Talk:Shakespeare authorship question

Article protected

All right, that's enough edit warring about the POV tag; I have protected the article for the holidays (=one week). This is the season for fighting with our families, not our co-editors. Zweigenbaum, as the principal edit warrior, you're lucky not to be blocked. I notice that you apparently had no interest in defending your belligerent editing on ANI, either, which was discouraging. The standard admin comment when protecting a page is an admonishment to the editors to work out their differences on Talk. I don't say that in this case, in view of the miserable state of this talkpage: the WP:TLDR arguing, the personal attacks, the repetitiousness, even on a few hands the trolling. You will no doubt do as you wish in any case, but my advice FWIW is to let the whole mess alone for a week. Imagine it, day after day without Shakespeare, Oxford, the mutual recriminations... nice, huh? Then you can come back rested, possibly even with a new perspective. Merry holidays. Bishonen | talk 09:56, 25 December 2010 (UTC).

Thank you Bish, much needed. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:12, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Merry Christmas to all editors and administrators working on or watching this page! Bishonen, could you clarify your role as a Wikipedia administrator for me? I've raised a number of specific issues on this page concerning Tom's avowed bias ('a crank theory'), his ownership of the article (of which what better evidence could there be than his 'Happy Birthday to Me' section on this Talk page?), the lack of neutrality in the article, the use of synthesis and original research, the citation of reliable sources for points which the sources don't support, citation of out of date sources for generalizations about the current state of an issue, etc. None of these points has been specifically addressed on this Talk page, although they have been talked around, stonewalled, and eventually just left without a response. Can a Wikipedia administrator require that specific issues be addressed when they have been legitimately raised, such as an editor's avowed bias, ownership of an article, etc.?NinaGreen (talk) 17:35, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

As far as content is concerned, an admin is merely another editor. They'll be a trusted and usually experienced editor, which is a better reason to listen to their advice than the adminship per se. Tom and Paul are experienced contributors too, and you could learn a lot from them, if you were willing. To take your question from another angle: no, an admin can't do that, but mediation or an article RFC can. I can only agree with Tom's often repeated advice to you to use the dispute resolution process.[1]

Frankly, even if it were up to me to make the demands you propose, I wouldn't be doing it at this time; both because I see them as unwarranted, and because my purpose with protecting SAQ wasn't to encourage continued quarrelling on this talkpage, but to lower the overall heat. I hope that anybody who needs a Christmas break from Shakespeare and Oxford takes one from Talk, too; some of the editors are beginning to sound a little frazzled. Personally, I'm taking the whole caboodle off my watchlist (so further pokes at me will be a waste of time) as of.. three.. two.. one.. NOW! Bishonen | talk 20:25, 25 December 2010 (UTC).

Bishonen, it would be helpful if you would spell out exactly what you think I could learn from Tom and Paul since that's at least the second time you've made the comment.

Re mediation. Perhaps at some stage it will be the route to go, but until the basic issue is identified, mediation strikes me as merely another way of ratcheting up the level of conflict. I'm new to this page, and although I've heard from time to time that there were serious disputes, I've never understood why things were so heated over here. But as I've learned more about the SAQ article in the past few weeks, it's become apparent to me that although the SAQ article is part of Wikiproject Alternative Views, it doesn't at all conform to the Wikipedia policy statement which governs Wikiproject Alternative Views, a link to which is found at the top of this Discussion page. The SAQ article doesn't look like any other article I've ever seen on Wikipedia in that it is filled with very lengthy vitriolic footnotes slamming the alternative theory. The root of the neutrality issue thus seems to be this: as part of Wikiproject Alternative Views, the SAQ article must present the majority view as the majority view, and must present the alternative view in a fair and balanced manner. Instead, the SAQ article tries to PROVE the majority view, and DESTROY the alternative view. That's the problem, pure and simple. Ergo, nothing will ever tone down the heat on this page until editors of this page revise their views to conform to the Wikipedia policy as set out in Wikiproject Alternative Views. Tom Reedy can PROVE that the majority view is the right one and attempt to DESTROY the alternative view on the website he works on with David Kathman, but he can't do that on Wikipedia. Similarly, I can't attempt to PROVE the Oxfordian hypothesis or attempt in any way to DESTROY the majority view in the SAQ article because that doesn't conform to the Wikipedia policy statement either. I have no intention of attempting either of those things, and never have had any such intention. I merely want to improve the article so that it conforms to the Wikipedia policy statement set out in Wikiproject Alternative Views. At present the POV of the article doesn't conform to that policy. It is written from the POV of PROVING the majority position, not merely PRESENTING it as the majority position. There's a vast difference between the two. And it is also written from the POV of DESTROYING the alternative view, rather than presenting it in a fair and balanced way. That's why there's a neutrality dispute. I personally feel confident that if editors and administrators of this page could conform to the Wikipedia policy set out in Wikiproject Alternative Views, we could get the job done. Something to think about during the week-long hiatus.NinaGreen (talk) 15:53, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Nina, I think this article would really benefit from you saying this sort of thing as part of a mediation request. Wrad (talk) 16:35, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Wrad, if editors can't agree, I'll probably resort to mediation in the end. However my hope is that editors will mutually agree that the POV dispute is really about whether the SAQ article conforms to the policy statement set out in Wikiproject Alternative Views, and that we can use that policy as a basis for mutually agreed upon revisions to the article to conform to the policy.

Incidentally, I clicked on the Discussion link for Wikiproject Alternative Views just now, and found a very interesting and very long section which begins:

WP:RS#Extremist_and_fringe_sources

It seems to me this whole project can be shut down by the reliable source policy on "Extremist and fringe sources". It says "Organizations and individuals that express views that are widely acknowledged by reliable sources as fringe, pseudo-academic, or extremist may only be used as sources of information about those organisations or individuals." In my experience, a source in the minority is barred completely because editors will revert it saying the source is "extremist or fringe". I have tried to cite a tenured professor who was hired to research for the US Senate and was unable to do so on the grounds the source was "fringe". The policy does not appear to allow any counter-arguments. If it is "fringe" (or, more accurately, subject to the possibility of being deemed "fringe" by other Wiki users) it is out! I suggest working to change that reliable source policy before going down this road of trying to ensure that "alternative" views get a hearing.Bdell555 (talk) 20:59, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that this is exactly what has happened with the SAQ article. Tom Reedy has used the reliable source policy to essentially shut down balanced development of the article, and not on the basis that the alternative view is 'widely acknowledged' as 'fringe', but solely on the basis that one individual whose degree is not in the specialist area and who does not teach or work in the specialist area has termed it 'fringe' -- David Kathman.NinaGreen (talk) 16:45, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Although I said I won't respond to your complaints anymore until you take them to dispute resolution, I will spend a few hours today composing a point-by-point explanation of your message above (the one with all the CAPITAL LETTERS). You might want to spend a few minutes pointing out exactly how this article violates the "policy statement set out in Wikiproject Alternative Views", and by that I mean furnish specific examples quoting the SAQ article. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:07, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Part of the problem with sources is that the Shakespeare project has it's own (very strict) "reliable source" culture. Tom is pretty much following project trends when it comes to that. On other articles, we have tried to stick to only scholarly, peer-reviewed sources unless it is absolutely impossible. Even more than that, we have to stick mainly to sources expressing the current, mainstream view because there is simply so much out there that scholars have written. We can't have it all. This article, however, is a bit different from the ones I'm talking about. The question is, do we want to change the Shakespeare project's standards for this article? Wrad (talk) 16:55, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Wrad, I'm not suggesting that we 'change the Shakespeare project's standards for this article', that is, I'm not suggesting that any Wikipedia standard be changed for this article alone. Bdell555, whom I quoted above from the Talk page for the Wikiproject Alternative Views, has pointed out a conflict between Wikipedia's reliable source policy and the Wikiproject Alternative Views policy. I'll repeat it here for clarity:

It seems to me this whole project can be shut down by the reliable source policy on "Extremist and fringe sources". It says "Organizations and individuals that express views that are widely acknowledged by reliable sources as fringe, pseudo-academic, or extremist may only be used as sources of information about those organisations or individuals."

This is a general problem, with ramifications for the entire Wikiproject Alternative Views, and somewhere along the way it will doubtless be resolved.

My point is a more specific one, although it relates to Bdell555's general point. My point is that only one individual is cited for the claim that the authorship controversy is a fringe theory, and that is David Kathman, one of the most active partisans on the Stratfordian side, a close associate of Tom Reedy, and someone whose degree is not in the specialist area (his degree is in linguistics), and who does not work in the specialist area (David Kathman works as a stock analyst). How has it come about that someone who is not part of the academic community has become the spokesman for the academic community in the Wikipedia article to the extent that his statement that the authorship controversy is a fringe theory has become the opening statement in the lede to the article, and has therefore determined everything which can be said in the article and every source which can be cited in the article? There is clearly something wrong here. And it is wrong for at least two very specific reasons in addition to the fact that someone who is not a member of academia is being presented in the Wikipedia article as the primary spokesman for academia. The first reason is Bdell555's statement above that Wikipedia policy is that before something can be declared a fringe theory in a Wikipedia article it must be 'widely acknowledged by reliable sources' that it is a fringe theory. A single statement by David Kathman that the authorship controversy is a fringe theory does not constitute 'wide acknowledgement by reliable sources'. Secondly, Shapiro (2010) clearly contradicts David Kathman. On p. 4 Shapiro writes:

Over time, and for all sorts of reasons, leading artists and intellectuals from all walks of life joined the ranks of the skeptics. I can think of little else that unites Henry James and Malcolm X, Sigmund Freud and Charlie Chaplin, Helen Keller and Orson Welles, or Mark Twain and Sir Derek Jacobi.

Shapiro might also have mentioned U.S. Supreme Court justices in this sentence, which he does later in his book.

This statement puts the authorship controversy in perspective historically, and demonstrates that it is anything but a fringe theory unless Wikipedia, on the sole authority of David Kathman, is going to take the position that Freud, James, Twain et al and U.S. Supreme Court justices are 'fringe theorists', or that 'leading artists and intellectuals from all walks of life' are fringe theorists.

David Kathman's statement should be deleted from the lede paragraph of the article. It represents Kathman's view, and Tom Reedy's view, but it does not represent the view of the 'leading artists and intellectuals from all walks of life' mentioned by Shapiro. Shapiro's view is obviously that the authorship controversy is a centuries-old alternative view. That puts it squarely within the context of Wikiproject Alternative Views, which means that the majority position must be clearly presented as the majority view of those in academia and in the public at large, and that the alternative view must be presented in a fair and balanced manner.NinaGreen (talk) 17:22, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Nina, Carroll clearly states that it is a fringe theory. Of course he does not use the actual word "fringe", but we do not require that. Fringe is a term of art within Wikipedia. The crtieria are outlined in Wikipedia:Fringe theories. At no point does it say we need an RS using the exact word "fringe". Indeed, many fringe theories are so far beyond the mainstream that they are not discussed at all within scholarly literature. Wikipedia still considers them to be fringe according to the relevant criteria. In this case we have several reliable sources which state that the theory is not taken seriously within academia. That is more than we require to say it is fringe within our usage. If you do not accept that, take it up on the NOR board or another appropriate forum. Paul B (talk) 17:52, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Paul, you're right. Carroll does NOT use the actual word 'fringe'. Only David Kathman uses that word, and David Kathman cannot represent the consensus of academia for all the reasons which have been so many times cited on this Talk page. For you to read into Carroll's words that he MEANS 'fringe' is synthesis and original research on your part, and I can just as easily read into Shapiro's book, from his comments about Supreme Court justices having given the authorship controversy 'legitimacy' (see quotation elsewhere on this page), that Shapiro's view is that the authorship controversy is not a fringe theory, but rather a theory which has legitimacy, which would equally be synthesis and original research on my part. Why should you and Tom Reedy get away with synthesis and original research in the SAQ article, and I not be able to get away with it? Merely to ask the question is to answer it. You and Tom Reedy get away with synthesis and original research in the SAQ article because Tom Reedy controls the article, and no-one gets to edit it without Tom's blessing. But Wikipedia policy is that no-one should get away with synthesis and original research in a Wikipedia article. So Tom should either recuse himself from editing because he is biased and in violation of Wikipedia policy, or he should change his editing style to conform to Wikipedia policy.

Re your comment that'"fringe is a term of art within Wikipedia", I'm well aware of that, and that's the reason you and Tom are so desperate to hang onto David Kathman's use of the phrase 'fringe theory'. Once you delete David Kathman's use of the phrase from the lede paragraph of the article, you will have to confront the fact that although Carroll says one thing, Shapiro and the New York Times survey say quite another, and the task of Wikipedia editors according to Wikipedia policy is to present both views from academia in a fair and balanced way. But you and Tom don't want to do that. You want to hang onto David Kathman's term 'fringe theory', found nowhere else in the academic literature, because you want the SAQ article to reflect the biased view of the authorship theory which you, Tom Reedy and David Kathman hold, and which you want to present as the consensus of the academic establishment in that specialist field even though none of the three of you work in academia in that specialist field, and of the three of you, only Tom holds an advanced academic degree in that specialist field. Bias, pure and simple.

You wrote:

In this case we have several reliable sources which state that the theory is not taken seriously within academia. That is more than we require to say it is fringe within our usage.

You have now raised an entirely different point, which is this. If you delete David Kathman's statement that it is a 'fringe theory', and the corresponding citation by Kathman, can you and Tom Reedy then determine on your own on the basis of 'several reliable sources' that the authorship controversy falls within the Wikipedia term of art known as a 'fringe theory'. No, you cannot, because the task of Wikipedia editors is to present the consensus of academia in a fair and balanced way, and although Carroll says one thing, Shapiro and the New York Times survey say another, and for you to present Carroll's view as the academic consensus (particularly when he himself has said that he is perhaps not the best representative of the academic consensus; see quote elsewhere on this page!) while ignoring the much more balanced view of the academic consensus represented by Shapiro and the New York Times survey is bias on your part.NinaGreen (talk) 20:47, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

The article clearly states that it has attracted some prominent public figures, and if you wish we can include Shapiro's quote as a reference, but listing the names in the article is not in keeping with summary style, unless you think we should list the names of those celebrities who think that Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare, which is ridiculous. I have all sorts of quotes saying it is a fringe theory; however, they all precede the word "fringe" with the word "lunatic". If you insist I add those I will acquiesce, but I thought it was too harsh, myself. As for Kathman speaking for the academic community, he clearly does so, and since his article is in the Shakespeare: an Oxford Guide, published by the Oxford University Press and edited by no less an authority than Stanley Wells, I doubt you'll get much traction appealing its inclusion at any Wikipedia noticeboard, but as has been reiterated ad infinitum, you are certainly welcome to try.

I suggest you read the entire page of the WikiProject Alternative Views you have been quoting, especially the Policies and guidelines section, which states, "Proper implementation of the project's goals hinges on a good understanding of Wikipedia's notability guidelines as applying to minority views or hypotheses, a point addressed in detail at Wikipedia:Fringe theories." To say that the SAQ is not a fringe theory while insisting it comply with the policies and guidelines of WP:FRINGE (which it does anyway) is ludicrous, to say the least, although I will say it is consistent with other anti-Stratfordian arguments in its lack of logic.

And will you please learn to add only one more colon to indent? They're not like exclamation marks where adding more means more emphasis. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:31, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Tom, you wrote:

I have all sorts of quotes saying it is a fringe theory; however, they all precede the word "fringe" with the word "lunatic".

Bring them on. I'd like to see them. If they're recent, and reflect academic consensus, maybe we can agree on the substitution of one of them for your cherry-picked source of your associate David Kathman.

You also wrote:

"Proper implementation of the project's goals hinges on a good understanding of Wikipedia's notability guidelines as applying to minority views or hypotheses, a point addressed in detail at Wikipedia:Fringe theories." To say that the SAQ is not a fringe theory while insisting it comply with the policies and guidelines of WP:FRINGE (which it does anyway) is ludicrous, to say the least, although I will say it is consistent with other anti-Stratfordian arguments in its lack of logic.

It's your logic which is faulty. Did you not see the phrase 'minority views' in the Wikipedia policy you just quoted? The coverage in a Wikipedia article of a MINORITY VIEW under Wikiproject Alternative Views may be governed in some respects by Wikipedia's policy regarding fringe theories, but Wikipedia still terms it a MINORITY VIEW, and you and Paul have misinterpreted that as licence to engage in your own synthesis and original research, and designate the authorship controversy a fringe theory.

And speaking of illogic, you wrote:

As for Kathman speaking for the academic community, he clearly does so, and since his article is in the Shakespeare: an Oxford Guide, published by the Oxford University Press and edited by no less an authority than Stanley Wells, I doubt you'll get much traction appealing its inclusion at any Wikipedia noticeboard

The claim that because David Kathman was allowed to include an article on the authorship controversy in a book edited by Stanley Wells means that every word and phrase written by David Kathman in that article represents the consensus of academia is illogic carried to a new extreme.NinaGreen (talk) 21:16, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

NinaGreen (talk) 21:04, 27 December 2010 (UTC) Zweigenbaum

in response to Bishonen's charge above that I did not defend my last correction of (your?) improper reversion of the neutrality template, please look at the "Modifying Argument to Hypothesis or Proposal" section and you will see my reasoning. It amounts to the following. If we can't agree on a grammatical substitution for the "Shakespeare authorship question is the argument" fiasco in the very first sentence, we have a neutrality issue. No need to be 'disappointed' Bishonen; simply realize that this peer review exchange is a shambles if the Stratfordian contingent harbors no bona fide intention of taking a neutral approach to the article. It is patently obvious that the neutrality tag is appropriate, given the convincing demonstration of Reedy's unfair descriptions, arrogant defenses, and slanted sourcing regarding the conflicting theory, problems outlined by Nina Green. An impartial observer would so rule. I applied the neutrality dispute tag simultaneously with my comments on December 23 and nothing since then that has originated with the Stratfordian group indicates it was inappropriate. That you reverted it contrary to rule is part and parcel of the injustice at hand. Of course you (generically) will not make strides towards a properly neutral attitude, as that gives legitimacy to a theory about which you are experiencing denial; nor will you admit that an issue exists concerning neutrality violations. Hence the necessity for a third party decision. Where's that Schweigenbalm when you need him, Nishidani? Not hanging out with Shakspere the poetic Ubermensch mit Schlag auf dem Kopfen? I hope. Take care over the holidays. ---Zweigenbaum Zweigenbaum (talk) 03:37, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Response to Nina's complaints about the article

Nina's message in bold italics, my response follows.

