
One of the repeated flashpoints in the Shakespeare articles is that the mainstream view are all professors of English at Oxford, and the only way you get to be one of those is by agreeing that the guy from Stratford wrote all the plays, and if anyone else attempts to analyse the evidence and comes to a different conclusion, they are rejected as a mainstream source because they are not a professor of English at Oxford.This is where 'scientific fringe' differs from other 'fringe', because there is usually a cognitive and methodological difference between a fringe science theory and a theory that is on the cutting edge of science, and awaiting a Kuhnian paradigm shift before it becomes textbook.
Not quite so. This is not a matter of what some closed snobbish coterie thinks, or of a 'club' which makes and breaks careers according to whether prospective members pay lip service to its principles. Indeed the English example is unfortunate, since historians often regard the whole SAQ issue as an American obsession( systemic bias), since its main enthusiasts, lobbies, and writers are associated with that single country. The point was documented in my draft, but excised by Tom in his revision as peripheral to the key issues.
Any discipline has an internal struggle between an elite, with one or two dominant heuristic frames, and a congeries of rising scholars whose work modifies, refines or challenges the existing paradigms. An example was the shift in Greek studies from the Indo-European model to one more open to Semitic influences which took place in the 1960s ( Walter Burkert, Martin West etc.) While it is true that
'Virtually no professional student of literature takes any of this seriously
Jack Lynch notes recently, this is
not because of some conspiracy among hideebound academics determined to maintain a united front. Up-and-coming young critics adore taking potshots at their seniors and would like nothing more than to make their reputation with a revolutionary new thesis, but the evidence just doesn't support the case for anyone other than William Shakespeare of Stratford.' J Lynch, Becoming Shakespeare (2007:5)
I can think immediately of two outstanding examples of this interest by young scholars in the theory that the Earl of Oxford wrote Shakespeare, which was then tested, with the result that these sceptics were won over to the mainstream view, Ward Elliott and Steven May. Both started out from a strong curiosity, or a strong belief in the the possibilities of the sceptics' speculations, often due to circumstances of personal backgreound. Elliott is an academic contrarian, who has made a career of challenging standard models. This is what the Claremont McKenna college page has of Elliott:
'He is one of CMC’s notable stable of contrarian discoverers. He has shown that a number of widely-believed “passionate truths” of the late 20th Century have turned out to be more passionate than true. He was one of the first political scientists to demonstrate that reapportionment and the McGovern Reforms did not revitalize government, as predicted, but increased factionalism and gridlock. He was the first political scientist to challenge the once-conventional view that high-science, therapeutic “California” correctional techniques “cured” criminals better than low-science, punitive “Arkansas” ones. He was among the first to challenge the widely-accepted argument that Rapid Rail would solve Southern California’s transportation and smog problems. He was the first person to apply congestion-charge and emissions-charge theories to Southern California, the first to devise practical ways of phasing them in, and the principal drafter of the economic-incentives language of the 1990 Federal Clean Air Act Amendments. He is the inventor of the HOT Lane concept.'
Now Elliott's father, William Yandell Elliott, was a distinguished scholar and fully-paid up Oxfordian. His son was raised in the theory. A distinguished professor of government, he tried to test his family belief by developing and fine-tuning (with Robert Valenza) a very sophisticated computerized stylometric program which, over 20 years has effectively proven that most of the Shakespearean corpus bears the distinctive thumbprint of one unique style, which (b) is not compatible with any of the literary remains of any of the Elizabethan alternative candidates. Ward became a mainstreamer. Steven May, the leading authority on the poetry of Edward de Vere, said that he would, as a young academic, have liked nothing more, in view of his career prospects, to have come up with evidence that confirmed that hypothesis. His early articles have a high appreciation of de Vere's poetry, when most scholars were dismissive. Twenty years on, he is totally sceptical of the Oxfordian claims, and confirms his belief, grounded on a career-interest in de Vere and the poetry of his period, that the mainstream has it right. These and quite a lot of other sceptics ( Orson Welles, so beloved by Oxfordians who forget his later conversion to the mainstream view)have been won over to the mainstream view after intensive academic study of the problems. What we do not have is examples of major Shakespearedan scholars being won over to the conspiracy fold. The problem is not with the academic world and its accumulated affirmation of Shakespeare as Shakespeare. The key problem here is that 99.999% of the alternative candidate literature, some of it very recondite, is written by lawyers, amateur historians, journalists, whoever, none of whom seem to think that, if they are convinced of a theory, they should actually gain the formal qualifications in Renaissance history, Elizabethan-Jacobean history, chancellory scripts, archival documentary analysis, period literature, Latin, Greek, German, French, Italian and period English, do a Phd, and then argue their view in terms of logic, evaluation of primary and secondary sources, as do all scholars in the humanities. They argue for the fringe view using fringe methods which no academic system approves of. Inferences from silence trump evidence, conjectures without supportive proof elbow out probative analysis based on textual likelihoods. Even Ptolemaians used mathematics. These guys refuse to master the craft. That is why the mainstream ignores the stuff. Nishidani ( talk) 03:24, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
What would really impress me is if Oxfordians would contribute to other pieces of the world of Shakespeare on Wikipedia than the authorship question. When Oxfordians deal with nothing (or almost nothing) other than controversial Oxfordian material that inevitably leads to fighting and heated discussion and debate, editors working on other Shakespeare material will increasingly associate all Oxfordians with negative feelings. That's just human nature. I personally would be very delighted and impressed if Oxfordians on Wikipedia contributed in meaningful ways to completely non-Oxfordian causes within Shakespeare studies. I think they would fit in quite easily for the most part (or at lease more easily) if they took part in Shakespeare project collaborations in some way other than merely to get a plug in for their man. Almost all of the Oxfordians who edit, however, are completely and solely devoted only to the SAQ. The exceptions to this are few and far between (Smatprt, for example, has had his moments of contribution, though more, in this case, I think, is always better :).