Re mediation. Perhaps at some stage it will be the route to go, but until the basic issue is identified,

I thought you had the basic issue already identified: (from below) “The root of the neutrality issue thus seems to be this … That's the problem, pure and simple.” (from above) “Tom and Paul have written the entire SAQ article from that biased and non-neutral point of view …” “Not only is the SAQ article not neutral, it engages in original research.” And so on.

mediation strikes me as merely another way of ratcheting up the level of conflict. I'm new to this page, and although I've heard from time to time that there were serious disputes, I've never understood why things were so heated over here.

Yes, you are relatively new to the page, having appeared here during the middle of a request for peer review and making the exact same arguments that another editor rehearsed before he was topic-banned, and using remarkably similar reasoning and apparently with a remarkable talent in finding all the old arguments and dispute resolution discussions.

I am really tired of you making that allegation. My arguments are entirely my own, and my analysis of what is wrong with the SAQ page is entirely my own. It pleases you to think otherwise and to try to persuade other editors and administrators on this page to think otherwise, but you are utterly and completely wrong. Are you perhaps being a bit sexist in implying that a female might not be able to come up with the critique of the SAQ article I've put forward? I'm not one to use that sort of argument (in fact I can't recall having used it before in my life), but you are beginning to sound sexist in continually implying that I'm unable to think for myself.NinaGreen (talk) 21:23, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

But as I've learned more about the SAQ article in the past few weeks, it's become apparent to me that although the SAQ article is part of Wikiproject Alternative Views, it doesn't at all conform to the Wikipedia policy statement which governs Wikiproject Alternative Views, a link to which is found at the top of this Discussion page.

First, the Wikipedia Alternative Views project is not a policy. Second, the project’s page itself says that its goals “should all be done while following our basic content principles. It should not be an excuse to correct supposed suppression from the mainstream orthodoxy, to engage in original research, or to use sources that aren't verifiable and reliable. We are not here to correct real-world coverage. We are here to report real-world coverage. We are not here to counterbalance real-world sources. We are here to balance according to real-world sources.” (Bolded phrases are particularly apt to your complaints.)

Nothing in this article contradicts the scope and goals outlined on that page. That you think the page is not neutral and contains original research does not make it so. Except for the statement that Shakespeare academics regard the SAQ as a fringe belief, you have yet to give any concrete examples of your charges of non-neutrality.

The SAQ article doesn't look like any other article I've ever seen on Wikipedia in that it is filled with very lengthy vitriolic footnotes slamming the alternative theory.

As I have stated more than once, the quotations in the footnotes are there because they back up statements that were challenged and their sources demanded. They quote sources explicitly, and those quotations are not in the article nor are they presented as anything but the opinions of academics. Their opinions are not stated as facts in the article, except for the fact that the academy holds those opinions.

The root of the neutrality issue thus seems to be this: as part of Wikiproject Alternative Views, the SAQ article must present the majority view as the majority view, and must present the alternative view in a fair and balanced manner.

The language used to describe each side is neutral and as free as possible of any sarcasm, cant, or disparagement, which is one reason why I have asked for and accepted suggestions on how to make the language more neutral. That academics disparage all alternative authorship theories is a fact, and it is stated as baldly as possible. The alternative view is an overview of the anti-Stratfordian case, and is not nor is it meant to be an exhaustive rehearsal of any particular anti-Stratfordian theory.

Instead, the SAQ article tries to PROVE the majority view, and DESTROY the alternative view.

No, the article gives the anti-Stratfordian case in summary form using language that is as palin, unvarnished, and neutral as possible, and does not even include any rebuttals, neither in the general anti-Stratfordian case nor in the individual candidate summaries. The summary of the Stratfordian case is written in plain, neutral language, and does not overstate any of its arguments nor use any sly or misleading language.

That you perceive that the article is trying to prove the Stratfordian view and destroy the anti-Stratfordian view is because of the strength of the orthodox case and the weakness of the alternative arguments against it. Those relative strengths are intrinsic to each side, not a result of non-neutrality or original research. There is a reason, after all, why the SAQ remains a fringe theory, and why the orthodox scenario has remained in place after 150 years of anti-Stratfordian assaults.

That's the problem, pure and simple. Ergo, nothing will ever tone down the heat on this page until editors of this page revise their views to conform to the Wikipedia policy as set out in Wikiproject Alternative Views.

There is no heat from this side; it is all from yours. And the article does conform to Wikipedia policy; it’s just that you don’t like the policy, nor is your interpretation of those policies accurate. I have more than once suggested you use the dispute resolution mechanisms Wikipedia provides to determine whose interpretation is closest to consensus among Wikipedia editors and admins, but you seem to be reluctant to discover that.

Tom Reedy can PROVE that the majority view is the right one and attempt to DESTROY the alternative view on the website he works on with David Kathman, but he can't do that on Wikipedia.

I’m not trying to prove anything, nor do I need to, having already done so on the page that you reference, but I do have to prove that my sources say what I attribute to them, and that is what you have been complaining about since you got here. And this article is not solely authored by me, nor do I claim to “own” it, as you have accused me several times. Anybody can edit the article, but anybody who does so is subject to the same collaborative give-and-take as any other editor, as well as any administrative sanctions their edits might instigate.

Similarly, I can't attempt to PROVE the Oxfordian hypothesis or attempt in any way to DESTROY the majority view in the SAQ article because that doesn't conform to the Wikipedia policy statement either.

The article as it stands contains neutral summaries of the orthodox and alternative views on Shakespeare’s authorship. It is not my fault that all the documentary evidence is on one side and all the strained speculation is on the other(s). Wikipedia articles should describe the real world coverage of a topic and reflect real-world balance, and this article does so on both counts. You have yet to offer a specific example of how this article violates neutrality or weight, except for your fixation on Dave Kathman’s description of the SAQ as a fringe belief. That statement is attributed and worded neutrally, and furthermore it accurately describes the academic consensus of the topic. Your beef is with the academy, not with me or Wikipedia.

I have no intention of attempting either of those things, and never have had any such intention. I merely want to improve the article so that it conforms to the Wikipedia policy statement set out in Wikiproject Alternative Views. At present the POV of the article doesn't conform to that policy. It is written from the POV of PROVING the majority position, not merely PRESENTING it as the majority position. There's a vast difference between the two. And it is also written from the POV of DESTROYING the alternative view, rather than presenting it in a fair and balanced way. That's why there's a neutrality dispute.

So how many times do you have to repeat it before it comes true? More than you’ve done so, I can tell you that. Why not list specific examples of how the article violates neutrality and demonstrate why they do so? So far all we’ve had is Kathman’s description.

I personally feel confident that if editors and administrators of this page could conform to the Wikipedia policy set out in Wikiproject Alternative Views, we could get the job done. Something to think about during the week-long hiatus.

Allow me to make a suggestion. Go to this sandbox page and write what you think is the perfect, neutrally-worded, reliably-sourced, non-original-researched page you want. Change any and every thing you want, and then we’ll all have a better idea of what you have in mind. I doubt you’ve got the patience to do so, but if the improvement of the article is indeed your goal, that would be one way to demonstrate that.

Tom Reedy has used the reliable source policy to essentially shut down balanced development of the article, and not on the basis that the alternative view is 'widely acknowledged' as 'fringe', but solely on the basis that one individual whose degree is not in the specialist area and who does not teach or work in the specialist area has termed it 'fringe' -- David Kathman.

WP:RS states that Academic consensus: "The statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view."

The statement is "... all but a few Shakespeare scholars and literary historians consider it a fringe belief with no hard evidence, and for the most part disregard it except to rebut or disparage the claims."

The citation given (one of several) reads: "...in fact, antiStratfordism has remained a fringe belief system for its entire existence. Professional Shakespeare scholars mostly pay little attention to it, much as evolutionary biologists ignore creationists and astronomers dismiss UFO sightings." The statement appears in Shakespeare: an Oxford Guide, Oxford University Press, pp. 620–32, a publication that meets WP:RS, which states "Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable." As far as I can discern, your complaint that the statement is original research is based on the fact that Kathman writes "antiStratfordism has remained a fringe belief system for its entire existence" instead of "all but a few Shakespeare scholars and literary historians consider it a fringe belief", which in my opinion is a distinction without a difference. If you feel differently, I suggest you go to WP:OR/N and make your case.

For some reason this morning I thought your comments had more substance to them and would take a few hours to answer, but on closer examination it appears that your only mantra is neutrality. I await your list of specific examples of violations of WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT. Tom Reedy (talk) 04:51, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Scholars of the stature of Arthur Quiller-Couch and Samuel Schoenbaum, who were very particular about language, have dismissed the various alternative theories as a form of 'lunacy' or 'madness'. This judgement, which could be documented and underscored from several other quality mainstream sources, has been withheld from the SAQ page as both a gesture of civility and to best reflect wikipedia policies on neutrality, though it is eminently sourceable. Given this tacit perception in mainstream sources, the SAQ issue is not 'alternative' but 'fringe'. Insistent reiteration of a grievance by true believers does not qualify as an argument, though it seems to be the only tactic left in the strategy manual of the de Vereans. Further generic complaining, and, especially, further baiting of practiced and trusted longterm editors to exhaustion with insinuations about their attitude in the face of the patience and attention they have shown in repeating points already exhaustively explained in the archives, is not only pointless but probably actionable. We are not here to push personal beliefs and fudge the sources, but to write neutrally. It is perfectly compatible with the objective of neutrality to reflect the fact that this 'theory' (or, rather, 'argument', for theories of value are not circular while this kind of reasoning is, and arguments go one forever, like wiki threads, whereas 'theories' rise and fall on the strength of verifiable data) has no standing, historically or today, as a 'minority' opinion, or 'alternative theory' in academia or among Shakespearean or Elizabethan-Jacobean era specialists. Nishidani (talk) 05:44, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Nishidani, you wrote:

Scholars of the stature of Arthur Quiller-Couch and Samuel Schoenbaum, who were very particular about language, have dismissed the various alternative theories as a form of 'lunacy' or 'madness'. This judgement, which could be documented and underscored from several other quality mainstream sources, has been withheld from the SAQ page as both a gesture of civility and to best reflect wikipedia policies on neutrality, though it is eminently sourceable.

Your comments give rise to another problem with the SAQ article, its failure to distinguish between sources which present the views of critics of the authorship controversy at various historical points in time, and the current view of the authorship controversy among academics and the public at large. Quiller-Couch wrote about Shakespeare in the 1930s and died in 1944. Is the real reason his comments are not included in the article because they are too harsh, and have been 'withheld' as a 'gesture of civility and to reflect Wikipedia policies of neutrality', or because they reflect an opinion of one critic in the 1930s and thus may be seriously out of date in terms of portraying the current view of the SAQ? Obviously the latter. There is no room for either 'withholding' reliable sources or 'gestures of civility' in the Wikipedia policy of neutrality. The Wikipedia policy of neutrality mandates that all relevant information be presented in a neutral manner, and that a historical opinion be presented as such, not as representative of the current state of the controversy. There is a historical section to the article, and if Quiller-Couch's comments are relevant to that section, you should present them there, and most definitely should not withhold them, but for obvious reasons they should not be presented in the lede to the article as an indication of the current state of the authorship controversy.

As for your comments concerning Schoenbaum, Shapiro's comments suggest you are being disingenuous in claiming that you and Tom Reedy have withheld them from the SAQ article as a 'gesture of civility' or in accordance with the Wikipedia policy of neutrality. Shapiro's states on p. 208 that Schoenbaum himself toned down his earlier comments when he revised Shakespeare's Lives in 1991. On p. 202, Shapiro writes:

And in 1970, the leading Shakespeare biographer, Samuel Schoenbaum, his patience sorely tested by having to slog through so many books that questioned Shakespeare's authorship, administered what must have seemed a death stroke in his Shakespeare's Lives. The "sheer volume of heretical publication appalls," Schoenbaum writes, its "voluminousness . . . matched only by its intrinsic worthlessness." It was "lunatic rubbish," the product of "mania."

On pp. 207-8 Shapiro writes:

The moot court proved to be a turning point in the decades-long struggle to promote Oxford's cause. More than anything else, the Supreme Court justices had provided legitimacy; the Oxfordians were no longer the "deviants' vilified by Schoenbaum (and one immediate effect of the moot court was that this harsh language was considerably toned down when Schoenbaum revised his Shakespeare's Lives in 1991). If Supreme Court justices could take the Oxfordians seriously and deem them the only serious rivals to Shakespeare, so could others.

Shapiro's review of this historical development indicates clearly that views of the authorship controversy have changed over time, and that you and Tom Reedy did not 'withhold' Schoenbaum's earlier comments from the SAQ article as a 'gesture of civility' or in accordance with the Wikipedia policy of neutrality, but because Schoenbaum himself toned them down. Schoenbaum's revision of his earlier views belongs in the historical section of the article, not as a source in the lede paragraph of the article. Schoenbaum died in 1996, and even his toned-down comments cannot be fairly claimed to represent current views on the authorship controversy.NinaGreen (talk) 18:12, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Nina, grammatically, what you write is nonsense. 'Shapiro's review of this historical development indicates clearly that .... you and Tom Reedy did not 'withhold' Schoenbaum's earlier comments from the SAQ article as a 'gesture of civility'.

Repetition is not an argument. Excessive posting of repetitious points fully answered does not impress, and your grammar shows that this harping is causing you to make incoherent statements.

Focusing on Shapiro is pointless. Much of what Shapiro has to say has been said before, a century ago. There has been almost no substantial change in the content of material churned out by conspiracy theorists over the last century. Read Brian Vickers, here. He's one of the foremost literary specialists of the Elizabethan period, whose perspective is that what you deny to be a fringe theory is not a theory at all, but a delusion, and the word 'delusion' is used precisely, in its technical sense, of the state that results from being prey to a system of belief which distorts one's perception of the real state of affairs, esp. here of the current state of scholarship. I could bring up dozens of quotes by academic authorities which use variations on 'lunacy' 'madness,' 'delusion', 'folly' to describe the SAQ controversy, from the deep past to the present day, and no amount of beating the Tom Tom to single out Reedy as some malign manipulator of the record will change that, or the fact that the article we have is the result of intensive collaborative work and wikipedia's process of neutral peer review by independent technicians with expertise in what is required of articles. Compare our article with what Vickers says, and you will see that, rather than being 'biased', it is even-handed.Nishidani (talk) 23:32, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Nina, if you think that the academic consensus is that the SAQ is merely a minority opinion, you need to find a reliable source that states that. Shapiro does not. WP:RS states that Academic consensus: "The statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view." I have provided that source to the effect that it is considered a fringe belief by academic Shakespeareans. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:36, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Tom, you state:

I have provided that source to the effect that it is considered a fringe belief by academic Shakespeareans.

No, you have not. You have cited only David Kathman for the specific phrase 'fringe theory', and besides being an extremely partisan close associate of yours (which should immediately call into question your bias in citing David Kathman and David Kathman alone for the phrase 'fringe theory'), David Kathman has a degree in linguistics and works as a stock analyst. However much you may want to make him the SOLE representative of academic consensus on this point, David Kathman is not in any way qualified to represent academia on this point. Once we get that straightened out, and David Kathman's phrase 'fringe theory' is removed from the lede paragraph, we'll be well on our way to writing a neutral article. It's your biased citation of Kathman as the representative of academia on this point which is the chief roadblock to a neutral SAQ article.NinaGreen (talk) 18:59, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Just go to dispute resolution and quit wasting everybody's time. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:01, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Tom, you are the one who is wasting everyone's time. This does not require dispute resolution. You have cherry-picked a very partisan source, a source with whom you are closely associated in partisanship in the authorship controversy on a non-peer-reviewed website which you cite several times in the article, a source who does not have a degree in the specialist field, a source who does not work in academia -- David Kathman. And having cherry-picked this source for a phrase which cannot be found anywhere in the academic literature other than an avowal by David Kathman, you have inserted it in a biased manner in the lede to the article, thereby hoping to control, through the use of the phrase 'fringe theory', every statement which is made in the article and every source which is cited in the article. You know full well that there is not a single statement in Shapiro's book, which is the latest academic word on the authorship controversy, which even comes close to the phrase 'fringe theory', yet you have cherry-picked a biased source because it's your personal view of the authorship controversy that it's a fringe theory. How could it NOT be your view when you're associated with David Kathman on his website and when you have called it a 'crank theory' yourself on this Talk page? You should recuse yourself from editing the SAQ article until you can bring yourself to eliminate this sort of bias on your part.NinaGreen (talk) 20:21, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

You have edited this talk page twenty times in the last 24 hours. Are you aware that this is not a forum where endless discussion is tolerated? Per WP:TPG all discussion here should be focused on efforts to improve the article, so you need to make specific suggestions and not just express your thoughts. Re "fringe": Above, Paul B (timestamp 17:52, 27 December 2010 UTC), carefully explained what "fringe" means here; please digest that information before continuing to talk about "fringe" because you seem to have failed to understand WP:FRINGE. Also, your comments re Tom Reedy are too strident: this is not the place to allege that a particular editor has violated policies such as no original research. If you have a claim, give a precise example of text in the article and explain the problem. If you want assistance, go to the no original research noticeboard. However, you must stop your attacks on other editors (see WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA). Finally, your claims that Tom Reedy controls this article are completely without foundation as I have previously explained. Most experienced editors would avoid getting involved in an article like this because there are hundreds of places where people try to push their POV on Wikipedia, and people have to ration their time. Experienced editors can see at a glance that this article is in good shape, and can quickly recognize that the walls-of-text on the talk page involve misunderstandings of Wikipedia's procedures; that's why you see only a few editors commenting here (the others can see that their involvement is not required). Johnuniq (talk) 22:17, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Johnuniq, there is only one reason why this discussion goes on endlessly, and that reason is that a biased editor (by his own admission he thinks the authorship controversy is a 'crank theory'), Tom Reedy, has taken ownership of this page, partly because, as you yourself admitted earlier and have admitted again now, you and others have turned over editing of this page to him. After actively assisting Tom to acquire ownership of the page, you now want to shut down any challenge to Tom's ownership of the page.

You wrote:

you need to make specific suggestions and not just express your thoughts

I am most emphatically not merely 'expressing my thoughts'. I have made all kinds of specific suggestions, and as I mentioned to Bishonen above, they have all been talked around, stonewalled, and eventually just left lying without a response. The most recent specific suggestion is that David Kathman's statement that the authorship controversy is a fringe theory, and the citation of David Kathman as a source for it, need to be removed from the lede paragraph of the article. I've explained all the cogent reasons according to Wikipedia policy why this needs to be done, and those reasons are being totally ignored by Tom Reedy, Paul Barlow, and now by you.

You wrote:

Re "fringe": Above, Paul B (timestamp 17:52, 27 December 2010 UTC), carefully explained what "fringe" means here; please digest that information before continuing to talk about "fringe" because you seem to have failed to understand

Read my recent replies to Paul Barlow and Tom Reedy. It is not I who does not understand Wikipedia's policy re fringe theories. It is Paul and Tom and you. Wikipedia editors cannot ON THEIR OWN INITIATIVE call something a fringe theory which Wikipedia policy itself terms a MINORITY VIEW and an ALTERNATIVE THEORY, and Wikipedia editors cannot call something a fringe theory which Shapiro states in a book published in 2010 was given 'legitimacy' by U.S. Supreme Court Justices and has attracted adherents among 'leading artists and adherents from all walks of life', and which a New York Times Survey says 17% of English professors in the U.S. consider might have something to it. You might PREFER to call it a fringe theory in the face of Shapiro and the New York Times survey, but you would be engaging in original research and ignoring the Wikipedia policy of neutrality in doing so.NinaGreen (talk) 23:49, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Nina, you write "For you to read into Carroll's words that he MEANS 'fringe' is synthesis and original research on your part". This is an outright falsehood. I'm inclined to call it an outright lie. WRP:FRINGE is clear that we do not need the actual word Fringe in a source. I will very soon raise your behaviour in an approproiate forum, since I can no logner assume any good faith. Paul B (talk) 11:38, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Your replies are not ex cathedra. Tom is not biased in speaking of a crank theory. That is what scholarship has determined. If you wish to change the determination of fringe to minority or alternative views, argue the case in the appropriate forum here. The consensus of editors is that the scholarship adduced shows this is a fringe argument, and no amount of niggling Tom Reedy, or singling him out, will change that consensus. You have to challenge it elsewhere not here. Nishidani (talk) 00:14, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Nishidani, you've made my point. It is most certainly not the case that my replies are 'ex cathedra'. Nor are yours, or Tom's, or Paul's, or David Kathman's. None of us is in academia in the specialist area. Therefore what we all face, and must report neutrally in the SAQ article, is the fact that academia neither terms it a 'crank theory' nor a 'fringe theory', and in fact Shapiro's entire book and the New York Times survey indicate that academia considers it something other than a 'crank theory' or a 'fringe theory'. Wikipedia policy states that Wikipedia is not a democracy, and your claim that a 'consensus' reached among a number of admittedly partisan and wholly biased editors of this page that it is a 'fringe theory' allows Wikipedia policies concerning original research and neutrality to be openly flouted is just plain wrong and misguided. If editors aren't willing to follow Wikipedia policy, they should recuse themselves from editing. A Wikipedia article is not any small biased group's particular fiefdom.NinaGreen (talk) 00:31, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Again you fail to understand the most elementary points, and try to turn the obvious reply to your advantage by saying it confirms what you believe. You singled out Reedy and made a lot of serious charges against him, and kept up a repetitive nagging barrage to that effect. One administrator, and several other practiced wikipedians, Hamiltonstone, Wrad, myself, Reedy, Barlow, Jonuniq, etc., in their various comments appear to think that the balance of these absurdly ouroboric arguments lies with the positions Reedy has steadily clarified. He has been receptive to several points. On the other hand, there is no evidence that you or Schweigenbalm show any understanding of what he, and most of us, are saying. The editorial consensus here is as I said earlier.

About not being 'in academia'. Some of us are, or have been, and are published in respectable university presses, after intensive peer review. You haven't been.

Before Reedy came to this article it was a 'small biased group's particular fiefdom', ruled by Smatprt, with assistance, whenever needed, from almost a dozen de Verean true believers, who invariably popped in to outvote any outsider. The page was unreadable, unscholarly, bore no resemblance to what wiki protocols require of articles, and had stagnated for several years to the despair of many good editors who abandoned it out of frustration. Reedy has established his bona fides by taking 8 months out of his life and leisure to fix it into a shape that approximates to what the encyclopedia requires of articles, and his contribution is, I think, widely acknowledged in the wikipedia community that has glanced at, over or into this article and related matters. Compare my version with Reedy's, or Wrad's perspective, or Hamiltonstone's comments, and you will see that we have decidedly different perspectives.

It may be coincidence, but nearly everything you say has been rebutted in the archives. Read them. Nishidani (talk) 01:02, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Nishidani, you wrote:

Before Reedy came to this article it was a 'small biased group's particular fiefdom', ruled by Smatprt, with assistance, whenever needed, from almost a dozen de Verean true believers, who invariably popped in to outvote any outsider.

Thanks for the history lesson, but it's irrelevant because the situation is now completely reversed. Now the SAQ article is a 'small biased group's particular fiefdom' ruled by Tom Reedy, 'with assistance, whenever needed, from almost a dozen anti-Oxfordian true believers and partisans, who invariably pop in to outvote any outsider'. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Look at what's happened in the section immediately below this one where Tom Reedy in desperation has cited an author who writes books on SOCCER as someone who should be cited in the SAQ article as representing the consensus of the Shakespeare establishment on the authorship controversy. With that citation the points being put forward by Tom Reedy in order to maintain his own personal belief, in the face of Shapiro's book and the New York Times survey, that the authorship controversy is a 'fringe theory' have entered the realm of the truly ludicrous.NinaGreen (talk)

And I would conclude, take to heart David Chandler's summary point about one of the problems in the Oxfordian attitude, printed in an anti-Stratfordian on-line journal:

"while Oxfordians have sometimes attacked the academy for ignoring them, the fact is, on the whole, that 'mainstream' Shakespeare scholarship has shown more interest in Oxfordianism than Oxfordians have shown in 'mainstream' Shakespearean scholarship." Chandler, David (Spring 2001), "Historicizing Difference: Anti-Stratfordians and the Academy", in Elizabethan Review.

I.e., if this needs to be construed, academia has listened,often intently, to the conspiracy rumour-mill. But those who, in Milton's words, sit 'grinding at the mill' of antiestablishmentarian arguments all day, appear unable to reciprocate the courtesy, which consists in listening closely to what scholarship says, rather than half-hearing it through the dissonant noise of wheels and quern, and then thinking one has grasped the gist of what is, however, a message distorted by poor reception.Nishidani (talk) 01:19, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Zweigenbaum

Excuse me Nashidani, who is this Schweigenbalm you referred to above? I feel like I should know him. But Schweigenbalm means silent medicine, and Zweigenbaum means strong tree. You may have an identification problem you haven't worked out rationally. Freud could be helpful on mistakes like that. I'm Zweigenbaum.

Say that I'm posturing (the charge is back there in the verbal debris) or say that I'm Albert Hall, you are obligated to prove your allegations that these instances of "lunatic fringe" remarks are credible and considered, rather than being just what they appear to be, simple invective, the inherent nature of such language. That trained scholars indulged themselves in it is shame in itself. That you all rely upon it as bearing the gravity of "Authority" is perhaps childish? Your remarks (Nashidani) to Nina Green are to use a neutral-leaning euphemism intemperate. I assumed ad hominem aggressions went out with playground recess. I understand but cannot approve that in an adult. It appears the issue is headed for arbitration before a third party, since the traditionalist cohort has problems actually encountering the hard work of reading someone else's insight and scholarship, and your responses have devolved into spit and sputter.

Though skeptical, I have read the academic as well as alternative studies and after having done so (over the course of five years) agree with Ramon Jimenez, a published classical scholar who wrote, "The accumulation of evidence for Oxford,...is the most comprehensive and detailed solution to the 'problem'. It is hard to believe that it will not eventually result in the acceptance of Edward de Vere as the genuine Shakespeare.

"When this occurs, all the biographies of the Stratford man, and at least one of Oxford ['Monstrous Adversary'] will become comical literary curiosities." (The Oxfordian/9)

For the sake of further perspective, I quote a summation by David L. Roper, a published English scholar:

"When confronted by perfectly valid reasons for considering an alternative..., the need to save face governs intellectual honesty, and refuge is sought in censorship, ridicule, and a blatant disregard for conflicting evidence.

"In [Stradfordians'] own personal realities, the Stratfordian thesis contains everything they wish for, and they protect their creation against disbelievers with the only armaments available--invective and ridicule.

"[Quoting Alan Nelson,] 'I agree that antagonism to the ...debate from within the profession is so great that it would be as difficult for a professed Oxfordian to be hired in the first place, much less gain tenure, as for a professed Creationist to be hired to gain tenure in a graduate-level Department of Biology.' Truth, it would seem, is sometimes barred from the universities when it threatens to replace the dominant paradigm." --Roper, 'Proving Shakespeare' (2010)

Or Tolstoy: "I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabrics of their life."

Or Saint Ignatius of Loyola: "We should always be disposed to believe that that which appears white is really black, if the hierarchy of the Church so decides." In this case, if the hierarchy of doctrine so decides.

Do these comments on any orthodoxy's blind subjectivity describe familiar elements behind the present impasse? Appealing to your sense of rectitude and fairness in re-evaluating the present proposed article, Tom Reedy, let's get back on topic by listing the changes you made based on my suggestions, with the objective being results rather than put-downs. --Zweigenbaum ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zweigenbaum (talk • contribs) 16:08, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

"Lunatic fringe" quotations from Shakespearean academics and critics, all from reliable sources

Michael Billington, the Guardian's theatre critic: “James Shapiro's Contested Will concentrates on the lunatic fringe of Shakespeare authorship theories – a fascinating topic, to be sure, if you admire snobbery, philistinism and ignorance.” (2010)

Sarah Wadsworth, academic, critic: “Delia Bacon, whose theory that Francis Bacon and others secretly authored Shakespeare's plays consigned her to the lunatic fringe” (2009)

Peter Milward, priest, academic, critic: “But what they are really asking is not, 'Who is Shakespeare?' in the present, but, 'Who was Shakespeare?' in the past. So most scholars relegate these questioners to "the lunatic fringe," and they will have nothing more to do with them.” (2008)

Will Sharpe, editor: “[Stanley] Wells, over the past five decades, has become one of the most distinguished Shakespeareans to have walked the earth, and has been called upon to weigh in against the lunatic fringe of Shakespeare commentators more times, I’m sure, than he’d care to remember.” (2007)

Lisa Hopkins, academic, critic: “Freud in his later years espoused the lunatic fringe view that the works of Shakespeare were in fact written by Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford.” (2005)

K.K. Ruthven, academic, critic: “Most Stratfordians regard the authorship controversy as a pseudo-problem invented by the lunatic fringe of Shakespeare studies.” (2005)

Anthony Fowles, writer: “Every few years I find myself revisiting Literature's all time, Number One mystery: who wrote 'Shakespeare'? I don't do this with any passionate axe to grind. Indeed, for years I resolutely avoided all the lunatic fringe theories circling the wagon train of orthodox Shakespearean studies.” (2001)

Robert Maslen, academic, critic: “… some scholars have attributed parts of Shakespeare's early plays to Marlowe (and on scholarship's lunatic fringe, contributors to the authorship controversy have attributed the late ones to him too: see Marlovian theory” (2001)

Tom Dulack, academic and playwright: “… the ancient lunatic fringe of conspiracy crazies who persist in their fanatical belief that Shakespeare was not the author of the play to begin with.” (2001)

Charles Garfield Nauert, academic, critic: “… his [Shakespeare’s] ability to attract great gentlemen as patrons of his theatrical company (and as the true authors of his poems and plays, if one believes a lunatic fringe of self-styled experts)” (1995)

William Ingram, academic, critic: “…she [Anne Whatley], like the authorship claimants, becomes a kind of shibboleth for the identification of members of the lunatic fringe.” (1992)

William C. Carroll, academic, critic: “the play [LLL] has always been the darling of the Shakespearean lunatic fringe.” (1976)

Patrick Cruttwell, academic, critic: “Goodness knows I have never felt the smallest temptation to join the lunatic fringe of Shakespearean criticism which proclaims that he wasn't Shakespeare.” (1975)

Kenneth Muir, academic, critic: “Professor Schoenbaum has cast his net widely. He includes amateur antiquarians, professional scholars, forgers, Baconians, Derbyites and the rest of the lunatic fringe, even some writers of fiction.” (1971)

These comments are mild compared to some, nor are these exhaustive. Which ones should we use in place of Kathman? (We'll of course have to change the wording of the article text to read "lunatic fringe" instead of "fringe belief".) Tom Reedy (talk) 04:02, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Great, Tom, let's start whittling them down. First of all, let's eliminate from consideration any source that's more than a decade old since the lede paragraph is supposed to represent the consensus of the Shakespeare establishment as it exists today. Next, let's eliminate from consideration any source who isn't a member of the Shakespeare establishment according to Carroll's definition cited by you in footnote 3 of the lede paragraph:

the Shakespeare Establishment,' one of perhaps 20,000 in our land, professors mostly, who make their living, more or less, by teaching, reading, and writing about Shakespeare

Who does that leave us with? I can't tell because you've used the vague term 'academic' as an identifier for virtually all of them, and I can't tell from that term what their field of academic specialty is. If they're to represent the consensus of the Shakespeare establishment as defined by Carroll, their field of academic specialty, i.e. the field in which they have a Ph.D., has to be the literature of the Elizabethan and early Jacobean period. When you let us know who's left, we'll have our short list.NinaGreen (talk) 05:39, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

My goodness, Tom, I just googled Anthony Fowles, whom you indicate you would like to quote, as you indicate above, as representing the consensus of the Shakespeare establishment on the authorship controversy. This is what turned up:

http://www.llamagraphics.com/Meadow/Essays/Shakespeare.html

Llamagraphics supposes that Anthony Fowles is possibly Shakespeare, and at the very least a regular contributor to the Meadow. He is a reknowned author of books about soccer written with Garry Nelson, including Left Foot Forward.

Your inclusion of Anthony Fowles as a suggested reliable source for the SAQ article suggests the absurdity to which your bias has driven you.NinaGreen (talk) 06:02, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Zweigenbaum Some holiday rest, how do you manage to relax so well? Sorry Tom Reedy, your "lunatic fringe" quotations, like the term itself, are scholastically meaningless except as evidence of a threatened priesthood's reflexive polemicizing, for each and every use lacks reasons for the term, no matter if Jesus Christ had said it. Impressive list of schlock though. If only they had turned that energy into scholarly inquiry. You can't responsibly evaluate the studies of the contending Oxfordian scholarship unless you read its work. Such is the bias in the field and obviously the bias of the Wikipedia article writer and supporters. Nothing like inert belief to perpetuate willful ignorance. Happy New Year. Zweigenbaum (talk) 05:22, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Zweigenbaum. Posturing is not an argument. Nina, I can myself add to the list - as I said earlier - courtesy has left us withholding a lot of information that makes this ideological mania look far more queer than our text lets on - and I could make it easier for you with links, but you apparently think Tom and I have to work over this vacation while you harangue us with lazy equivocations just to 'whittle down' everything to the Oxfordian default promotional image. Still, in the Christmas spirit, explain to us why Peter Milward, writing in 2008, doesn't fit.Nishidani (talk) 06:29, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Nishidani, you wrote:

Nina, I can myself add to the list - as I said earlier - courtesy has left us withholding a lot of information that makes this ideological mania look far more queer than our text lets on

Fiddlesticks. As I said before (and you're forcing me to repeat myself), it's not courtesy at all. The real reason you haven't cited these 'sources' in the article is that they cannot by any stretch of Wikipedia policy be made to represent the consensus of the Shakespeare establishment as defined by Carroll in the passage quoted by you and Tom Reedy in footnote 3 of the SAQ article. Name even one of the 'sources' cited above by Tom Reedy who has a Ph.D. in the literature of the Elizabethan and early Jacobean period and for whom the quotation cited by Tom is recent enough that it can be said to accurately represent the current consensus of the Shakespeare establishment (as defined by Carroll, whose definition you yourselves quote), and whose quotation carries sufficient weight to wipe out the contradictory evidence in Shapiro's book and the New York Times survey on the current consensus in the Shakespeare establishment (as defined by Carroll).

Incidentally, you said above that some of the editors on this page themselves have Ph.Ds in the literature of the Elizabethan and early Jacobean period and have published in peer-reviewed journals dealing with the literature of those periods. Who are they? You don't have to 'out' them. Just refer to them by their Wikipedia aliases. If you're going to claim specialist qualifications for editors of this page, you need to at least identify which editors have those specialist qualifications so that their opinions can be given the requisite weight.NinaGreen (talk) 06:58, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Nina, you are engaged in systematic misreading of everything both your interlocutors, and the text, and, I might add, the sources used for the text, states. I'll give you just two examples.

Example 1. (a) Tom provides you with a large list of academics who dismiss this argument as lunatic fringe.

(b) You reply:'Great, Tom, let's eliminate from consideration any source that's more than a decade old since the lede paragraph is supposed to represent the consensus of the Shakespeare establishment as it exists today. Next, let's eliminate from consideration any source who isn't a member of the Shakespeare establishment according to Carroll's definition.'

(c)I respond, naming Peter Milward as fitting your criteria. He is a Shakespearean scholar, has a chair in Renaissance studies, and has trained many Japanese scholars in this area. I provide a link to his wiki biography. The quote is from 2008. He has the requisite background Carroll speaks of.

(d)Your reply? Your reply is to ignore the evidence of Milward, and to repeat the question.

'Name even one of the 'sources' cited above by Tom Reedy who has a Ph.D. in the literature of the Elizabethan and early Jacobean period and for whom the quotation cited by Tom is recent enough that it can be said to accurately represent the current consensus of the Shakespeare establishment (as defined by Carroll, whose definition you yourselves quote)'

Verdict. You ask questions. When answered with precision, you continue repeating the question, ignoring the answer, and complain then of stonewalling. Worse still, you who lack any academic qualifications at all in this, keep challenging the credentials of scholars who do have them in that field.Nishidani (talk) 08:23, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Example 2(a)You stated:'None of us is in academia in the specialist area.'

(b)I remark: 'About not being 'in academia'. Some of us are, or have been, and are published in respectable university presses, after intensive peer review. You haven't been.'

Note I ignore the point, which is irrelevant, about 'the specialist area'.

(c)You reply.'you said above that some of the editors on this page themselves have Ph.Ds in the literature of the Elizabethan and early Jacobean period and have published in peer-reviewed journals dealing with the literature of those periods.'