I hope that the Oxfordians reading this will recognize that it is hearfelt. I honestly think that there would be a serious attitude change if Oxfordians were to do this. If we could work together on something we don't disagree on, that would help us respect each other enough to maybe, just maybe, pull through the harder things. I have seen it happen before.
I also recognize that Oxfordians probably have something they really wish "Stratfordians" would do. I invite suggestions as to what that might be.
Wrad (
talk) 04:37, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
In some new evidence, jdkag recommends this book. However, that book appears to support the existing SAQ article because the book is described as follows:
I have not read the book, but the above description seems to confirm the "fringe" conclusion in the article. The article talk page should be used to discuss whether there is a significant point, from any reliable source, that should be added to the article. Johnuniq ( talk) 01:33, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
I see two sides to the Wiki controversy on SAQ: on one side, those who passionately defend Stratford, and on the other side, SAQ proponents who think that there are valid and interesting reasons for questioning the Stratfordian attribution
I.e. I.e. those who wrote the article are passionate advocates, those who object to it are dispassionate thinkers. The former are on the defensive, the latter patiently abide until the realm of reason can be restored to an intemperate article. That is what you appear to be saying. The fact that the former write from the highest quality RS sources, and the latter can cite no one book from a Shakespearean specialist backing their claims (Price has no background in the field, as is evident from every page of her book) is of course wholly irrelevant. Nishidani ( talk) 12:15, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
The arbitrators have received an e-mail from one of the parties requesting a few more days to present evidence. The e-mail contains evidence of a legitimate real-world emergency that affected this party. As such, we will extend the evidence deadline until the end of the day on Wednesday. I still anticipate that we will have a proposed decision posted by the target date of next Sunday, February 13.
To all concerned, from this point forward, please present (if anything) only new and non-repetitious evidence and proposals. Bickering and nasty behavior on the case pages is never helpful to the arbitrators, and will not be permitted. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 23:23, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
I think one of the key diffs, in his list of diffs, is this. One cannot expect Arbcom to judge the merits of the content disputed here, of course. But the examples of a persistent inability on Smatprt's part to actually desist from pushing a poorly framed edit, despite detailed explanations by other editors of why his suggested edit is wrong, are legion, and several examples of this practice can be observed if one closely examines the context in which his revived complaint about certain terms I used in exasperation in the early part of last year. Nishidani ( talk) 20:26, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Main case page ( Talk) — Evidence ( Talk) — Workshop ( Talk) — Proposed decision ( Talk) Case clerks: AGK ( Talk) & X! ( Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Newyorkbrad ( Talk) & SirFozzie ( Talk) |
There is, I think, a distinct difference between being an editor who contributes in one general content area -- i.e. Shakespeare and his plays and related matters -- and an editor who is a Single Purpose Account. The SPA pushes a specific point of view, and has little or no interest in editing otherwise. From what I can see, the description of Tom Reedy by Be Critical as an "SPA" is mistaken.
Disclaimer: I have no connection with this case, although I'm sure I've edited at least one of the pages involved at some time in the past. In my lifetime I have read with interest various claims and arguments about Shakespeare's identity, but found none of them convincing enough to jettison the accepted paradigm - but I'm not married to the status quo either, I would have no problem setting it aside if the evidence was convincing. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 02:35, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Many SPAs turn out to be well-intentioned editors with a niche interest
In regard to this remark on the evidence page:
You raised this issue of my putative 'hostility' (to which you now add the charge of mendacity) with me here. I am unable to get to the bottom of your complaint, as I cannot understand the evidence you adduce. Perhaps it is clearer to others, but serious charges like that regarding my attitude to you require much more than those diffs, which simply support no such inference. There are many mysteries in the SAQ material, and your interpretation of my neglect of one remark you made as proof of some 'hostility' will remain one of them, at least for me. Nishidani ( talk) 22:42, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Smatprt. I wonder if you could be so kind as to make your accusations commensurate with your diffs, and, in citing my remarks in diffs, construe their meaning correctly.
(a)'Nishidani shames a restricted editor, comments on his “deep pathology”.'
Pretending that the obvious needs meticulous documentation was part of the deep pathology of an earlier period in this page's history. Perhaps you don't know this, but precisely this strategy was what eventually caused a previous editor User:Smatprt, to be removed for a year. It exhausts the patience of everyone in its unilateral desire to equivocate or not hear, while pressing to home advantage some obscure cavil
(b)'Nishidani attacks the past article editors with a series of insults, including derogatory comments about these editors technical expertise, interest in policy, etc. [3]
'The whole history of this article is that some of its major editors appeared to use it as a doctrinal playground to showcase their private perspective on the question, showed no interest in mastering both the technical literature nor the policies regarding wikipedia articles aspiring to quality review.'
(c)Nishidani takes jabs at Wikipedia, administrators, continues to belittle user Smatprt, and urges another editor not to be a “cheerleader” for Nina. [4]
(d)'Nishidani takes a jab at Arbitration on Wikipedia, calling it “dysfunctional”.' [5]
Ha ha! Apparently "soon" means "three years" to Smatprt. Tom Reedy ( talk) 16:49, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
I just want to add one or two points about Smatprt's evidence. Smatprt complains of "Tom’s war on the SAQ, deleting all mention of the SAQ from every article on Wikipedia that he could find, misinterpreting WP:COATRACK and WP:ONEWAY." Whether or not he "misinterprets" these policies is a matter for debate, I suppose, but I don't think he does. However, the assertion that he wishes to delete mention of SAQ from "every article" is palpably false. He has expanded some and supported the creation of new ones (such as the Derbyite theory one created by me). What he and others - including myself - oppose is the addition of SAQ material on articles that essentially have nothing to do with it - any Elizabethan/Jacobean writer or historical figure whose name has been brought up in Oxfordian literature; any article on plays, poems or other publications supposed to contain hidden messages pointing to Oxford. That, indeed, was part of Smatprt's strategy to make Oxfordianism as visible as possible on Wikipedia (and there's nothing wrong, as far as I can see, in calling this a "strategy"). A further point on "outing": though he does not mention it, the discussion Smatprt links to on Andy Jones' talk page [6] was part of an attempt by Barryispuzzled (in one of his sock personas) to get BenJonson banned as a sockpuppet of Smatprt. Andy and myself were defending Smatprt against this charge. The casual use of names was not "outing", but a clumsy attempt to be supportive. Paul B ( talk) 15:58, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Could a clerk or other uninvolved admin kindly refactor this post? It is made my an anon identifying itself as Richard Malim and therefore belongs in his section. Due to a formatting error it currently appears to be part of my evidence.-- Peter cohen ( talk) 11:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
(1)She (Nina) was right to point out that 'Bardolatry' does not belong in the lead 33. I pointed out later that wp:Lede says "specialized terminology and symbols should be avoided in an introduction."
In general, specialized terminology and symbols should be avoided in an introduction. Mathematical equations and formulas should not be used except in mathematics articles. Where uncommon terms are essential to describing the subject, they should be placed in context, briefly defined, and linked.
(2)'She was also right to point out that "Not All Authorship Theories Postulate A Conspiracy" 34 - and eventually, 'all' was deleted after intervention of a neutral editor. Note that in each case her point was initially dismissed by the Shakespeare team.
The neutral editor was Hamiltonstone who, if I recall, changed it after he found suggestions amenable to her point from others. I had suggested 'generally', and I think he cited that there. You yourself acknowledged that I had proposed modifying 'all' myself here i.e., that in response to Nina's point I had suggested a compromise. Your suggestion there is a 'Shakespearean team' that consistently ignored her points, even when valid, misrepresents a complex set of negotiations. The effect is to give the impression that Nina naively walked into a wall or coterie of coordinated Shakespeare control freaks. The record is far more nuanced. Nishidani ( talk) 12:30, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Regarding this: "Another valid point she made was 'I felt like I was reading Shapiro' [7] - too much of the content and style of the article is based on Shapiro's book."