That is how your mind appears to work. Disattention, misrepresentation, and then challenging editors to explain what they never said. If you are so disconcerted about bias in wikipedia, and poor sourcing for statements, I suggest you just move over to Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship which is in a hopeless state of disrepair, needs drastic editing and may be a good proving ground, undisturbed, for showing that you know what wiki policy requires. It's all in an area you understand, de Verean studies, and is untroubled by the area you show scarce familiarity with, i.e. historical and literary scholarship. Nishidani (talk) 08:05, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I fully expected Nina's reaction to be exactly what it is, because that's the way anti-Stratfordians argue: ask for a particular piece of evidence and when it's presented dismiss it by moving the goalposts and demanding that it comply with even more strictures in order to disqualify it, so you really can't blame her for arguing like an anti-Stratfordian, Nick, because that's her stock in trade. Her reaction to your statement about our agreement to tone down the language of the article was also predictable, because she refuses to read the appropriate Wikipedia policies and guidelines, which states that "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: Such articles should first describe the idea clearly and objectively, then refer the reader to more accepted ideas, and avoid excessive use of point-counterpoint style refutations." Instead she searches through Wikipedia for phrases she can cherry-pick to use for her objections. Again, this is a standard anti-Stratfordian debating tactic, and it is no surprise that she uses them here also, since it's a habit of mind, as evidenced by this entire page. Yet another example is her picking out one critic from the list and disqualify him because he wrote a book about soccer (although he has written several books of literary criticism, which she would have learnt had she continued her scholarly quest on Google) while simultaneously claiming that I "would like to quote" him. In any other editor that would be evidence of blatant dishonesty, but for anti-Stratfordians you must make allowances because their minds really do work that way. That's why they can claim that there's no evidence for William Shakespeare as a writer while simultaneously claiming there is overwhelming evidence for their favourite candidate, keeping a straight face while doing so and demanding that their assertions be taken seriously by the academic establishment. Since Paul, you, and I have acted in good faith and tried to answer her objections with evidence that would have satisfied any other person long ago, after much consideration I think the best thing to do is to just ignore her from now on and let others deal with her. If she makes any good points that are usable we can silently note them when (and if) the article opens up for editing again. Life is too short to continually repeat oneself. I regret that this discussion has become about an editor's behaviour instead of the content of the article, but since I seem to be her main topic of discussion I felt I should be able to speak my mind about this. Tom Reedy (talk) 14:16, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Yesterday she posted 21 times to this talk page. Will she beat that record today? She's got a good start. Tom Reedy (talk) 14:19, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

It really is amazing how Tom Reedy and Nishidani can get off topic and post reams of prose which have nothing to do with the issue at hand, which is whittling down Tom's 'lunatic fringe' quotes to those which can legitimately be considered to represent the consensus of the Shakespeare establishment. So far, after threats by both Tom Reedy and Nishidani of being able to produce countless numbers of such quotes, and with Tom having produced a list of quotes which includes someone who writes about SOCCER and whose comments were posted on a blog, we have one name put forward, that of the Jesuit Peter Milward. Is that it? Can Tom Reedy and Nishidani stay on topic long enough to clarify that point for the rest of us? Is Peter Milward the only name they are putting forward as representing the Shakespeare establishment in terms of the use of the phrase 'lunatic fringe'?NinaGreen (talk) 15:52, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

No. 11. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:01, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Zweigenbaum Nashidani, who is this Schweigenbalm you refer to above? I feel like I should know him. But Schweigenbalm means silent medicine and Zweigenbaum means strong tree. You may have an identification problem not yet brought to rational examination. Freud was good on problems like that. I'm Zweigenbaum.

Call it posturing or call it Albert Hall, you are obligated to prove your allegations that these instances of "lunatic fringe" remarks are credible and considered, rather than what they appear to be, simple invective, which is the inherent nature of such language. That trained scholars indulged themselves in it is shame in itself. That you all resort to it as bearing the gravity of "Authority" is perhaps childish? Your remarks (Nashidani) to Nina Green are to use a neutral-leaning euphemism intemperate. I assumed ad hominem aggressions went out with playground recess. I understand but cannot approve. It appears the issue is headed for arbitration before a third party, since the traditionalist cohort has problems actually encountering the hard work of reading someone else's insight and scholarship.

Though skeptical, I have read the academic as well as alternative studies and after having done so agree with Ramon Jimenez, a classical scholar who wrote, "The accumulation of evidence for Oxford,...is the most comprehensive and detailed solution to the 'problem'. It is hard to believe that it will not eventually result in the acceptance of Edward de Vere as the genuine Shakespeare.

"When this occurs, all the biographies of the Stratford man, and at least one of Oxford ['Monstrous Adversary'] will become comical literary curiosities." (The Oxfordian/9)

For the sake of further perspective, I quote a summation by David L. Roper, an English scholar:

"When confronted by perfectly valid reasons for considering an alternative..., the need to save face governs intellectual honesty, and refuge is sought in censorship, ridicule, and a blatant disregard for conflicting evidence.

"In [Stradfordians'] own personal realities, the Stratfordian thesis contains everything they wish for, and they protect their creation against disbelievers with the only armaments available--invective and ridicule.

"[Quoting Alan Nelson,] 'I agree that antagonism to the ...debate from within the profession is so great that it would be as difficult for a professed Oxfordian to be hired in the first place, much less gain tenure, as for a professed Creationist to be hired to gain tenure in a graduate-level Department of Biology.' Truth, it would seem, is sometimes barred from the universities when it threatens to replace the dominant paradigm." --Roper, 'Proving Shakespeare' (2010)

Or Tolstoy: "I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabrics of their life."

Or Saint Ignatius of Loyola: ""We should always be disposed to believe that that which appears white is really black, if the hierarchy of the Church so decides." In this case, the hierarchy of doctrine.

Do these descriptions of any orthodoxy's blind subjectivity resemble elements behind the present impasse? Appealing to your sense of rectitude and fairness in re-evaluating the present proposed article, maybe by Tom Reedy showing us the changes he made after reading my suggestions. It's productive to discuss specifics. --Zweigenbaum ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zweigenbaum (talk • contribs) 16:16, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Presenting The Majority View In Accordance With Wikipedia Policy

Tom has called the authorship controversy a 'crank theory' and Nishidani has called it 'this ideological mania'. With that kind of bias on the part of two prominent editors of the SAQ article, it's small wonder that the lede paragraph strays from Wikipedia policy, and frames the issue in biased terms. The lede paragraph reads:

The Shakespeare authorship question is the argument that someone other than William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon wrote the works traditionally attributed to him, and that the historical Shakespeare was merely a front to shield the identity of the real author or authors, who for reasons such as social rank, state security or gender could not safely take public credit. Although the idea has attracted much public interest, all but a few Shakespeare scholars and literary historians consider it a fringe belief with no hard evidence, and for the most part disregard it except to rebut or disparage the claims.

Wikipedia policy states that the majority view must be presented as the majority view, and that the minority view must be presented in a fair and balanced manner. It goes without saying that the majority view must be defined as the view held by the Shakespeare establishment. It also goes without saying that the view of the Shakespeare establishment presented in the lede paragraph must be the current view held by the Shakespeare establishment (historical versions of it belong in the historical section of the SAQ article), so any sources cited in support in the lede paragraph must be less than a decade old.

Where is the presentation of the majority view in the lede paragraph? It's not there. The view of the Shakespeare establishment is that the true author of the Shakespeare canon is William Shakespeare of Stratford. That's it, pure and simple. And that is what should appear in the lede paragraph according to Wikipedia policy. Instead, the majority view is presented in terms of what the majority allegedly thinks of the minority view. Instead of presenting the majority view in terms of who the Shakespeare establishment thinks wrote the plays, the majority view is presented in terms of what Tom Reedy, David Kathman, Nishidani, Paul Barlow et al claim the Shakespeare establishment thinks of the minority view. But so far, Tom et al have not been able to substantiate their biased claim. They have threatened to produce countless numbers of statements from members of the Shakespeare establishment which support the way they have framed the issue in the lede paragraph, but they have been unable to cite members of the Shakespeare establishment as sources. Thus, the lede paragraph needs to be entirely rewritten so that it contains, in accordance with Wikipedia policy, a clear statement of the majority view, which is that the Shakespeare establishment thinks William Shakespeare of Stratford wrote the plays. Their unsubstantiated claim concerning what the Shakespeare establishment allegedly thinks of the minority view needs to be entirely eliminated from the lede paragraph.NinaGreen (talk) 16:27, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Example 3 'but they have been unable to cite members of the Shakespeare establishment as sources.'

For the third time now, Nina. You asked us to whittle the list down, and produce a ranking Shakespearean scholar writing in the last decade on record as regarding your position as 'fringe'. I did so, with Peter Milward.

most scholars relegate these questioners to the lunatic fringe, and they will have nothing more to do with them.' (2008)' Peter Milward.

Now, with the evidence you requested produced, you repeat the accusation of 'inability to cite' and quietly sweep the evidence from Milward under the carpet. It's called shifting the goalposts, or stonewalling, or WP:IDONTLIKEIT. There is no point in continuing this conversation, since you refuse to collaborate intelligibly, stonewall or pretend not to notice when evidence you asked for is given, and twist policy in the face of several editors who have exercised considerable patience in trying to set your misapprehensions straight. Take it elsewhere. Nishidani (talk) 22:34, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Nishidani, no goalposts are being moved, and no-one is being swept under the carpet, although there's definitely some stonewalling going on on your and Tom's part. As you mention above, I asked that you and Tom whittle the list down so that it didn't include sources more than a decade old and sources who aren't members of the Shakespeare establishment. Tom has stonewalled, and hasn't done anything. You've come up with Peter Milward, but haven't indicated whether that's the sole name left on the list as far as you're concerned. And so far neither of you has even identified the work by Milward which you're citing, nor produced the context of the citation so that it can be confirmed that Milward is endorsing that view and speaking for the Shakespeare establishment. I'm guessing that the quotation is perhaps from the chapter entitled "Catholic Shakespeare" in Milward's unpublished (and unfinished?) online autobiography, Genesis of an Octogenarian, but I have no way of confirming that, or of seeing the quotation in context, because the "Catholic Shakespeare" chapter can't be read online. There's a link to it through the Wikipedia article on Peter Milward, but the "Catholic Shakespeare" chapter appears in white type, and I can't find the quotation Tom has cited.NinaGreen (talk) 00:17, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

And nobody's going to give it to you either, you'll just have to find it for yourself, because those quotes were furnished merely to demonstrate that the depiction of the academic consensus about the SAQ was accurate and extremely mild compared to what is available to use from reliable sources. Indeed, plenty of academics have compared it to a mental illness, but as Nishidani informed you, in compliance with Wikipedia guidelines for WP:FRINGE we agreed to be less harsh in our description than most academics are. And there is no stonewalling; you're just not calling the shots about how I choose to spend my time. I figure that answering the same question four or five times should be enough. Where I come from we don't call that stonewalling. Tom Reedy (talk) 05:56, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Tom, the point is that I don't need to find it. None of the quotes you've supplied indicates that 'the academic consensus about the SAQ was accurate and extremely mild compared to what is available to use from reliable sources'. Your quotes indicate exactly the opposite. Many of them are extremely out of date. Many of them are from people who are not academics at all. Many of them are from academics who are specialists in completely unrelated fields, and who cannot represent the current consensus of the Shakespeare establishment. Some of them, when read in context, are actually critical of the way in which the Shakespeare establishment chokes off discussion of the authorship controversy (you haven't pointed that out, but it's true). The only quote Nishidani singled out as possibly proving your point, the one from the Jesuit Peter Milward, now turns out to be from an unpublished (and unfinished?) autobiography in which the relevant quotation cannot be found because some of the chapters, including the chapter "Catholic Shakespeare" in which it is likely to be found, are not currently online in a readable form. I also suspect that in context the quotation from Milward does not support your contention, which is why I think every editor of this page should read it for himself if he can find it. But I don't think anyone can find it. The end result is that you've disproved your contention in spades by citing all these examples of the use of the phrase 'lunatic fringe' which don't support your point in the slightest, because not a single one of them represents the current consensus of the Shakespeare establishment on the authorship issue.NinaGreen (talk) 16:58, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

"Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!" See if you can find that one. I doubt it, after reading over your above message. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:30, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Review of talkpage interactions, and article editing

Following a request at my talkpage I have been looking over this page, and also the edit history of the article. My first impressions is that the clean break I had hoped would result in the RfC relating to Smatprt (talk · contribs) and Nishidani (talk · contribs) and Tom Reedy (talk · contribs) preferred variant of the article content has failed to materialise.
There are still clear misunderstanding of the meanings of Wikipedia:Consensus and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and its application to Wikipedia:Fringe, and seeming systematic Wikipedia:Disruptive editing and Wikipedia:Tendentious editing in an apparent effort to Wikipedia:Exhaust editors who hold views contrary to those advocating the adoption of a particular point of view as the NPOV position.

The WP:NPOV regarding the SAQ is that William of Stratford is the author of those works commonly attributed to Shakespeare - this is the consensus of not only the literary experts, but also that of the general literature world. There is some acknowledgement that there are some who question that consensus, including a very few well regarded opinionators on the subject, but that mostly these theories on who might otherwise been the author are disregarded or dismissed by mainstream academia. This results in a dearth of specific rebuttal (as against the proliferation of sources advocating a preferred candidate for the authorship, and those finding fault in the accredition for the Merchant of Avon). The lack of a wide ranging rebuttal or counter argument for those advocating a different individual as the "true Bard" does not give Oxfordian, Baconite, etc, advocates an enhanced standing but rather the opposite - as does the almost complete silence by world authorities on the premise that Atlantis really exists,and as a way station for UFO's; the mainstream does not respond because they see no reason to.

Another issue, not unrelated, is the constant demand for cites or sources for generalisations (I wonder how many people have placed cite tags in the preceding paragraph, and how many are now removing them...) regarding the NPOV/Consensus. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources" dictates that where there are theories that are either fringe or simply are the opposite of the majority or consensus viewpoint that they need to be well sourced - but commonly accepted theories or statements do not. Requiring a cite for every mention that William of Stratford is the true author is mendacious editing, and if it continues after a polite warning is grounds for sanction against persistent offenders.
Yet another apparent issue is the sheer volume of text that is generated, often by those who are attempting to change the article POV. Repeating a question because a previous answer was found not to be sufficient is poor form, repeating a question as an addendum to other questions that are being repeated might constitute tendentious editing. Repeating another editors question when (re)asking your own is simply disruptive. That sort of behaviour needs to stop. If the questions asked do not get the response the asker hopes for, and does not advance the change in consensus desired, then the problem lays with the question not addressing the status quo. Either drop the question, or reformulate it (shorter would be better, too) - and try to indicate that you understand the answers given; it is not necessary for either party to agree, but it is to acknowledge that a response has been made. Lastly, in among these blocks of texts are allegations upon the motivations and bias' of other editors, of actions made (or not made) by respondents. This needs to cease. Baiting comments, here or anywhere else, should be regarded as vandalism and treated accordingly. Accusations, without evidence, of contributors acting in any regard except for the betterment of the project will be treated as Wikipedia:No personal attacks violations, and again should be dealt with accordingly. The presumption of Wikipedia:Assume good faith does not permit a never ending cycle of challenge and reconfirmation - there comes a point when it should be noted that concerns have been noted and, where possible, addressed and the matter closed.

I had hoped that with the closure of the RfC involving Smatprt, Nishdani and Tom Reedy that that line had been drawn. The NPOV regarding Shakespeare and his authorship is that William of Stratford upon Avon is held as the writer. The premise of the Shakespeare Authorship Question is that there continues to be a fringe opinion that another individual is the author, that this is advanced both on suggested inadequacies for William of Stratford's assignment and potential better candidates for the title - but that mainstream and scholarly consensus rejects these theories. Under that understanding, it is possible to examine the claims against the Stratfordian consensus and those for the different alternatives within the article. Per NPOV it is not permissible to give the impression that any proposed alternative author has any standing in the wider world, or that the claim for William of Stratford is in any way compromised.

I really hope that people can get on with improving the article under that basis. If they cannot, then I will consider using the remedies available to ensure that those people are no longer able to disrupt these pages. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:57, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

LessHeard, thanks for your comments. I agree completely with what you have said above concerning the majority position, i.e. that the consensus in the Shakespeare establishment is that William Shakespeare of Stratford wrote the Shakespeare canon. If you read my comments in the section I added just above this one, that was precisely my point as well. In accordance with Wikipedia policy in Wikiproject Alternative Views, the majority position must be clearly presented as the majority position. But that is not what the lede paragraph does. Instead of stating the majority position as you have stated it, the lede paragraph presents the majority position in terms of what the majority allegedly thinks of the minority position. If the majority position were presented clearly, according to Wikipedia policy, as what the majority actually thinks of the issue itself, not in terms of what the majority thinks of the minority view, that would go a very long way towards clearing up the confused thinking which runs throughout the entire article.NinaGreen (talk) 16:48, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Oops. Nina, I just realised you have many times referred to "Wikipedia policy in WikiProject Alternative views", and quoting that project's self-description as "policy". Pity nobody enlightened you about that (or did they perhaps try?)*(see note below); I suppose it just seemed too far-fetched to register with people, as it was for me. Now, with the clue in my hand, I can see this notion of policy in relation to WikiProject Alternative views all over your posts above, for instance here, where you reverently quote a big chunk out of the project's statement and refer to it as what "Wikipedia itself" says. The distinction between policy and project (and between both of them and "Wikipedia itself") is a mile wide. I would note that carefully if I were you. WikiProjects, their self-introductions, and their choice of articles to put their template on, have no authority of any kind outside the WikiProject itself. None. Anybody can start a WikiProject, regardless of their qualifications and standing, and incorporate any article as being "within the scope" of them. What WikiProjects do is grade articles, according to more or less credible criteria (not a particularly useful activity IMO, but your mileage may vary). Some projects, mostly the big ones, have a good reputation; most projects do not. And they sure don't have any authority. There is nothing there that you can use to thwack Tom and others with, as you have attempted so many times to do with WikiProject Alternative views.

You're a new user, so of course I don't blame you for not being aware of the distinction between a project and a policy. But I find it hair-raising that you set yourself up as an authority on it, and on policy altogether. How can you suppose it remotely likely that you either know or understand policy better than people who have been editing here for years, digesting and practising the policies, learning to understand the spirit of them? That from the moment you arrived on this page, you have been ordained to lecture Tom, Paul, and Nishidani on Wikipedia policy? It's absurd on the face of it. Bishonen | talk 18:30, 29 December 2010 (UTC).

• Actually, just for the record, Tom did try, without success, to inform Nina of this crucial distinction, in his long reply on the 27th:'the Wikipedia Alternative Views project is not a policy.'Nishidani (talk) 22:52, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Bishonen, perhaps it was the word 'policy' in the statement which appeared when I clicked on Wikiproject Alternative Views' which mislead me:

Wikipedia's policy is to write articles from a neutral point of view describing not just the dominant view, but significant alternative views as well, fairly, proportionately, and without bias.

In any event, it makes no difference to the point I've made in the section above this one, or to my complete agreement with LessHeard that the majority view must be clearly presented as the majority view, which means that the current consensus of the Shakespeare establishment must be clearly presented in the lede paragraph. As LessHeard clearly stated, the current consensus of the Shakespeare establishment is (and always has been) that Shakespeare of Stratford wrote the plays. That's what needs to be in the lede paragraph instead of the current statement, which pretends to put forward what the Shakespeare establishment currently and historically thinks of the minority view.