Have you read Shapiro's book? Because I don't see how anybody who has could make that statement. Shapiro concentrates on an entirely different aspect of the authorship than the Wikipedia article does, though he necessarily does work in some well-plowed fields. Although he is cited 60 times, often he is only added as a backup cite to show that another, older cite is still considered valid, so he is cited 36 times as the only source for a statement or fact. Wadsworth is cited 40 times, and Schoenbaum and Bate 28 each, Love 26 times. If you follow that diff, you'll see that Nina's purpose in saying that was to suggest that the article contained plagiarism, just one more of several straws she grasped in an attempt to kill the article's chances at FA. Tom Reedy ( talk) 19:14, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
I can't see why Reedy is singled out there. In that thread, Paul Barlow, then Xover and Tom Reedy all questioned the use of the New York Times piece. They argued it was methodologically flawed, given its tendentious phrasing, to give a verdict patently at odds with what a large number of comments by Shakespeare scholars, as opposed to teachers, think of these theories. We all accept that anti-Stratfordian views are entertained by a small minority of the public, of which diverse English department teachers may be an exiguous constituency. Several of us are opposed to attempts to confuse this 'small minority of opinion' out there as representative of what the Shakespearean academic mainstream, i.e., what period scholars engaged with Shakespeare's works and life think. There is a very substantial number of citations throughout all threads indicating unambiguously that, as opposed to college teachers of English, academics who work and publish on Shakespeare dismiss the antiStratfordian literature as absurd, cranky or not noteworthy. In any one year, 650 new books, 1,500 articles, and 100 doctoral dissertations devoted to Shakespeare beg for attention (Jack Lynch, Becoming Shakespeare 2007 p.285). Of the 1000 doctoral dissertations passed over the last decade, a controversial one by Roger Stritmatter, fits this definition. One in a 1000 is not a 'small minority'. If academic works by tenured scholars, working on the Elizabethan period and deeply sceptical of the mainstream view, constitute a 'small minority' of such specialist publications, Nina or Smatprt or anyone else is welcome to list them, and show thereby that we are incorrect. They don't ever do this. They just refer back to a single newspaper piece(coming from a source, the NYTs, whose resident Shakespearean contributor was a sceptic, and whose apparent bias drew public letters of protest from the Shakespearean establishment). As Xover put it,'This survey does not support changing how we represent scientific consensus from ~0% to 22%. Period.' There were very good reasons why several wikipedians rejected the utility of that ref. for the misleading impression it gave with respect to what other sources say. It certainly wasn't a quirk of Reedy's to do so. Nishidani ( talk) 03:39, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
(a) The fringe theory article should indeed make the distinction between fringe-within-academia and completely-off-the-wall-batshit-crazy. Many items move from the former into the latter category over time, when a formerly arguable academic hypothesis becomes solidly refuted but lives on in crank publications. A useful criterion is that academic mainstream may be wrong at any given moment but forces itself to make progress over time, while fields of crackpottery simply grow weirder over time, possibly fracturing into subsects but never making any progress.
(b) I would be inclined to agree that the Shakespearean authorship thing would qualify as an example of the fringe-within-academia category, while the Apollo hoax stuff is solidly in the off-the-wall-batshit-crazy one.
"It has been computed that of the lunatics at present under ward or at large in the British Isles, a good third suffer from religious mania, a fifth from a delusion that they belong to the Royal Family, while another fifth believe either that they are Shakespeare, or that they are the friends or relatives or champions of somebody else, whose clothes and reputation ‘that Stratford clown’ managed to steal; or, anyhow, from touching up the Authorised Version to practising as a veterinary surgeon."
Perhaps as part of the solution to the problem we have here we could, as a wikiproject, draw up a guideline on how authorship issues are to be dealt with on Wikipedia. I don't think this would be a cure-all. Our problems are serious enough that something else is needed, but I think it would help. The guideline would set up standards for how the issue is dealt with both on SAQ focused articles and in more mainstream articles that might have some overlap. Wrad ( talk) 21:17, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
---Just want to illustrate the kind of international stage this dispute is on right now. Wrad ( talk) 03:45, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Contensted Will (See especially the last paragraph carrying onto the next page. Shapiro's examination of the state of SAQ on Wikipedia leads him to conclude that on Wikipedia: "Persistance and the ability to get in the last word, rather than expertise, are rewarded.") In the academic Shakespeare world, Wikipedia is becoming a poster child for the undermining of expertise.
Wrad (
talk) 18:58, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Bertaut writes the following "One of the main principles of 'Stratfordian editors' (I use that term with tongue firmly in cheek) here on Wikipedia is that no 'proper' Shakespearians engage with the theory, either to support or refute it, but this is no longer tenable with the publication of Shapiro's Who wrote Shakespeare?". Bertaut is repeating a claim repeatedly made by anti-Stratfordians as evidence that SAQ is in some sense a legitimate scholarly field. But Shapiro's book is just one in a long line of books replying to anti-Stratfordian claims. It's not new at all. In chronological order, others include: GH Townsend, William Shakespeare Not an Impostor, George Routledge (1857), Wadsworth, Frank, The Poacher from Stratford: A Partial Account of the Controversy over the Authorship of Shakespeare's Plays, University of California Press (1958); HN Gibson The Shakespeare Claimants (1962); George McMichael, Shakespeare and His Rivals: A Casebook on the Authorship Controversy, Odyssey Press (1962); Irvin Matus Shakespeare in Fact (1994); Dobson, Michael (2001), "Authorship controversy", in Dobson, Oxford Companion to Shakespeare, Oxford University Press (2001); Kathman, David, "The Question of Authorship", in Wells, Stanley; Orlin, Lena C., Shakespeare: an Oxford Guide, Oxford University Press (2003); Scott McCrea, The Case for Shakespeare: The end of the authorship question, Greenwood (2005). That's just a selection of the main texts, not including numerous articles, reviews etc or technical discussions of Baconian ciphers and other specific arguments.