And I'm most emphatically not 'lecturing' anyone on policy (although I've been lectured and criticized and harped at on policy by virtually every administrator and editor of this page since I came on board as an editor, with no praise from anyone for the fact that I almost single-handedly edited the entire Edward de Vere article to the point that it could easily be put forward for peer review to be accorded FA status). I'm merely pointing out (and apologies for having to repeat myself, but you're forcing me to do it) that the lede paragraph does not present the majority view in terms of what the Shakespeare establishment actually thinks (as LessHeard said, that Shakespeare of Stratford wrote the Shakespeare canon). Instead, it presents the majority view in terms of what editors on this page allege the Shakespeare establishment currently thinks of the alternative view. The allegation has not been substantiated, and cannot be substantiated in the face of Shapiro's Contested Will, the New York Times survey, Shapiro's statement in the LA Times interview that the authorship controversy has 'gone mainstream', the graduate program in authorship studies at Brunel University, the statement by Professor Russ McDonald, President of the Shakespeare Association of America, ('The SAA does not have 'an opinion' on the authorship question. Moreover, there is no ban on speaking or writing about that topic at our annual conference. Several so-called Oxfordians are members of the organization and have presented papers at that meeting') etc. That's the long and the short of it. Now all that remains is for someone to take the initiative and rewrite the lede paragraph to eliminate the confused thinking which permeates it, and which because of it extends to the rest of the article.NinaGreen (talk) 19:00, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

You may get a better understanding of how WP:FRINGE is applied by looking at Objections to evolution which discusses the scientific acceptance of evolution vs. the objectors. As you can see, the creationists get a pretty raw deal in that article, although their views are described. That is the standard treatment on Wikipedia for hundreds of topics like 9/11 conspiracy theories and Moon landing conspiracy theories and Bigfoot. If you still think there is a problem with the lead in this article, you should propose a change so something concrete can be discussed. As previously suggested, you could write a draft in this sandbox. Johnuniq (talk) 22:40, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Lede

Johnuniq, thanks for the comments, and for the suggestion that I write something up. How about this for the first paragraph, leading directly into the first sentence of the second paragraph:

The consensus of the Shakespeare establishment and the public at large is that William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon was the author of the works traditionally attributed to him. However during the past 150 years a number of alternative authorship candidates have been put forward, and it is contended by some that Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon was merely a front to shield the identity of the real author or authors, who for reasons such as social rank, state security or gender could not take public credit.

Scholars suggest that the controversy has its origins in Bardolatry, the adulation of Shakespeare in the 18th century as the greatest writer of all time etc.

NinaGreen (talk) 23:33, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

The last two sentences of the first paragraph need to stay as they are in order to provide context, otherwise I think it's good. Without those two sentences, the article risks sounding something like "Most people think x, but there's this new, brilliant theory that's quickly gaining ground that thinks y!" I think the mainstream view should have the final say in the first paragraph. Wrad (talk) 00:58, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Wrad, thanks for the suggestions. You wrote:

The last two sentences of the first paragraph need to stay as they are in order to provide context, otherwise I think it's good.

The last sentence in the current version of the SAQ article reads:

Although the idea has attracted much public interest, all but a few Shakespeare scholars and literary historians consider it a fringe belief with no hard evidence, and for the most part disregard it except to rebut or disparage the claims.

The SAQ article can't say that 'all but a few Shakespeare scholars and literary historians consider it a 'fringe belief' when Professor Russ McDonald, President of the Shakespeare Association of America, one of the largest organizations of Shakespeare scholars in the world, says that the SAA has 'no opinion' on the authorship controversy. Nor can the SAQ article say that Shakespeare scholars do nothing but rebut or disparage the authorship controversy when the President of the SAA says Oxfordians are members of the SAA and have presented papers at SAA meetings. The last sentence has to go.

You also wrote:

Without those two sentences, the article risks sounding something like "Most people think x, but there's this new, brilliant theory that's quickly gaining ground that thinks y!" I think the mainstream view should have the final say in the first paragraph.

How about this version? I've put the first sentence from the current online version back in, and reinforced the majority view again at the end, and for good measure, added the word 'true' in front of 'author'.

The Shakespeare authorship question is the argument that someone other than William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon wrote the works traditionally attributed to him. During the past 150 years a number of alternative authorship candidates have been put forward. Proponents of these candidates contend that Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon was merely a front to shield the identity of the real author or authors, who for reasons such as social rank, state security or gender could not take public credit. However the consensus view in the Shakespeare establishment and among the public at large is that William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon was the true author of the works traditionally attributed to him.

The paragraph doesn't need any citations. No-one's going to challenge 'motherhood' statements of that nature.NinaGreen (talk) 05:22, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm reproducing the first three paragraphs of WP:LEDE here for comparison purposes:

The lead section (also known as the introduction, lead, or lede[1]) of a Wikipedia article is the section before the table of contents and the first heading. The lead serves both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of its most important aspects.

The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject should usually be established in the first few sentences.

While consideration should be given to creating interest in reading more of the article, the lead nonetheless should not "tease" the reader by hinting at—but not explaining—important facts that will appear later in the article. The lead should contain no more than four paragraphs, must be carefully sourced as appropriate, and should be written in a clear, accessible style to invite a reading of the full article.

I've carefully reviewed my draft above to see whether it fully complies with WP:LEDE. I think it does, with one exception. It doesn't explain why the subject is 'interesting or notable'. The word 'notable' appears twice, and 'notability' once in the first three paragraphs of WP:LEDE. It thus seems that there should be something in my draft which would reflect Shapiro's comments on p. 4 of Contested Will:

Over time, and for all sorts of reasons, leading artists and intellectuals from all walks of life joined the ranks of the skeptics. I can think of little else that unites Henry James and Malcolm X, Sigmund Freud and Charlie Chaplin, Helen Keller and Orson Welles, or Mark Twain and Sir Derek Jacobi.

How about this version, which now incorporates a statement as to 'why the subject is interesting or notable'?

The Shakespeare authorship question is the argument that someone other than William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon wrote the works traditionally attributed to him. During the past 150 years a number of alternative authorship candidates have been put forward. Proponents of these candidates contend that Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon was merely a front to shield the identity of the real author or authors, who for reasons such as social rank, state security or gender could not take public credit. Over time the controversy has attracted support from leading artists and intellectuals from all walks of life. [CITATION: SHAPIRO, P.4] However the consensus view in the Shakespeare establishment and among the public at large remains that William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon was the true author of the works traditionally attributed to him.

NinaGreen (talk) 16:53, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I should have added that I would leave it at that, and delete the remaining three paragraphs of the current version of the lede in the SAQ article. The suggested paragraph above covers all the points which WP:LEDE requires be covered in a lede, and the remaining three paragraphs of the current lede all properly belong in the body of the article. The second paragraph of the current version belongs in the historical section, and the third and fourth paragraphs are comprised in the lede and already covered in extenso in the body of the article.NinaGreen (talk) 18:00, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Are you saying that this version you have posted above is neutral and comprehensive and is a concise overview of the article?

In the current version "the idea has attracted much public interest" sufficiently establishes notability for the purpose of the lede. Tom Reedy (talk) 08:21, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

The SAQ article can't say that 'all but a few Shakespeare scholars and literary historians consider it a 'fringe belief' when Professor Russ McDonald, President of the Shakespeare Association of America, one of the largest organizations of Shakespeare scholars in the world, says that the SAA has 'no opinion' on the authorship controversy. Nor can the SAQ article say that Shakespeare scholars do nothing but rebut or disparage the authorship controversy when the President of the SAA says Oxfordians are members of the SAA and have presented papers at SAA meetings. The last sentence has to go.

You still haven't digested WP:RS. The lede can say whatever reliable sources tell us about the reception of the SAQ among Shakespeare scholars, regardless of your leap of logic from what McDonald told you. Tom Reedy (talk) 13:09, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

See WP:LEDE, WP:FRINGE, and WP:WEIGHT. Also Strunk and White: "Vigorous writing is concise. A sentence should contain no unnecessary words, a paragraph no unnecessary sentences, for the same reason that a drawing should have no unnecessary lines and a machine no unnecessary parts. This requires not that the writer make all his sentences short, or that he avoid all detail and treat his subjects only in outline, but that every word tell." Tom Reedy (talk) 02:41, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Zweigenbaum Agree with Nina Green's formulation of the majority/minority issue. Zweigenbaum (talk) 03:01, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

The correct terminology is academic/fringe. the SAQ is not a minority position, like Shakespeare's supposed Catholicism. Tom Reedy (talk) 04:39, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Zweigenbaum Academic and majority in this field amount to the same constituency. Minority and fringe are not identical terms, the first representational and the second derogatory toward its object. I consider this Green formulation an advance in neutral presentation of the issue, whatever the arcana utilized by the editors in favor of the traditional view. Zweigenbaum (talk) 07:26, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, of course you would think that the idea that Oxford was the son and lover of Queen Elizabeth was a "minority" view, just like the idea that Oxford wrote most of Elizabethan literature as Nina believes. Tom Reedy (talk) 13:09, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

[Zweigenbaum]] No way of telling if those notions are the minority view, until such a view is documented. The minority view referenced above is that someone other than Shakspere of Stratford wrote the Shakespeare canon; that can be documented, if not in quantitative number, in qualified scholarship and by statements from a range of informed and educated individuals over time. The theory, repeat theory, that Oxford was the lover to Elizabeth at one point has some, repeat some, inferential and textual support. The other notion is less developed as theory, the subject being culturally taboo as one factor why. What I or anyone 'believe(s)' has little to do with the probity of theories to be developed and evaluated. Theory is not fact. Theory is useful in gaining knowledge. Theory can lead to proof beyond a reasonable doubt when tested against available evidence. Charges about someone else's belief, like provisional theories, are subject to standards of proof. Lacking proof, the/your charges fail. Relax. Nobody's trying to put one over on you. Zweigenbaum (talk) 19:43, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Lead proposal

Above (23:33, 29 December 2010 UTC), NinaGreen proposed that the first paragraph of the lead, and the start of the second, be replaced with:

The consensus of the Shakespeare establishment and the public at large is that William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon was the author of the works traditionally attributed to him. However during the past 150 years a number of alternative authorship candidates have been put forward, and it is contended by some that Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon was merely a front to shield the identity of the real author or authors, who for reasons such as social rank, state security or gender could not take public credit.

Scholars suggest that the controversy has its origins in Bardolatry, the adulation of Shakespeare in the 18th century as the greatest writer of all time ...

Style here is that the first sentence should define the topic, so the current lead starts properly, while the proposal would be too vague for someone wondering what the SAQ is. The proposal puts an emphasis on the past 150 years that I think is misleading. It is often true, and widely believed, that developments in the past 150 years have moved many fields (particularly science) from a primitive basis to proven and useful knowledge. Accordingly, the proposed wording may suggest that modern understanding (i.e. the correct view) is that Shakespeare was "merely a front". A more due reference to time might be [Bate 1998]: No one in Shakespeare's lifetime or the first two hundred years after his death expressed the slightest doubt about his authorship. The proposal changes the second paragraph from "Scholars contend..." to "Scholars suggest...". That's quite a big change which goes to the heart of the issue: do those who are known to be scholars in this field contend or merely suggest? My understanding is that "contend" is the more accurate term. Johnuniq (talk) 03:57, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I think you know the answer to that, Johnuniq. Scholars don't beat around the bush and write mushy, vague "suggestions" when it comes to the SAQ. And for God's sake! "it is contended by some"??? Reading that is like chewing tinfoil. Tom Reedy (talk) 04:37, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

The lead took almost a year of intensive negotiation to get to the formulation we now have. Every single word and then phrasing and sentence was subject to extensive review, as one can see in the archives. It must be conceded that wikipedia does not privilege a conservative notion of textual stability, but it is also true that articles and esp. the leads, especially sensitive ones with a history of intensive dispute, that have finally achieved through intensive negotiation some degree of stability, are only retouched if good grounds for altering a word or a phrasing have been argued over, and agreed to, on the talk page.

You suggest in just the first line:-

'The consensus of the Shakespeare establishment and the public at large is that William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon was the author of the works traditionally attributed to him. However . .'

The word 'establishment' is one you repeatedly use in these threads, and it is loaded. Webster-Merriam gives the sense you aim at introducing:

a group of social, economic, and political leaders who form a ruling class (as of a nation) b often capitalized : a controlling group <the literary establishment>

What your suggestion does is intimate, by a very tacit subliminal prompt, that there is a controlling group who rule over Shakespearean studies much as an elite caste in politics does. This 'Shakespearean establishment' is much like any political establishment, in that it monopolizes discourse, exercising a kind of discursive power that represses dissenting opinions, much as a 'literary establishment' does not represent the views of all those engaged in literature, but rather an entrenched coterie of those who have made it, who act as the arbiters of taste and make life difficult for aspiring, creative minds who are on the rise and do not share their values, opinions, beliefs, or endorse their aesthetic or even political positions.

Then you introduce the 'public at large', introducing a second level of discursive arbiters, on a par with the former, and the impression seeded in the readers' mind is that a complex issue of historical interpretation has two relevant tribunals, (a) the Shakespearean academic establishment and (b) public opinion.

Though you initially concede that they share, in this case, a consensual view, the showcasing of a 'public' court of opinion as being on a par with academic opinion looks like a rhetorical wedge that, if inserted, will then be used to destabilize the academic opinion. Why do I infer this?

On the 16th of December at 15:58, you wrote:

Ifanything will eventually overwhelm the Stratfordian position on the authorship, it's (sic) acceptance by the general public of the Prince Tudor theory when Roland Emmerich's film Anonymous is released next year.

(And don't forget the New Yorks Times poll of "Shakespeare professors"!) Tom Reedy (talk) 04:46, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I.e. while the 'Shakespearean establishment' plies the worry beads over the intricate hermeneutics of 16th century textual issues, and concludes Shakespeare is Shakespeare, all this may (hopefully) be overwhelmed by the impact on the public mind of a piece of Hollywood fantasy, which ignores everything 3 centuries of intensive scholarship has established. Once the public is won over to the de Verean fringe view, the Shakespearean establishment's hegemonic grip on the interpretation of things will flounder, academic will be shipwrecked on the shoals of Hollywoodian hype and spectacular effects. A sleazily incestuous 'who-screwed-who' version of Elizabethan history will screw or backscuttle the bookish twits who actually read the archives.

It is a bit like writing the lead on creationism and giving public opinion equal status with science, and then, since the polls say the American public embraces Creationism, that the 'scientific establishment' is losing its power to dictate the agenda. It is fairly well documented in the academic literature that the attempt by the fringe theorists to get a foothold on Shakespearean studies faltered, and since 1980 the dominant effort has been redirected to turning public opinion. I could say more, but will refrain, since our supervisors have, with some justification, complained of the inconclusiveness of these threads. Nishidani (talk) 04:03, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

A quick trip into the talkpage archives would turn up several interminable discussions with the same title as this section. Things got so bad that the administrators assigned the warring factions to work on a sandbox version out of the mainspace to relieve those searching for information on Wikipedia (which should be our intended audience) from having to wade through the mire and contentious edit warring. When that proved unworkable, two sandbox versions were created to give each side a chance to produce a neutral version that met Wikipedia standards. The version that now exists took the place of the old version, and was undergoing peer review in an effort to achieve FA status, probably the first such effort made by an article concerning a fringe theory. Now the move is to begin again in the Sisyphean task of trying to placate a group of editors whose idea of neutrality is to pretend that anti-Stratfordism has equal weight with the reality version of Shakespeare's authorship? This is nothing more than the continence of the same edit war with the same tactics of attrition waged by another clone of the editor who was topic-banned after four years of Wikibullying good editors off the page in the name of "neutrality", which meant that Oxfordism had the same status as Stratfordism--anything else was bias, just as Nina has been harping on these past few weeks. the sheer tediousness of the arguments causes experienced administrators to throw up their hands and quit the field, which works to the advantage of the fringe warriors because their strategies only work with relatively new admins, or at least admins who have no experience with them and therefore tend to think that some kind of rational discussion can work things out.

You want to know how to write a lede? It's very simple with the merest of acquaintance with WP:LEDE: the first sentence should define the topic. The second should say why it's notable and in the case of a fringe topic, give the academic consensus about the topic. the next graf (the nut graf) should offer a bit of history about the subject and give more detail. the third, in the case of a fringe topic, should give a more detailed sketch of the academic response and why they hold it. The last should give the present-day status of the topic. All together the lede should be able to stand alone as an abstract of the entire article, IOW if all you read was the lede section, you would have a general idea of what the topic is about, its history, and the current status, including what the experts think about it. By good luck and coincidence, the present lede does all those things with the right amount of weight and does so in a succinct style with no excess verbiage. Tom Reedy (talk) 04:34, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Going back for a moment to reviewing talkpage interactions

Nishidani points out above that "Actually, just for the record, Tom did try, without success, to inform Nina of this crucial distinction [between WikiProject and policy], in his long reply on the 27th:'the Wikipedia Alternative Views project is not a policy.'"[2]

Yes. I'm sorry to say lack of success in informing Nina is what I have come to expect; it's one of the big problems on this page, and wastes everybody's time. Her talkpage editing all goes in one direction: lots of output, little or no intake. The editors of this page have been following the important wikipedia principle of generosity in teaching newcomers; but it doesn't seem to, how shall I put it... to take. Nina ignores it or wikilawyers to prove she knows better, whenever anybody addresses her. I mean, whenever, as she puts it, she's "lectured and criticized and harped at on policy by virtually every administrator and editor of this page since I came on board as an editor, with no praise from anyone for the fact that I almost single-handedly edited the entire Edward de Vere article".[3] Also for the record, Tom did praise her work on the de Vere article: "Thanks for all you've done; it's good to have someone work on it who has a deep background."[4] Also, on her user talk, he praised her work on the Shakespeare authorship question. I don't know why those posts don't count as "praise from anyone", Nina? Have you ever said anything half as civil to Tom about his work? Bishonen | talk 17:30, 30 December 2010 (UTC).