Bertaut's first assertion ("one of the main principles of 'Stratfordian editors'... here on Wikipedia is that no 'proper' Shakespearians engage with the theory, either to support or refute it") is therefore clearly not true in fact. No editor here has ever said that at all to my knowledge, and the current SAQ page amply refutes that assertion since it refers to all the books listed above and gives the history. Shapiro's book differs from the others in one significant way. He's not interested in making a point-by-point refutation of anti-Stratfordian arguments, but rather placing them in historical and cultural context. He wants to explain them as ideologies in their time, appealing to emotional and intellectual proccupations of particular eras (including our own era of internet conspiracy theories and on-line debate). What this represents is a shift towards seeing SAQ arguments as historically/culturally interesting phenomena, worthy of discussion as an object of study, not as theories to be refuted. Indeed the whole premise of the book is that arguments have been so thoroughly refuted by modern scholarship that that's no longer an interesting thing to do. It was actually at the beginning of the 20th century that these ideas had their greatest academic legitimacy (see here for the context). It's sleight of hand to present Shapiro's book as evidence of increased legitimacy given to SAQ arguments when in fact it represents the opposite. An analogy: early Christian writers spent a lot of effort trying to prove that pagan gods such as Zeus and Apollo don't really exist, because they were arguing with people who believed in them. Modern scholars who study Greek myths do not refute arguments for the existence of Zeus and Apollo, rather they look at why people believed what they did and what those beliefs meant to them. That's not because the real existence of Zeus and Apollo has somehow become more widely accepted since late antiquity, but because it's no longer a live issue at all. Paul B ( talk) 09:27, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
The resolution of historical questions depends on evidence and this is where historians and lawyers have to be consulted, as they, and not literary academics and critics, are the experts in the field of evidence
Of course, a doctorate in the subject of literary history is absolutely unnecessary, as long as you have a degree in litigation or criminal law. Perhaps we can ask Alan Dershowitz or summon up, with the assistance of Percy Allen's medium, who was in direct contact with Shakespeare's world, the spirits of Learned Hand or Oliver Wendell Holmes, or Clarence Darrow to figure out where literary historians and period specialists went wrong. . .I can see I'm not going to catch much sleep tonight as, like counting sheep, the names of several hundred historians, ancient and modern, pass through my mind as I review their qualifications in law to find out whether I should trust them any more. Payback time will come, I guess, when the Supreme Court's decisions on tort arbitration or taxation law are delegated to people with a degree in literature. Nishidani ( talk) 11:55, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
More Things states "'Paul, above, can’t locate the part of WP:FRINGE which legitimises Nina’s demand for an RS for fringe theory. It’s here: “The governing policies regarding fringe theories are the three core content policies, WP:Neutral point of view, WP:No original research, and WP:Verifiability." No, that's not it at all. That's just a list of policy links. More Things is misdescribing what I said here. Nina demanded an RS using the exact word "fringe". There is no such policy, and as I said elsewhere, WP:FRINGE would be unworkable if there were. It is analagous to asking for a reliable source that uses the exact word "notable" in order for the subject of an article to pass WP:NOTE. 'Fringe' and 'notable' are terms chosen by the Wikipedia community to describe particular judgements made about topics. We do not expect the outside world to use those exact words. If a theory is described as "utterly preposterous nonsense in which no scholar believes" are we to exclude it from the "fringe" category because the author happened not to use the word "fringe"? And yet that is what Nina was insisting upon. [8] Any number of sources that used other words with the same meaning were arbitrarily excluded by her interpretation of the guidelines. Furthermore, there are some fringe theories that are so fringe that they are not even discussed in RS. That too is addressed in WP:Fringe and would include aspects of SAQ. Paul B ( talk) 16:26, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
So all those people who have called the SAQ a fringe theory travelled to the future in a time machine, read WP:FRINGE, and then returned to their own time and called it a fringe theory? I can't quite put my finger on it, but there's something wrong with that scenario, but the word "ridiculous" keeps popping up. The term "fringe belief" or "fringe theory" perfectly describes the position of the SAQ in academic discourse. The reasons we chose not to use the term "lunatic fringe" (in either the article or the notes) or allude to the many suggestions that anti-Stratfordians suffer from some form of mental dysfunction are (1) Fringe policy states "restraint should be used with such qualifiers to avoid giving the appearance of an overly harsh or overly critical assessment. This is particularly true within articles dedicated specifically to fringe ideas", and (2) simple courtesy and decency. I know some very intelligent Oxfordians who are good people and not at all like some of the editors involved in this case. The beliefs they have may be illogical, wrong-headed and impervious to reason, but I doubt that any of us would 'scape whipping on those terms. Tom Reedy ( talk) 16:36, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
I think your dispute is with Wikipedia, not me, specifically WP:RS and WP:FRINGE. I can only refer you further to this discussion on the "fringe theory" talk page (in fact, almost that entire page) and this discussion on the fringe theory noticeboard, where Smatprt argued that the SAQ was a fringe theory. The "discussion" with Nina, if you want to call it that, was carried out over several pages and several weeks, and if anything is a classic example on her part of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT than anything else. Tom Reedy ( talk) 12:59, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
The traditional theory that Shakespeare was Shakespeare has the passive to active acceptance of the vast majority of English professors and scholars, but it also has had its skeptics, including major authors, independent scholars, lawyers, Supreme Court justices, academics and even prominent Shakespearean actors. (William Niederkorn, an anti-Stratfordian, non-Shakespearean scholar)
The Stratfordians can, however, legitimately claim that almost all the great Elizabethan scholars who have interested themselves in the controversy have been on their side (N.H.Gibson)
An idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field
There is a comment on that section (the "helpers" issue, not the wit) here. Bishonen | talk 23:42, 25 January 2011 (UTC).
(drive-by post, apologies in advance if it comes across as anything less than polite!) MoreThings, I really wish you'd have presented the argument above, re use of “fringe” in the article, on the talk page before we ended up here! That's a good well-reasoned argument, resting on valid foundations and framed in a constructive way, that it would have been possible to discuss in a collegiate way (that's contrasted with other exchanges on the article's talk age, not with your own previous comments, and so not in any way intended as a criticism; in fact it's intended as a straight-forward compliment!). I suspect I would have disagreed anyway—cf. Tom's link to what the WP:RS have to say about it—but this I would have been happy to discuss and to look for a compromise (Tom and Nish deliberately left out “lunatic fringe” because it was too harsh for an encyclopedia article; you could argue that they should have included it by the same reasoning as your argument above). I think you also need to be aware that we're used to any attempt to meet the other side half way being seized on as an opportunity to challenge whether Authorship is subject to the policy on the Wikipedia term of art “fringe theory” (which, while you may dislike it, is still a content guideline on enwiki). Thus any attempt to challenge “fringe” in the article is very likely to be conflated (either by the challenger, or the “defender”, or both) with a challenge to the applicability of WP:FRINGE; and everyone will react accordingly (this is what happens in an environment where capacity for trust has been exhausted). It also strikes me that “anyone can challenge” is not a carte blanche to “challenge everything (that I don't like), every time, repeatedly”; there has to be some limit to the “nuisance” challenges (if you'll pardon the prejudicial choice of word) if we're ever to make progress on the article(s). -- Xover ( talk) 08:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm surprised Xover thinks that More Things' statement was well argued. He repeats Nina's absurd claim that the actual word fringe must be used "Unless you're going to argue that the RS said one thing but really meant "fringe belief" then you have to provide RS saying "fringe belief". No you don't. The guideline has never worked that way, nor does its wording support that frankly impossible reading of it. Participants in the fringe theory discussion board have never read it that way. More Things also asserts that "Because of WP:FRINGE editors start scanning RS looking for anything that will support the use of "fringe", thereby skewing the whole article". This is not in my experience true at all. Theories about aliens building the pyramids are treated as fringe because that it what they are, not because editors look for sources to place a theory in a specific category. All that WP:FRINGE requires is evidence that a theory is rejected in the mainstream of science, scholarship etc. One of the main purposes of the guideline is to maintain the encyclodedic nature of the project, so that "fringe" ideas (or whatever term one prefers) are not imported into main article space in a way that gives them credence. It's perfectly reasonable to refer to the rumour of McCartney's death in his biography, or even to have a whole article on the Paul is Dead phenomenon (which we do). It is not reasonable to include within the McCartney article "evidence" that he really is dead, and to add to articles on various Beatles albums the "evidence" of his demise contained within their cover art and lyrics. nor would it be appropriate for the Paul is Dead article to be a battleground of arguments about whether or not he is still alive. That is the equivalent of what Anti-Stratfordian editors seek to do, and that is what WP:Fringe is designed to avoid. Paul B ( talk) 09:53, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Hey folks, I figured it would be good to touch base.. while Brad and I have had preliminary discussions about the type of things we'd expect to see in a proposed decision, we have nothing concrete yet.. (although we plan on working on it when we can).
I just wanted to give my .02 on how I feel the case is going so far, and see if this resonates with everyone.
In most Arbitration cases, what we're looking for is straight to the facts. "User X is disruptive in consensus discussion" (links to diffs of the disruption). "User Y edit-wars to keep their preferred version active without discussing it on the talk page" (links to the reverts, and attempts to engage them to discuss.)
Here, we're getting.. well, I guess a good analogy would be the 35,000 feet view. We see evidence pointing at groups or blocs of editors instead of single editors. It makes focusing our proposed decision.. well.. I was going to say more difficult, but I should say it's a different way to approach it instead.
I get the heebie jeebies when I'm asked to rule on content. The sides obviously have done all the background work, gathered the sources and presented the arguments. It's something our editors spend a significant amount of time working on. For some editors, it's their job, or primary hobby. It's difficult for me, personally to try to step into a dispute where not only do I not have an opinion on the content being discussed, I've never really dug into the content area in the first place.. I have to say, the only time I saw a reference to the "Shakespeare authorship question" prior to this was a throwaway comment in Eric Flint's alternate-history "1632" series.