Nothing more indicates a basic misunderstanding of Wikipedia policies than the end of that statement: "... I almost single-handedly edited the entire Edward de Vere article to the point that it could easily be put forward for peer review to be accorded FA status)." The article is far from being FA quality, although it is a good compendium of raw material from which a good article could be refined with lots of work. At more than 100 kbs, it is probably the longest such biographical article on Wikipedia. It's even longer than the William Shakespeare article and the Elizabeth I of England article, and it has very few images. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:59, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Talk about moving the goalposts! From the Talk page for the Edward de Vere article:

OK [Tom]. And by the way, I like the fact that you added the image. It adds some life to the page.NinaGreen (talk) 19:10, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I also like the additions Buckraeumer made to the box at the upper right.NinaGreen (talk) 20:33, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

This article needs more images to break up the monotonous stack of grey type. Nina, do you have a good picture of Anne Cecil's tomb effigy? I found one on the internet here but it is not very good. Ideally it would be a closeup of the head. With all the millions and millions of Oxfordians out there surely one of them has taken a good photograph of it. Tom Reedy (talk) 05:16, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Tom, I agree completely, and I really like the Whitehall image you added. I don't have a good picture of Anne Cecil's tomb effigy, but I'll ask if one of the millions has one. :-) There should be a good image of Anne Vavasour out there on the internet as well.NinaGreen (talk) 21:29, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

There are lots of images of Queen Elizabeth here, including the Armada portrait [1] NinaGreen (talk) 22:03, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

We could also add other images - examples of Oxford's handwriting; portraits of his children, for example. Paul B (talk) 22:52, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I put in the Phoenix portrait (it's very high resolution if you click first on the picture and then once again) and the Vavasour for the moment. Here is the Wikimedia Commons page for Elizabeth. Buchraeumer (talk) 15:43, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Why is Vavasour blue? I'm wondering if it isn't a bad file like the old Oxford portrait, which was yellow until I replaced it.

Also are there any pics of the child, Sir Edward Vere? This is one of those topics to which Oxfordians have contributed to scholarship, and there should be a page about him or at least a section, since he was a notable soldier.

There is also a black and white picture of Oxford holding the sword of state while acting in his hereditary role of Great Chamberlain. That should be in the article also. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:57, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Oxford's Great Garden Property

Tom, thanks for adding the url for the Purnell book. I note your comment about original research, and am open to suggestions as to what might remove that concern.NinaGreen (talk) 21:55, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry about it right now. We'll need to call in other reviewers to give us other perspectives when that time comes, but that's way in the future for now. Tom Reedy (talk) 00:54, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Tom, could you explain what you mean by 'call in other reviewers? This appears to be a Wikipedia policy about which I know nothing. I need to be filled in.NinaGreen (talk) 01:34, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:PR Tom Reedy (talk) 05:16, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

In brief, Tom brings up the subject of putting the Edward de Vere article up for peer review to achieve FA status, and now he says it's not at all qualified. (And notice my expressions of praise and appreciation for Tom, Bishonen, to answer your question).NinaGreen (talk) 18:33, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Nina, there is no point to this page-filling at all. Tom said it's far from FA status. You reply by cutting and pasting a huge chunk of dialogue from another page in which he suggests that other reviewers can be called in "when that time comes, but that's way in the future for now." There is no contradiction here at all and in any case this is trivial and irrelevant. All you are doing is making this talk page unreadable. Paul B (talk) 18:39, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Paul, speaking of page-filling, why are you weighing in on this? Why not let Tom Reedy speak for himself? Tom brought the idea of submitting the Edward de Vere article for peer review up out of a clear blue sky. Let him explain why he did so on the Edward de Vere Talk, and why he has now reversed himself on the SAQ Talk page.NinaGreen (talk) 18:47, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

He has not reversed himself. The statement "that's way in the future for now" implies that much work needs to be done before the peer review. There's no other possible interpretation unless you think he believes we should just wait while some process of slow marination occurs. In any case nit-picking over what people say to find some slight possible inconsistency on a matter of no relevance implies nothing more than a need find fault to no useful purpose. Paul B (talk) 19:01, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Nina has a habit of jumping to conclusions from little or no data, such as her conclusions above that the Milward quote being from an unpublished biography based on the fact that she can't find it through her Google scholarship, or her assertion that I wanted to include those "lunatic fringe" quotes as refs for the article. Or, for that matter, that I intended to nominate the Edward de Vere article for FA status.

This is a big problem when trying to edit with her. Tom Reedy (talk) 19:19, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Tom, you've talked all around the question, but not answered it:

Why not let Tom Reedy speak for himself? Tom brought the idea of submitting the Edward de Vere article for peer review up out of a clear blue sky. Let him explain why he did so on the Edward de Vere Talk, and why he has now reversed himself on the SAQ Talk page.

Please show me where I ever suggested it as a possible or future candidate for FA status. And will you ever learn how to indent using right number of colons? As far as "out of a clear blue sky", I posted that link in response to your question, and I assumed you would read the page. If you did, you obviously didn't understand it. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:09, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Should anyone wonder why so much time and space is wasted on this Talk page? Tom brings up all kinds of things on his own initiative, and then refuses to answer direct questions about the things he himself has brought up. Tom made the claim that he could supply any number of quotes in which proponents of the authorship controversy were described as being the 'lunatic fringe'.

Which I did. Fourteen of them, all from WP:RS sources. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:09, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

But when Nishidani seized on the 2008 Milward quote Tom had supplied as an irrefutable example, and I brought up the fact that the quote couldn't be found anywhere, Tom refused to say where he had gotten it.

I'm tired of doing your research for you. I'm not planning to use it anyway, so who cares? You'll just have to take my word for it or find it. I thought you determined it was from an "unpublished (and unfinished?) online autobiography", since you stated that as a fact even though you haven't read it! Tom Reedy (talk) 22:09, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

As a result, no editor or administrator of this page can see the 2008 Milward quote in context, or knows its source. Tom brought up out of nowhere the idea that the Edward de Vere article should be submitted for peer review. But when I mentioned that in support of the fact that I'm a very productive editor (when Tom permits me to edit), Tom reversed himself, and now says the Edward de Vere article is 'far from FA quality', and refuses to explain the rationale for his reversal to editors and administrators of this page. We're all being forced to waste our time.NinaGreen (talk) 19:52, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I have not reversed myself. Your standards are not mine nor Wikipedia's; the Edward de Vere article is nowhere near FA quality. It's undoubtedly good enough for your online version (which curiously shares a high percentage of verbatim passages from the Wikipedia article, that you have copyrighted) on your website that promotes Oxford-as-Shakespeare (which fact curiously hasn't caused you to recuse yourself from editing these pages as you have demanded I do on the basis of co-authoring one online essay), but it's not good enough for a Wikipedia featured article. It's too obsessively detailed for one thing, and has no shape for another. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:09, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Tom, I'm not going to bother responding to your other points because you're just going round the same mulberry bush without answering anything,

Sorry, I thought for sure I answered one question, anyway, about me "pulling it out of the blue sky", by pointing out that you had asked me. The other part about submitting the article for FA and reversing myself I could not answer, because (as I pointed out) I never said such a thing so therefore never reversed myself. I'm also disappointed that you didn't address the fact that you haven't recused yourself from editing the SAQ article when you have more than a half-dozen times called for me to do so on this page and the Edward de Vere page. It seems to me that if I'm ineligible to edit because of co-authoring one essay with David Kathman 13 or 14 years ago, that your 30-some-odd years of promoting Oxford as the writer the works of Shakespeare, Robert Greene, Thomas Nashe, the Marprelate tracts, Edward III, Famous Victories of Henry V, A Yorkshire Tragedy, Miseries of Enforced Marriage, The Puritan, Sir John Oldcastle, The Merry Devil of Edmonton, the Langham letter, and most of the unattributed court poetry of the Elizabethan era, as well as publishing an Oxfordian newsletter, running the Oxfordian Authorship site, and hosting the private Oxfordian listserv Phaeton, should at least call for some type of disclaimer. It would be nice if you'd bother to reply to at least that inconsistency. Tom Reedy (talk) 05:43, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Tom, you wrote:

Sorry, I thought for sure I answered one question, anyway, about me "pulling it out of the blue sky", by pointing out that you had asked me.

Nice try, Tom, but it didn't work. I didn't ask you anything other than what you meant when you brought the topic up out of nowhere. You suggested peer review for the Edward de Vere article, you praised the article and my work on it (as Bishonen himself very specifically pointed out in another message on this page), and now you've reversed yourself and are trashing the Edward de Vere article in every way you can think of. It's quite a game you're playing.

As for recusing myself, why should I? The reason I've suggested that you and Nishidani should recuse yourselves is that you've both openly admitted bias. You've called the authorship controversy 'a crank theory' and Nishidani has called it 'an ideological mania'. No Wikipedia editor should be editing a page on which he displays bias of that nature, and certainly no Wikipedia editor who displays such bias should control the editing of the page in question, as you do with this one. I'm not biased. I think there's something to the authorship controversy, but I'm open to evidence to the contrary, and I've certainly never called the mainstream position 'a crank theory' or an 'ideological mania', nor would I. I respect the position held by the other side. You don't, and you and Nishidani should recuse yourselves from editing this page for that reason.NinaGreen (talk) 16:10, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Nina, above you wrote, “In brief, Tom brings up the subject of putting the Edward de Vere article up for peer review to achieve FA status, and now he says it's not at all qualified.” You then wrote in response to Paul, “Tom brought the idea of submitting the Edward de Vere article for peer review up out of a clear blue sky. Let him explain why he did so on the Edward de Vere Talk, and why he has now reversed himself on the SAQ Talk page.”, thereby silently dropping the reference to FA status while still discussing it in context with my remark that the article was not FA quality, thereby confusedly conflating my statement that we can ask for a peer review with nominating it for FA status, a link which you had previously made explicit.

I repeat, I never said that it would be submitted as a featured article candidate; I only said we would in the future ask for peer review in order to improve the article. I never mentioned FA. And, if you read the context of that discussion that you reproduced above, you will see that I did so in response to your queries, not "pulling it out of the blue sky".

And why you think that my stating that the Oxford article is “far from FA status” is “trashing” it I have no idea. You seem to interpret plain language in a binary, black-and-white, praise-condemn manner, which makes it extremely hard to communicate via the written word, as you take a statement and run its meaning out to the furthest boundaries of meaning based on a hypercritical method of reading. Thereby Shapiro not using the word “fringe” = acceptance of SAQ as a minority position within academe, as well as many other such strained interpretations.

I find your reasoning specious as to your refusal to recuse yourself from editing while many times calling for me to do so. Bias is by definition unconscious and implies ignoring the truth of a claim based on facts and evidence, which is hardly my position but is intrinsic to the anti-Stratfordian arguments. Your use of the term would make the rejection of creationism by scientists an expression of bias instead of being based on evidence.

(Editors, please pardon my use of bolding to distinguish my replies in this gray sea of text.) Tom Reedy (talk) 17:35, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Tom, you're talking a blue streak, but the plain fact of the matter is that you praised the article and my work on it (as indicated by Bishonen's repetition of your praise on this Talk page), and now you're trashing the article (see your recent comments on this page). Not only that, but you personally gave me your blessing on 24 November to write the entire Edward de Vere article. Here's your e-mail to me:

Nina, as far as I'm concerned you can rewrite the entire article and I'll just go my own way on articles I'm interested in. Just keep in mind you can't quote your own research and try to stay away from tendentious interpretations. I've got other things I want to do besides go round and round on this the way we have been. If you put together a bare-bones narrative of Oxford's life in some kind of chronological order that would be a good start. I'm sure enough people are keeping their eye on it that I don't need to stick around.

You might want to begin by creating an article on wardship (Wardship or Royal wardship) or expanding the section in Burghley's article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Cecil,_1st_Baron_Burghley#Master_of_the_Court_of_Wards). That way you would have an article to link to so that you won't have to stop and explain all the details in the Oxford article. Also a section about Burghley's school could be added to his article. The way the Oxford article is now written it appears that he was the only student.

Also instead of making incremental changes, it might be better to write the entire article off-line and then drop it on the page in one fell swoop. That way you'd avoid a lot of time-wasting discussions over every edit and instead just have one big discussion. More likely someone will revert and then the discussions about the pros and the cons will take place, and at least your version would be the one up for discussion. If, as I suggested, you stay away from tendentious statements and limit the authorship to the section it now has, you'd have a good chance at having most of your edits accepted--much more so than the slow grind that usually results. I think you'd be surprised that most people will go along with your rewrite if you attempt to follow the guidelines, write neutrally, and stay away from the third rail of authorship.

Cheers,

Tom

PS. Also if you could delete about half the commas the grammarian in me would be grateful.

I wrote the article in chronological order as you'd suggested, didn't incorporate any of my own research (you refused to let me cite my article in Brief Chronicles for one crucial point, although there's no other accurate source on that point), used Wikipedia approved reliable sources, and stayed entirely away from interpretation. I didn't drop the entire article in at one fell swoop, as you'd suggested, but instead repeatedly asked for input on the Talk page, and got almost none from anyone other than the vigorous and endless opposition to the citation of my article in Brief Chronicles. Then, when the job was done, you praised the article. At the outset (see the e-mail) you said you weren't interested in working on the article, and when I'd finished the entire edit, you left a comment to the same effect, that you didn't have time to have any input on the article. And now you're trashing my work on this Talk page. And I'm not supposed to feel betrayed?

You also wrote:

I find your reasoning specious as to your refusal to recuse yourself from editing while many times calling for me to do so. Bias is by definition unconscious etc.

Everyone has some unconscious bias. Yours is overt, as evidence by your terming the authorship controversy 'a crank theory'.NinaGreen (talk) 18:32, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I am becoming more and more puzzled about what your points are and finding your reasoning incoherent. You clearly ask for one thing and then switch the topic to another and bring in reams of text from past discussions to what purpose I cannot fathom. And now you're going on about betrayal?

I clearly stated in my comment above to which you took such umbrage that "The article is far from being FA quality, although it is a good compendium of raw material from which a good article could be refined with lots of work." That is hardly "trashing" it. I suggested a chronological arrangement as "a good start", not as a finished product that would qualify for FA status. I also gave you some good advice from my experience editing Wikipedia.

And recognising that the SAQ is a crank theory in no way precludes editing in a neutral fashion. To the contrary, it brings a certain amount of insight into the process that other editors seem to lack. To insist to the contrary is an egregious breach of WP:AGF. No one has made that accusation about you. To the contrary I welcomed your input. The problems we have had all stem from your misinterpretation of Wikipedia policy as well as what consensus means, but lately it seems the main problem has shifted to the defensive and myopic manner in which you engage with other editors and admins.

You'll have to excuse my presence for most of the rest of the day. I see no reason to spend more time in this conversation and I have other things to do. Tom Reedy (talk) 19:05, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

but I do note that you have said this:

It's undoubtedly good enough for your online version (which curiously shares a high percentage of verbatim passages from the Wikipedia article, that you have copyrighted) on your website that promotes Oxford-as-Shakespeare

Nothing curious about it at all, other than the fact that you're keeping such close tabs on my activities. After editing the Wikipedia article, I put my own expanded version of Oxford's biography online on my website with references to primary sources, to dozens of DNB articles, to my article in Brief Chronicles, and to Christopher Paul's articles in Brief Chronicles and The Oxfordian which I could not use in the Wikipedia article on Edward de Vere. Readers on the internet can use the version on my website to access the primary sources if they wish to.NinaGreen (talk) 23:17, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I single-handedly created the Anne Whateley page, the Abel Lefranc page and the Joseph C. Hart page. I also greatly expanded and rewrote the previously stubby James Wilmot page (as mentioned by Shapiro!) and the William Stanley, 6th Earl of Derby page, which was in a reet rubbish state. No one has ever praised me!! Boo hoooooo. Where are those grateful Derbyites? Paul B (talk) 17:44, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Bishonen, is this what Wikipedia administrators do - constantly berate an individual editor and encourage other editors and administrators to do the same? Perhaps you could point me to the Wikipedia policy which covers that.NinaGreen (talk) 17:49, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry my input makes that impression. By my count I've made ten edits to this page in the past month, mostly in the course of conversing with Zweigenbaum. Only three of those posts have had anything at all to do with you. I've edited the Oxford page four times, two of them to do with you. And I have posted three times on your own talkpage. I'm also sorry to see you reply so evasively, addressing none of my points or questions. Bishonen | talk 21:30, 30 December 2010 (UTC).

Bishonen, the other day you berated me on my Talk page on a false allegation that I had posted 21 times to this Talk page on the previous day and wanted me to agree to a voluntary ban. Today you started this new section solely for the purpose of berating me. Why would I not get 'that impression'?NinaGreen (talk) 23:06, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

The history of this talk page shows that NinaGreen made 21 edits on 27 December 2010. At contributors we see that Tom Reedy has made 697 edits over the last 3 years, with an average of 39 hours between posts. NinaGreen has made 176 edits in the last 15 days, with an average of 2 hours between posts. This is not a forum: it is a place for collaboration, and typos and clumsy expressions do not need to be corrected. Other editors want to review changes that have occurred to the discussion, and it is unhelpful when someone frequently edits the page. The open nature and AGF attitude of Wikipedia are being misused to make this page a forum. Johnuniq (talk) 01:03, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Johnuniq, are you deliberately trying to be misleading? Count the number of actual messages by me on the page. What you're looking at are a very large number of minor edits such as fixing typos, changing a word in the original message etc. Can we get real here?NinaGreen (talk) 02:10, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Edits on 27 December 2010

NinaGreen has questioned exactly what "The history of this talk page shows that NinaGreen made 21 edits on 27 December 2010" meant. Yes, there were not 21 separate posts; there were 21 edits. Making, on average, one edit to this talk page every two hours since arriving here (contributors) is not helpful to other editors. We are discussing an article, not how to right the wrongs of the world.

Since the matter has been raised a couple of times, here are the 21 diffs in question. Each diff is an edit to Talk:Shakespeare authorship question by NinaGreen (talk · contribs) on 27 December 2010 (UTC times shown, then +/− number of characters).

• 17:22 +4138
• 18:12 +4097
• 18:13 +1
• 18:18 +4
• 18:59 +1052
• 19:01 +32
• 20:21 +1471
• 20:23 −22
• 20:47 +3620
• 20:50 +63
• 20:52 +65
• 20:54 −3
• 21:04 +1486
• 21:16 +743
• 21:17 +72
• 21:23 +564
• 21:24 +200
• 21:25 +1
• 21:29 +1
• 21:34 +1
• 23:49 +2553

Sorry to dump this here, but we will need to calm the situation on this page down fairly soon. Johnuniq (talk) 09:00, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Johnuniq, you wrote:

Yes, there were not 21 separate posts

Exactly. So how many separate posts were there? Please advise. And please clarify whether this alleged violation of Wikipedia policy is about separate posts, or about correcting typos. If the latter, can you and Bishonen refer me to the Wikipedia policy which forbids going back into a posting and correcting typos? I think we'd all like to be enlightened by you and Bishonen on that point.NinaGreen (talk) 15:49, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

There were 21 edits, just like he said. Again your trying to accuse people of providing false information when they did not and you know they did not. Please stop dfilling this page with this nonsense. It doesn't freaking matter exactly how many posts there were. The point remains the same. Lots of them were like this, demands for answers to utterly irrelevant questions while ignoring the main point. Paul B (talk) 16:05, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Paul, and as I said, would you, Johnuniq and Bishonen just please review for all of us the Wikipedia policy which forbids editors from going into a posting to correct typos on the ground that it will constitute too many edits? I'm sure we'd all like to be enlightened as that policy.NinaGreen (talk) 16:13, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

See WP:PREVIEW. You expect me to "review" that..? Why? Blue text means it's a link. You're supposed to click on it and then read. Naturally, it's an appeal for consideration for others, not a "policy". "Forbidding" editors from acting inconsiderately is altogether very rare; it's not the wikipedia culture. We try to persuade. Bishonen | talk 17:12, 31 December 2010 (UTC).