We're reviewing this area from a conduct viewpoint, and may have further questions for the parties, but I wanted to see where everyone thinks we are at (from a process viewpoint, I'm not going to discuss potential evidence, or findings, or remedies..)
SirFozzie ( talk) 23:03, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
If it's any help, I think this is more like Jesus myth theory than Climate change. There is a genuine concern among those who prefer to examine the alternatives, that the only way you get to be the voice of the mainstream in the "was there a guy called Jesus who founded Christianity?" debate is if you follow the mainstream church view, and you only do that if you have some kind of vested interest in the guy. One of the repeated flashpoints in the Shakespeare articles is that the mainstream view are all professors of English at Oxford, and the only way you get to be one of those is by agreeing that the guy from Stratford wrote all the plays, and if anyone else attempts to analyse the evidence and comes to a different conclusion, they are rejected as a mainstream source because they are not a professor of English at Oxford. This is where 'scientific fringe' differs from other 'fringe', because there is usually a cognitive and methodological difference between a fringe science theory and a theory that is on the cutting edge of science, and awaiting a Kuhnian paradigm shift before it becomes textbook. In cases such as 'did Jesus exist' or 'did Shakespeare write the plays', appeals are made to things like the weight of history, occam's razor, implausibility etc, which are not the equivalent to appeals to a scientific methodology. I would be wary of labelling SAQ as fringe, or stretching our fringe science principles too far, as it is not a 'scientific' dispute. Elen of the Roads ( talk) 00:50, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Elen of the Roads, you wrote:
One of the repeated flashpoints in the Shakespeare articles is that the mainstream view are all professors of English at Oxford, and the only way you get to be one of those is by agreeing that the guy from Stratford wrote all the plays, and if anyone else attempts to analyse the evidence and comes to a different conclusion, they are rejected as a mainstream source because they are not a professor of English at Oxford.This is where 'scientific fringe' differs from other 'fringe', because there is usually a cognitive and methodological difference between a fringe science theory and a theory that is on the cutting edge of science, and awaiting a Kuhnian paradigm shift before it becomes textbook.
Not quite so. This is not a matter of what some closed snobbish coterie thinks, or of a 'club' which makes and breaks careers according to whether prospective members pay lip service to its principles. Indeed the English example is unfortunate, since historians often regard the whole SAQ issue as an American obsession( systemic bias), since its main enthusiasts, lobbies, and writers are associated with that single country. The point was documented in my draft, but excised by Tom in his revision as peripheral to the key issues.
Any discipline has an internal struggle between an elite, with one or two dominant heuristic frames, and a congeries of rising scholars whose work modifies, refines or challenges the existing paradigms. An example was the shift in Greek studies from the Indo-European model to one more open to Semitic influences which took place in the 1960s ( Walter Burkert, Martin West etc.) While it is true that
'Virtually no professional student of literature takes any of this seriously
Jack Lynch notes recently, this is
not because of some conspiracy among hideebound academics determined to maintain a united front. Up-and-coming young critics adore taking potshots at their seniors and would like nothing more than to make their reputation with a revolutionary new thesis, but the evidence just doesn't support the case for anyone other than William Shakespeare of Stratford.' J Lynch, Becoming Shakespeare (2007:5)
I can think immediately of two outstanding examples of this interest by young scholars in the theory that the Earl of Oxford wrote Shakespeare, which was then tested, with the result that these sceptics were won over to the mainstream view, Ward Elliott and Steven May. Both started out from a strong curiosity, or a strong belief in the the possibilities of the sceptics' speculations, often due to circumstances of personal backgreound. Elliott is an academic contrarian, who has made a career of challenging standard models. This is what the Claremont McKenna college page has of Elliott:
'He is one of CMC’s notable stable of contrarian discoverers. He has shown that a number of widely-believed “passionate truths” of the late 20th Century have turned out to be more passionate than true. He was one of the first political scientists to demonstrate that reapportionment and the McGovern Reforms did not revitalize government, as predicted, but increased factionalism and gridlock. He was the first political scientist to challenge the once-conventional view that high-science, therapeutic “California” correctional techniques “cured” criminals better than low-science, punitive “Arkansas” ones. He was among the first to challenge the widely-accepted argument that Rapid Rail would solve Southern California’s transportation and smog problems. He was the first person to apply congestion-charge and emissions-charge theories to Southern California, the first to devise practical ways of phasing them in, and the principal drafter of the economic-incentives language of the 1990 Federal Clean Air Act Amendments. He is the inventor of the HOT Lane concept.'