I think you do need to review it. I can't see anything in Wikipedia policy which says that going into a posting to fix typos and/or add a few words of clarification constitutes lack of consideration for others. And even apart from Wikipedia policy or Wikipedia persuasion, or whatever else you might want to call it says, plain common sense says that going into a posting to fix typos and/or add a few words of clarification CONSTITUTES consideration for others.NinaGreen (talk) 18:15, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Just for the record, I count 8 actual messages from me on 27 December, 4 from Tom, 2 from Paul, 2 from Nishidani, and 1 from John. So that's 8 from me, and 9 from Tom, Paul, Nishidani and John directed TO ME and making allegations AGAINST ME to which I was forced to respond. They're all piling onto me, making allegations and demanding answers to their questions, and when I answer their questions or respond to their unfounded allegations, they complain to administrators that I'm posting too much (or rather, not that I've posted too many actual messages, but that I've gone into my messages too many times to fix typos or add a few words of clarification, a procedure which has inconvenienced them in a way yet to be explained!).NinaGreen (talk) 19:08, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Blue text means it's a link. You're supposed to click on it and then read. Bishonen | talk 19:55, 31 December 2010 (UTC).

An Interesting Game Plan

There's an interesting game going on here. Editors and administrators of this page are all piling on, asking me question after question, and forcing me to respond to them, and then claiming that I'm violating Wikipedia policy by posting too frequently, all with an obvious objective in mind which I think anyone reading this page is clever enough to figure out without my spelling it out. And while this interesting game is being played out by the editors and administrators, my suggested revision for the lede paragraphs is just sitting there, totally ignored by the same editors and administrators.NinaGreen (talk) 16:19, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

"my suggested revision for the lede paragraphs is just sitting there, totally ignored by the same editors and administrators". Not true. Tom Reedy (talk) 19:15, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Please don't comment on what people have "in mind" but only on their edits. See the policy (yes, an actual policy) No personal attacks, whose nutshell version is "Comment on the content, not on the contributor." Please remove or (preferably) strike out the personal attacks on the editors of this page from your post. (I realise that won't leave much, but that's your problem. Feel free to remove the whole comment.) Bishonen | talk 17:34, 31 December 2010 (UTC).

Bishonen, is there a double standard here? The comment by Tom Reedy which I quoted was a personal attack on me. See Tom's personal attack on me higher up on this page, where he wrote:

You believe in a crank theory that Oxford wrote Shakespeare based on no evidence whatsoever except your imagination.

Are you threatening to block me (see your comment on my Talk page) for Tom's personal attack on me?

NinaGreen (talk) 18:06, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

You might want to read WP:NPA to make sure you grasp what constitutes a PA. I see you haven't refactored your post yet. Please do so now. Bishonen | talk 19:52, 31 December 2010 (UTC).

Bishonen, which part of my statement above is not true? I'm willing to remove whatever isn't true. In order to help me determine which part of the statement isn't true, could you please let us all know how you became involved in this false implication that I posted 21 different messages on 27 December? Did another editor bring that false implication to your attention? If so, who was that editor? And if no other editor brought it to your attention, why did you leave a message on my Talk page trying to force me to agree to a voluntary ban without first checking to see whether the false implication that I posted 21 different messages on 27 December was true?154.5.200.46 (talk) 20:35, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Oops! Forgot to log in before signing the posting. Signing it now will count as another edit.:-)NinaGreen (talk) 20:41, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

What WP policy? I am aware that Bishonen has suggested that you agree to a voluntary reduction on the quantity of the content and amount of responses you make on these and related talkpages. Have you made such a commitment? Have you received a warning regarding Wikipedia:Tendentious editing, which is perhaps the one Wikipedia:Guideline I can envisage that may pertain to any issues with the quantity of the comments you make. My understanding that you have not made any commitment, nor were you warned until that immediately above. It may be argued that your comments above might example an unfortunate tendency - as I have come to see it - in your responses, to conflate what has been said into a polemic by which you ignore the content of the message (in this case, concisely state your case on a subject once and acknowledge any response in your further posts) and instead substitute your own unilateral interpretation upon the intent. This is unfortunate; you are being asked to limit your comments to that which may be properly addressed and have taken these as examples by which attempts are being made to restrict or remove your ability to do so. It would be better to concentrate upon the issues raised on these pages regarding the article, than to indulge in unhelpful speculation. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:00, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

LessHeard, thanks for your input. Here's the solution to the problem. As I pointed out in the section immediately above this, Tom, Paul, Nishidani,and John all made comments either specifically directed to me or specifically about me on 27 December (9 of their postings to 8 of mine), and when I responded, they complained that I was posting too much. Their comments were not general comments on the content of the SAQ article. They were comments specifically directed to me or made about me. So the answer to this problem is simple. If Tom, Paul, Nishidani and John don't want me to respond to their questions and allegations, they can just stop making them. The solution lies with them. We could then get on with addressing something substantive for a change, such as my suggested revision to the lede, which complies fully (so far as I can see) with WP:LEDE, and which would have the salutary advantage of helping to reduce the very long and wordy SAQ article somewhat.NinaGreen (talk) 21:14, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

• LessHeard, there is in fact an elaborate warning about tendentious editing on Nina's page. I posted it there as early as 12 December, mentioning possible blocks and offering many a policy, guideline and essay, but, in particular, attempting reasonable argument. I have been somewhat worn down since then. Bishonen | talk 21:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC).

• Nina, I decline to be pulled down into the quicksand your questions above point me to. What a way to spend New Year's Eve that would be..! "True" and "false" are not categories that apply to your comments on people's motives, because you don't know their motives. You're not in their heads. You can't read their thoughts. You can only read what they have put on the page, and therefore you only get to comment on that. Comment civilly, please. Click on the blue (WP:NPA) and read how that works. Then remove all attacks. What's so hard? Bishonen | talk 21:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC).

LessHeard, I should have responded to your comment about the specious Tendentious Editing claim, which was simply the current complaint by the same people in a different guise. There is nothing about any of my editing which meets the Wikipedia definition of Tendentious Editing, and no examples which fit the definition were given. It was merely claimed that I was being repetitious, just as it is now being claimed that I post too much. And the cause was the same then as it is now. Tom, Paul and Nishidani all pile on, asking questions and making allegations, all directly specifically to me and at me, and when I reply, they complain to an administrator that I'm being repetitious or posting too much. The solution remains the same. Tom, Paul, Nishidani and John can limit their own comments. I'll then have nothing to which I'm forced to respond, and lo and behold, I won't be posting as much. And as I said, I hope we can then get on to consideration of my suggested revision to the lede of the SAQ article. And please note that both Tom and Nishidani are still trying to egg me on to reply to their questions in a new section entitled Peter Milward Redux, and I'm ignoring them (and speaking of repetitiousness, Tom's comment about colons is the umpteenth he has made on that point). NinaGreen (talk) 21:36, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Peter Milward redux

They're all piling onto me, making allegations and demanding answers to their questions, and when I answer their questions or respond to their unfounded allegations, they complain to administrators that I'm posting too much

1. I'm not piling onto you
2. I am not here making allegations
3. I am not 'demanding' an answer, but seeking simple clarity.
4. I have not complained to administrators.
5. I am not 'they'.
6. Could you answer my question, within the day. A simple 'yes' or 'no' would be helpful. I have relocated my question to avoid it being lost and ignored, as it was when I first raised it. Nishidani (talk) 22:17, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Nina, I recommend you don't even bother answering this, as much as I would love to read your reply. (As I would love, someday, under different circumstances, to read your reply to Tom Reedy's literary quote somewhere here about 'good and evil,' etc.) This is because this is a trap. If you review carefully this guy above's shrewd tactics with Admins during the whole process of banning Smatprt from Wikipedia, you'll see that he's a smart and experienced wikilawyer and litigator. He also knows how to pose as a simple (almost naive) unbiased or uninterested observer when this suits his strategic objectives. Nobody has time for that now, of course, as other "legal" threats loom, but this guy was one of the main orchestrators of that unfair outcome, in my view. warshy^talk 22:38, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Nina complains that I for one ignored her suggested revision. Since she made it I have focused on nothing else.

'And while this interesting game is being played out by the editors and administrators, my suggested revision for the lede paragraphs is just sitting there, totally ignored by the same editors and administrators.'

Since my comments (on 'Shakespearean establishment' and 'the public' and on her request to 'whittle down' the fringe lunacy list) were ignored, I have reposted the gist of the most important below, and await a straightforward answer. It bears precisely on her challenge to the lead, and therefore, on her own proposed version. If there are any traps here, they of course should be shut, by those who open them. Please don't interrupt.Nishidani (talk) 22:53, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Queries are put, answered, ignored and forgotten. A quite precise stipulation of evidence required to make a generalization was formulated, Nina. I thought Milward answered all of your conditions. Before going ahead, I'd like to hear from you. Nina, do you accept that Milward is part of the 'Shakespearean establishment'? (Nishidani (talk) 22:08, 31 December 2010 (UTC))

Since this posting is unsigned, I'm not sure whom I'm addressing. Could the author of the posting please sign it?NinaGreen (talk) 15:51, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

The edit history shows that Nishidani began this section at 02:03, 31 December 2010. And please remember only one colon per added comment to indent. Tom Reedy (talk) 19:09, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Date is wrong for the Internet Section

Under "Television, magazines, and the Internet", the date given for "Uncovering Shakespeare: an Update" is obviously wrong: it should be 1992, not 1962. (sorry, wasn't sure how or where to enter this correction) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blubro (talk • contribs) 02:55, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the report. When we start editing the article again, someone should fix this (ref), unless an admin feels like taking this as an {{edit protected}} request for Shakespeare authorship question#Television, magazines, and the Internet and change "This was followed in 1962" to "This was followed in 1992"). Johnuniq (talk) 03:51, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

HAPPY NEW YEAR!

Happy New Year to all! May 2011 bring you health, prosperity and happiness!NinaGreen (talk) 17:16, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

FA proposal

In my opinion, one of the best ways to determine if the article actually suffers from WP:NPOV problems would be to go ahead and nominate it for WP:FA status. The reviewers have no ax to grind and are more qualified to judge neutrality issues than anybody, since they routinely review articles for accuracy, neutrality, completeness, and style according to Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. With that in mind, I propose the article go forward to a formal FA review. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:37, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Check the toolbox to the side to fix small stuff. Wrad (talk) 19:21, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Is it not possible to shorten it first, Tom? To move more of it out to separate articles? If you put it on FAC as is, I think the reviewers may feel you're asking a lot. FAC resources are stretched very thin as it is. Bishonen | talk 20:17, 1 January 2011 (UTC).

Bishonen, I agree with you that the article is too long. I've dropped my new lede paragraph into the article. It complies with WP:LEDE, shortens the article, and because it's brief and focussed, invites the reader to read on, which is one of the objectives of a lede as stated in WP:LEDE. I suggest that you not allow it to be reverted until all editors on this page have had an opportunity to put forward their views as to whether it's an improvement to the article, and more likely to have the article eventually accepted for FA status.NinaGreen (talk) 17:40, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Bishonen, would you put my lede paragraph back and leave it in place for a few days? My lede paragraph, because it's brief and focussed, makes the overview and the images pop, and invites the reader to read on, which is one of the primary goals of a lede according to WP:LEDE. The old lede is wordy and uninviting, and loses any potential readers in a welter of words, turning them off. And there's nothing in the wordy and redundant old lede which is not comprised in the new lede and covered in extenso elsewhere in the article. Let's get on with improving the article.NinaGreen (talk) 19:30, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

The article is well under the size where splitting is necessary. See WP:Article_size#A_rule_of_thumb. That page also states that "Articles of about 200 KB (~30 pages) are not uncommon given that many topics require depth and detail, but it's typical that articles of such size get split into two or more sub-articles." In any case, your lede has not been discussed, and it does not meet the criteria for a good lede. I'm not going to accept your invitation to edit war with you, because I doubt your version will stay for very long anyway. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:59, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I stripped out the images, refs and external links and the page is 71 kb, well within the recommended range for comprehensive overview articles. I know they're overworked, but it's not like it has to be reviewed within any certain time frame, and I doubt there will ever come a time when the FA reviewers are not busy. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:27, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure you're aware of this already, but there are two citation needed tags that should be taken care of. Wrad (talk) 21:38, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that and a few other minor things, but I wanted to start a discussion on it since I think it's knocking on the door of FA quality, if not already sitting in the lounger watching TV and having a beer. One question: as far as the Google books links, most of them weren't consulted for the cited statements, the actual physical book was used and the Google book link provided merely as a convenience to the reader. Do those still need retrieval dates? And what exactly is the dashboard for? Tom Reedy (talk) 23:50, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

The dashboard shows the article's significant contributors. At FAC, reviewers will be concerned to know that these editors generally are involved and supporting the FAC nom. I don't think you'll need retrieval dates for google books links that are intended more for convenience. Wrad (talk) 00:08, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, two of them are topic-banned, and all but maybe two of the others are probably OK with it. IIRC when we took the Shakespeare page to FA that was pretty much the case then, too. Tom Reedy (talk) 00:15, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

WP alternative views template is useless

Three weeks ago I asked for an assessment from the Wikipedia:WikiProject Alternative Views, with no response. Apparently that project is moribund. I left another message today proposing that the project's template be deleted from this talkpage as it is meaningless. Maybe that will wake somebody up, but I doubt it, given that the talk page appears to have been abandoned for quite some time. Is there any reason to keep such a fossil appendage to this page? I don't really care one way or another, it's just that when things become useless they clutter up the place, much like outdated textbooks that people hold on to for decades. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:08, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I have added a proposal that the project be removed from three pages because it is unmaintained, see WT:WikiProject Alternative Views#Assessment?. Johnuniq (talk) 00:17, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Request for NPOV Review on Shakespeare Authorship Question article by Editors Who Are Astute about Neutrality Problems

I have made a request for review of our neutrality problems with the neutrality Board. The extensive conflict and communication gaps do not show promise of resolution. Happy New Year! Zweigenbaum (talk) 01:18, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Here's your problem: "antagonism to the authorship debate from within the profession is so great that it would be as difficult for a professed Oxfordian to be hired in the first place, much less gain tenure, as for a professed creationist to be hired or gain tenure"

That admits a level of hostility which, in human relations, is guaranteed to produce irrationality in debate, regardless of whether the arguments against Shakespeare being the author of those works which are in his name has any merit or not. And, this particular level of antagonism has absolute control of the reliable sources per Wikipedia's RS policy. Thus, you're screwed if you want anything but a description of the debate based on RS. And a description based on RS is going to dismiss the minority view rather thoroughly. The edits you link to at the noticeboard, such as your removing "argument" in favor of "hypothesis" were obviously intended to give greater weight, greater credibility, to the minority viewpoint, and so were reverted. Here's my suggestion, without having gone over the talk page: list any particular text which is in question here, and give a summary of the debate in specific terms. Reading over the lead and first few sections, I didn't detect any major problems, excluding silliness such as "The Shakespeare canon is universally believed to be of the highest artistic and literary quality" which I'm here to inform you is patent nonsense no matter how "well sourced" it is :P. So you need to give a tutorial for editors new to the issues here. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 01:50, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm pleased that you're trying to learn the ropes around Wikipedia, Zweigenbaum. It's customary to provide a link to the discussion, so here it is: [5]. The only comment I feel obliged to make is to explain the reason for the voluminous quotations in the references, which I will do. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:22, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Lede 2

I reverted Nina's replacement of the lede because major changes such as these need to be discussed. Several editors have responded to her proposal above but she has not responded to their queries. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:52, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I reverted as well. I was mostly okay with her proposal, but I thought she was just going to change the first paragraph, not the entire lede. More discussion is needed. Wrad (talk) 17:59, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

No, that was supposed to replace the entire lede. Wrad, Nishidani, Johnuniq, and I have asked questions above (here and here and here), but she hasn't responded, being warned off by warshy that they are a trap. One problem is that they are all over the place and interspersed with complaints about neutrality, admin injustices, etc. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:04, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Reasons For Deleting Jargon Statement

I've deleted the statement immediately under the lede which referred to the terms Stratfordian and anti-Stratfordian on these grounds:

(1) The article needs to be shortened. (2) The statement is redundant; readers can easily figure the terms out for themselves. (3) The term 'jargon' is not neutral. (4) The statement introduces a topic (Shakespeare of Stratford as the PRIMARY, not the SOLE, author of the canon) which is not covered in the lede. NinaGreen (talk) 19:54, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Here's the relevant definition of 'jargon' from the online OED, to which I subscribe. It's definitely not a neutral term:

6. Applied contemptuously to any mode of speech abounding in unfamiliar terms, or peculiar to a particular set of persons, as the language of scholars or philosophers, the terminology of a science or art, or the cant of a class, sect, trade, or profession.

All the other reasons mentioned still apply.NinaGreen (talk) 22:07, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Nina, this is obtuse. That you happen to subscribe to the 6th listed sense of a word in the OED does not make that its primary sense. You're arguing semantics while insisting on your own definitions. This is obstructive rather than constructive. Please stop. --Xover (talk) 22:37, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I went ahead and changed it to "terminology". Caesar's wife and all that. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:53, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Let's be very clear. Tom did not change it because of 'Caesar's wife and all that'. Anyone who subscribes to the online OED can check for himself that there is no other meaning for 'jargon' listed which is applicable to the passage in question, and that the definition I quoted establishes that the word 'jargon' is a contemptuous term.NinaGreen (talk) 23:35, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

You need to stop telling me why I did things; I didn't have to change it at all. I don't subscribe to the online OED. How about posting the other five definitions, or at least the primary definition? I have never heard of "jargon" being considered a derogatory term. As I said earlier (which thanks to your top posting is now below this message), if you have time for this surely you have time to answer the questions put to you about the lede. Tom Reedy (talk) 01:30, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Why is "jargon" not neutral? I have never heard of such, please explain. Jargon is terminology which is especially defined in relationship to a specific activity, profession, group, or event.

Nobody is arguing that Shakespeare did not collaborate, and in fact the article contains several examples, which is the reason for "primary" instead of "sole".

If you have time for this surely you have time to answer the questions put to you about the lede. Tom Reedy (talk) 19:59, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I am not prepared to edit war on this or any other topic. I'll not be reverting anything else. I suggest you discuss major changes on the talk page before introducing them in the article. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:02, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Nina, nothing is being resolved by this. I would suggest resolving the lede issue before digging up other things, otherwise what is the point? The goal should be resolution, here. Also, just because an admin said the article is too long doesn't make it so. Admins are not gods around here. There needs to be discussion and consensus on that point, and there has been discussion, as I'm sure you're aware, and no real consensus was reached, so it makes no sense to start shortening the article quite yet. Wrad (talk) 20:23, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Characters of Shakespear's Plays, an article about one book, is longer than the SAQ article. Including images, references, etc, the SAQ article is the 969th longest article on Wikipedia. Grade II listed buildings in Brighton and Hove: C–D is the 881st; Dingo (dog) is 807th; ‎Henry VI, Part 3 is 498th; and list of fictional characters in the television series Heroes, the Heroes graphic novels, and the Heroes webisodes is 90th, at 233 kb, so a bit of proportion is needed here.

The length of the SAQ article, when images, refs, external links, etc. are stripped out is 71 kb. With all that it is 138 kb. Given the complicated nature of the topic, I think it is remarkable that it is as short as it is. And what, exactly, would be deleted anyway, that wouldn't damage its coverage? Tom Reedy (talk) 21:11, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Reasons For Deleting Overview Section

I've deleted the Overview section for the following reasons:

(1) The article needs to be shortened. (2) The organization of the article needs to be tightened up. (3) No Wikipedia article should need an overview. (4) The material is either redundant, or belongs in the anti-Stratfordian argument section.

A great deal of work needs to be done on this wordy, overly lengthy and poorly-organized article. We need to identify areas such as this where changes can be made rather than arguing endlessly over one specific change or other.NinaGreen (talk) 22:16, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Nina, might I suggest establishing a consensus that the article actually needs to be shortened before deleting things left and right? All of this work will be a waste of time for you otherwise. Wrad (talk) 22:20, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

(1) As Wrad said, you need to establish a consensus that the article needs to be shortened. I have given several reasons why it is not too long.

(2) What do you mean, "tightened up"? It's already pretty tight as far as I can see. Can you give some examples of bloat?

(3) Why should there not be an overview? That section was comprised of several subsections before it was merged and eventually became what it is today.

(4) How is it redundant? It gives a general overview of the main issues involved without detailing the specific arguments, which follow that section.

I suggest you solicit other opinions about how "wordy, overly lengthy and poorly-organized" the article is before making sweeping edits such as you have been doing.

One commenter at the peer review said "Lead looks good and seems to comply with rules; however, the many footnotes might raise objections. On the other hand, this being a controversial subject, it is probably a good idea to present much of the case at the start ... Very short paragraphs, especially one- or two-sentence paragraphs like the first in Unearthing proofs are discouraged. Quite a number might perhaps be combined ... I think the article is especially engaging in the earlier-middle parts and easy to understand for the non-specialist reader, although it gets a bit harder in the later part, especially in Bacon; but that's presumably because of the weird theories."

Another said "Lead is appropriately broad in scope, but reads as long-winded because of the consistently long sentence length. Consider splitting a few sentences to increase accessibility ... You repeat a couple of points a few times, including the coat-of-arms and "This Star of England" ... I echo the above commenter's point about one-sentence paragraphs."

Those comments are from experienced reviewers and are a long way from your assessment. You need to provide specifics instead of vague generalisations. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:49, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Talkpage chronology

It's helpful to keep discussion threads chronological, people. Seriously. A very short remark which needs no answer can be inserted to address a particular point, without feeling too much like an interruption. (Little jokes at ANI often are.) Otherwise, please don't top post. It makes it difficult for other editors to place their replies to you, and soon the timestamps will be all over the place—see for instance the messy section "FA proposal"— and the whole thread is impossible to untangle. Just a tip. Bishonen | talk 23:50, 3 January 2011 (UTC).

Edit warring and the lede

• Nina, you are edit warring and are likely to be blocked if you continue.
• Your edit summary "An administrator has said the article needs to be shortened, which this edit accomplishes, as well as fulfilling WP:LEDE and providing needed focus."[6] shows some misunderstanding. An administrator (I presume that refers to me) is just an editor in this context; my views on the length of the article are not of special value in relation to those of other experienced contributors. And did I even say or imply that the article "needs" to be shortened? No, I believe I put it more courteously and tentatively. As for the length of the lede, please read the section of WP:LEDE entitled Length, which states that the lede needs to be proportionate in length to the article as a whole. This long article needs to be introduced by several paragraphs. The old lede was about right. Bishonen | talk 23:50, 3 January 2011 (UTC).

Warning From Bishonen

Bishonen has placed the following warning on my Talk page:

WP:3RR warning

Nina, you are in violation of the 3RR rule. Stop reverting Shakespeare authorship question immediately or you will be blocked. Bishonen | talk 22:54, 3 January 2011 (UTC).

Two points. Firstly, it is my edits which are being reverted. I've made changes which meet Wikipedia guidelines and which improve an overly lengthy and poorly-organized article (what is the History section doing in the middle of the article, as an example of poor organization?). I can't see how I'm in violation of the 3RR rule when in every case I made the initial edit, and others reverted it.

Secondly, I've asked Bishonen to let my suggested lede paragraph be left in the article for a few days so editors and administrators can assess its visual impact, which is a great improvement for the reasons I've expressed elsewhere on this page and won't repeat here. Bishonen has not responded to that request, but has instead put a warning on my Talk page, again claiming I'm in violation of Wikipedia policies when I'm not in violation (as happened with his earlier warning about Tendentious Editing when I'd done nothing which constitutes Tendentious Editing since I was merely discussion matters on the Talk page for the article. At the same time, Bishonen has ignored clear example of Tendentious Editing on Tom Reedy's part (refusing to provide the source for the Milward citation). What's going on here?NinaGreen (talk) 23:28, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

What's going on is that you're not editing to consensus, removing cited material, and not engaging with the other editors on the talk page. Tom Reedy (talk) 23:36, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Reverting that many times is always against the rules except in cases of clear vandalism. It seriously hurts editors' ability to talk things out. Wrad (talk) 23:37, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

One point. If you can't see how you're in violation of the 3RR rule, please click on the blue and read. 3RR is one of the very few bright-line rules on Wikipedia: violate it and you get blocked. Yes, I saw you asked me above to use my mighty admin power to keep your version of the lede in the article. Please take it on board that admins don't have that kind of power, as I have mentioned before (on request): "As far as content is concerned, an admin is merely another editor. They'll be a trusted and usually experienced editor, which is a better reason to listen to their advice than the adminship per se." [7].) I hope I don't sound unfriendly, but I'm rather busy and stressed IRL, and I can't necessarily undertake to answer everything at all times, especially not when it seems unproductive. Bishonen | talk 01:17, 4 January 2011 (UTC).

Bishonen, the plain language of the section to which you referred me indicates that it's the second editor who performs a revert, not the first. I edited the article several times, deleting superfluous and repetitious material in accordance with your statement on this page that the article needed to be shortened, and it was my edit, in every instance, which was instantly reverted before anyone even had a chance to look at it. Also, you haven't addressed my question as to why you falsely accused me of Tendentious Editing when the examples you gave had nothing to do with editing at all, while you ignored Tom's very specific instance of actual Tendentious Editing, his refusal to provide the Milward citation. Nor have you answered my earlier question about how you became involved in trying to force me to accept a voluntary ban on the false implication that I had posted 21 actual messages on 27 December. If you are as busy and stressed as you suggest, perhaps you could stop wasting time accusing me of violations of Wikipedia policy which I haven't committed, and focus instead on actual violations by others such as the example I've given of Tom's Tendentious Editing or Tom's ad hominem attack on my alleged 'Google scholarship'. I'm doing my utmost to follow Wikipedia policy, and I don't welcome being regularly falsely accused by an administrator of not following Wikipedia policy.NinaGreen (talk) 03:03, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually Nina, I will be quite happy to provide this, which is very easy to find, if you are familiar with Milward's work published in 2008 (do you need any more than this heavy-handed hint?), when you begin to engage seriously with the question I asked you earlier. Do you accept Milward qualifies for the criteria you set, as a contemporary member of 'the Shakespearean establishment'? This is the third time I have been forced to ask you to engage me on this. Nishidani (talk) 04:43, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Nishidani, I have the citation. But that doesn't absolve Bishonen from ignoring Tom Reedy's violation of Wikipedia's Tendentious Editing policy in refusing to provide the citation, nor your violation of the Wikipedia policy either.NinaGreen (talk) 04:51, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

You have the citation at hand, ignore it, refuse to answer my question concerning it, and waste time trying to turn something else into a ban on a good editor? Answer my question, you've had a week to meditate on how to reply to a straightforward query, which I keep having to repeat. Thank you Nishidani (talk) 05:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Nina, I suggest you actually read Wikipedia:Tendentious editing before slinging around accusations. Tendentious editing involves editing. I have made no edit using the Milward quotation, nor do I intend to. I produced those "lunatic fringe" quotations at your request, not to include them in the article. Any one of them is sufficient to make my point about the strong feelings the academy holds about the SAQ; Milward has no special standing. Your insistence that only the comments of a narrow subsection of scholars as defined by you ("a Ph.D., has to be the literature of the Elizabethan and early Jacobean period") is specious in the extreme, especially in the light of the qualifications of the leading anti-Stratfordians. I look back over this page and it is filled with time-wasting minutia like this, brought up only, it appears, to delay and disrupt the process. Of all of the thousands of words you have written here and the thousands of words of replies, very little useful has been said. So far you've been nothing but a big waste of time. Tom Reedy (talk) 12:49, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

@NinaGreen: You should not raise issues like this here. Ask at your talk page, or at User talk:Bishonen, or if you think an administrator has mistakenly targeted you, ask for help at WP:ANI. However, Bishonen was correct because on 3 January 2011, NinaGreen made these edits (UTC times shown):

• Replace lead (1 bold + 2 reverts): 17:33, 17:54, 18:17.
• Remove the "jargon" note (1 bold + 3 reverts): 19:50, 19:56, 22:04, 22:13.

This is not the page to discuss WP:3RR, but since the issue has been questioned it was important to present the evidence. Johnuniq (talk) 11:21, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Xover's View That The SAQ Article Is Too Long

Obviously I am not the only one who thinks the SAQ article need serious pruning. Here are Xover's comments from the Peer Review page. Notice that he says the article has 'a weight issue. Not a WP:WEIGHT ISSUE; but an overweight issue!. Xover also says that '…I (very reluctantly) believe section 4 should be removed from this article entirely.'. Xover also has serious criticisms of other aspects of the article. Let's get on with improving it!NinaGreen (talk) 03:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments from Xover

There is no need to reproduce the comments when a link will do. this is one reason why this page becomes so hard to navigate. You also don't need to argue Xover's case for him. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:21, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

The link's fine as long as everyone realizes that among the other serious criticisms which Xover made of the article was that the note under Overview 'is inappropriate'. That's the same note which I deleted today. Tom Reedy instantly reverted my deletion. Now Xover also says the Note should be deleted. And as long as everyone realizes that among Xover's other serious criticisms of the article is that 'The current section 2 (Arguments against Shakespeare's authorship) and section 3 (Evidence for Shakespeare's authorship) take on exactly the kind of point—counterpoint form that WP:FRINGE discourages'. Let's get on with improving the article, which means hitting the Delete button for certain sections of it. And I'm not arguing Xover's case for him. He's argued it for himself. I happen to agree with him.NinaGreen (talk) 03:34, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

That's all well and good, but I happen to disagree with a few of his points, the "point-counterpoint" style being one of them. A discussion among editors is appropriate, not "hitting the Delete button for certain sections of it". Notice Xover didn't go into the article and start "hitting the Delete button" for the sections he critised the way you did earlier today. And also notice his last comment: "Overall this is a monumental piece of work, and I am very awed and grateful for the job you've done here; certainly a potential Featured Article, and a year ago I would barely have believed that possible. Kudos!" That's hardly licence to begin "hitting the Delete button". Tom Reedy (talk) 03:41, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

As an uninvolved editor who came to this article to provide a review, I agree with Tom Reedy regarding approach to editing. Also, the point-counterpoint style has been an issue for discussion previously, and trimming this article, while necessary, is not going to be achieved by deleting sections without discussing proposals here first. hamiltonstone (talk) 08:31, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Xover. Tom, I and a few others have gone round cap in hand begging for strong peer-review input with relatively little success. We've expressed our commitment to sticking to this, taking on board as much criticism from experienced hands generally, and Shakespearean aficionados specifically, to get this through any wikipedia process, until FA criteria are all met. Whatever it takes it that far we, and several others, are willing to do it, and your notes are useful.

Undue weight. As you know, we've barely scratched the surface of what might be said, and neither has scholarship. Thousands of books have been published on the topic, the details are intricate, despite an immense amount of confused reduplication etc., and once one gets into the topic, one can be overwhelmed. The WS article which you take for comparison on length deals with one man's short and poorly documented life. This article deals with 160 years of passionate, if fringe, commentary on everything from the life, to the plays, to the period. I think therefore that it is almost inevitable that any attempt to give the passing reader an insight into this minor, if profuse, tradition of commentary is bound to push out the pages.

The 'Stratfordian' vs 'anti-Stratfordian' note reflects the fact that these terms are those favoured by one side, anti-Stratfordians, and generally have been disliked by the mainstreamers. If I recall, I was reluctant to use these terms, but compromised with Tom. To use them is to allow that, both within the fringe discourse, which the article deals with, and the now growing if minor sector of academia that looks at it, these appear to be the default terms, though, as a quote shows, they are considered prejudicial by the academic mainstream, since the balance they imply between views does not reflect the contrast between an extreme fringe position and the general cultural and intellectual consensus.

Point Counterpoint (ignoring Aldous Huxley). I think this was the problem of the earlier version, and made it most troublesome to edit, because the number of itemized talking points in the fringe literature is infinite, though most of it is ignored as simply wrongheaded, and thus cannot be replied to by using reliable sources. Hamiltonstone's review, unless memory errs, asked it to be corrected ?), with sections separated. Both Tom and I don't and never have really thought a rebuttal section is required. But experience tells one there are many readers, particularly those unfamiliar with the literature, the period, and scholarship, who have no awareness of the state of the art of contemporary academic opinion on this. There are many subtextual elements in these sorts of articles that leave room, if one is unguarded, for leading naïve readers astray, and that is one reason why a fair exposition of the fringe view, followed by a brief exposition of the mainstream view, seems required. It is not strictly a point counterpoint, item by item, to and fro as far as I can see.

As noted, I’m not in a position to edit much here, but will return. Personally I think not editing in a hurry, but taking considerable time to discuss and mull every helpful point raised is an advantage to the FA process. We still need more wider input, but the situation looks better than it did a month or so ago. I am in agreement with some other points, but will have to desist for now. Cheers Nishidani (talk) 08:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I put the above here because I gather from the linked page that it's for external peer review, and not for a debate from those actively involved in editing the article?Nishidani (talk) 08:45, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, goodness me; I've not had such an… exuberant reaction to a review in… well, ever. Let's see…

• A link to the review you're commenting on is good; reproducing the text of the review here is effectively just noise. Anyone sufficiently engaged with the article will read it on the PR page (which, as it happens, is already linked at the top of the page).
• Improving the article (and all the other articles on Wikipedia) is why we're all here; and Tom and Nishidani have put an immense effort into improving this article over the last year. I don't think they need to be exhorted to get on with improving it; they are already keeping on improving it.
• While my review does argue that the Note in the Overview section should be deleted, I hope you'll note that I also reverted your deletion of this section yesterday. Quite apart from the (not insignificant) issues of process, my argument is also not as simplistic as “Delete it!” and I would prefer if you didn't try to present it as if it was. In other words, please don't use my review to argue to authority when presenting your case; I much prefer to make my arguments myself.
• When Tom put the article up for Peer Review he specifically noted “I want to try to take it to FA status” (which is, incidentally, the usual reason for requesting PR). My review, then, seeks to help him get the article to FA; and it does so by commenting on the things that, in my experience, the FAC reviewers will have issues with. Note that I here make a careful distinction between “What I think the FAC reviewers will want” and “How I personally would prefer the article to be”. The latter would, incidentally, be in favor of such a direct approach to terminology that arguing the semantics of “Jargon” would be the last thing on anyone's mind.
• This means I've provided the review to help Tom and Nish (and the other editors of this page), and not in order to advance my own preferred position. My review comments are made in the belief that they will improve the article, and I will present my reasoning and argument for them to the editors on the page so that they may take advantage of it (even if only to disagree).
• As for Nishidani's comments on the weight issue, I agree that the subject is a… convoluted one, and that some arbitrary page, byte, or word limit should not overrule the requirements of comprehensiveness or clarity. I do however believe that the section “Evidence for Shakespeare's authorship” is not necessary to cover the topic. The article's subject is the Shakespeare authorship question but that section deals exclusively with the mainstream evidence that weighs against it. If you simply remove the entire section the article will still have exactly the same coverage of the actual Shakespeare authorship question. I would agree that this section was necessary iff the rest of the article did not make sufficiently clear the status of the various theories; in other words, the section would be needed iff it was necessary to provide a counter-argument to the rest of the article. In my opinion, this is not necessary as the rest of the article is already clear on the status of the various claims made.
• The article in general is refreshingly free of the typical point—counterpoint style that so many of these articles devolve into. I brought it up to illustrate the problem I see with including the above mentioned section; it acts in effect like point—counterpoint just on a grander scale. My rule of thumb is that whenever you feel the need to counter or balance what you've previously written, then the original point was insufficiently polished. If you present the fringe POV accurately, then you don't need anywhere to specify what the common consensus view is; it will be clear by implication.
• Note that I have personally wished for precisely that kind of succinct summary of the evidence to be available on Wikipedia—not least to have one convenient place to point people confused by what an alleged “lack of evidence” actually means—and hope that it can be a standalone article, possibly referenced as a main article from a summary style section in this article. I reserve the right to hold two or more contradictory opinions at the same time.

I think that just about covers the comments so far. Do please feel free to ask if there is something still unclear; and I'll look forward to a constructive discussion here to determine if there is consensus for any changes in the article and, if so, precisely what form they should take. In particular, if the changes I've suggested in the review comments are insufficiently specific please do let me know and I'll try to fix it to make clear what I mean. I also have a sandbox where I've made the more sweeping changes mentioned to see what effect they'd have, should anyone be curious as to what they would look like in practice. Finally, I don't think I can praise you enough on the great job you've done on this article, perhaps especially considering the surrounding controversy and related WikiDrama. I've long hoped for a FA-quality article on this subject, but I've not previously dared believe it possible. Kudos! --Xover (talk) 11:20, 4 January 2011 (UTC)