Now Elliott's father, William Yandell Elliott, was a distinguished scholar and fully-paid up Oxfordian. His son was raised in the theory. A distinguished professor of government, he tried to test his family belief by developing and fine-tuning (with Robert Valenza) a very sophisticated computerized stylometric program which, over 20 years has effectively proven that most of the Shakespearean corpus bears the distinctive thumbprint of one unique style, which (b) is not compatible with any of the literary remains of any of the Elizabethan alternative candidates. Ward became a mainstreamer. Steven May, the leading authority on the poetry of Edward de Vere, said that he would, as a young academic, have liked nothing more, in view of his career prospects, to have come up with evidence that confirmed that hypothesis. His early articles have a high appreciation of de Vere's poetry, when most scholars were dismissive. Twenty years on, he is totally sceptical of the Oxfordian claims, and confirms his belief, grounded on a career-interest in de Vere and the poetry of his period, that the mainstream has it right. These and quite a lot of other sceptics ( Orson Welles, so beloved by Oxfordians who forget his later conversion to the mainstream view)have been won over to the mainstream view after intensive academic study of the problems. What we do not have is examples of major Shakespearedan scholars being won over to the conspiracy fold. The problem is not with the academic world and its accumulated affirmation of Shakespeare as Shakespeare. The key problem here is that 99.999% of the alternative candidate literature, some of it very recondite, is written by lawyers, amateur historians, journalists, whoever, none of whom seem to think that, if they are convinced of a theory, they should actually gain the formal qualifications in Renaissance history, Elizabethan-Jacobean history, chancellory scripts, archival documentary analysis, period literature, Latin, Greek, German, French, Italian and period English, do a Phd, and then argue their view in terms of logic, evaluation of primary and secondary sources, as do all scholars in the humanities. They argue for the fringe view using fringe methods which no academic system approves of. Inferences from silence trump evidence, conjectures without supportive proof elbow out probative analysis based on textual likelihoods. Even Ptolemaians used mathematics. These guys refuse to master the craft. That is why the mainstream ignores the stuff. Nishidani ( talk) 03:24, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
What would really impress me is if Oxfordians would contribute to other pieces of the world of Shakespeare on Wikipedia than the authorship question. When Oxfordians deal with nothing (or almost nothing) other than controversial Oxfordian material that inevitably leads to fighting and heated discussion and debate, editors working on other Shakespeare material will increasingly associate all Oxfordians with negative feelings. That's just human nature. I personally would be very delighted and impressed if Oxfordians on Wikipedia contributed in meaningful ways to completely non-Oxfordian causes within Shakespeare studies. I think they would fit in quite easily for the most part (or at lease more easily) if they took part in Shakespeare project collaborations in some way other than merely to get a plug in for their man. Almost all of the Oxfordians who edit, however, are completely and solely devoted only to the SAQ. The exceptions to this are few and far between (Smatprt, for example, has had his moments of contribution, though more, in this case, I think, is always better :).
I hope that the Oxfordians reading this will recognize that it is hearfelt. I honestly think that there would be a serious attitude change if Oxfordians were to do this. If we could work together on something we don't disagree on, that would help us respect each other enough to maybe, just maybe, pull through the harder things. I have seen it happen before.
I also recognize that Oxfordians probably have something they really wish "Stratfordians" would do. I invite suggestions as to what that might be.
Wrad (
talk) 04:37, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
In some new evidence, jdkag recommends this book. However, that book appears to support the existing SAQ article because the book is described as follows:
I have not read the book, but the above description seems to confirm the "fringe" conclusion in the article. The article talk page should be used to discuss whether there is a significant point, from any reliable source, that should be added to the article. Johnuniq ( talk) 01:33, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
I see two sides to the Wiki controversy on SAQ: on one side, those who passionately defend Stratford, and on the other side, SAQ proponents who think that there are valid and interesting reasons for questioning the Stratfordian attribution
I.e. I.e. those who wrote the article are passionate advocates, those who object to it are dispassionate thinkers. The former are on the defensive, the latter patiently abide until the realm of reason can be restored to an intemperate article. That is what you appear to be saying. The fact that the former write from the highest quality RS sources, and the latter can cite no one book from a Shakespearean specialist backing their claims (Price has no background in the field, as is evident from every page of her book) is of course wholly irrelevant. Nishidani ( talk) 12:15, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
The arbitrators have received an e-mail from one of the parties requesting a few more days to present evidence. The e-mail contains evidence of a legitimate real-world emergency that affected this party. As such, we will extend the evidence deadline until the end of the day on Wednesday. I still anticipate that we will have a proposed decision posted by the target date of next Sunday, February 13.
To all concerned, from this point forward, please present (if anything) only new and non-repetitious evidence and proposals. Bickering and nasty behavior on the case pages is never helpful to the arbitrators, and will not be permitted. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 23:23, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
I think one of the key diffs, in his list of diffs, is this. One cannot expect Arbcom to judge the merits of the content disputed here, of course. But the examples of a persistent inability on Smatprt's part to actually desist from pushing a poorly framed edit, despite detailed explanations by other editors of why his suggested edit is wrong, are legion, and several examples of this practice can be observed if one closely examines the context in which his revived complaint about certain terms I used in exasperation in the early part of last year. Nishidani ( talk) 20:26, 9 February 2011 (UTC)