Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Shakespeare authorship question/archive1

Off-topic and meta-discussion moved from main page

This sounds like even further censorship by Wikipedia. Facts are facts. This article was tagged by Adam Gopnik in a February 14 article in the New Yorker as one of the two most contentious articles on Wikipedia and a constant battleground.[1] For Wikipedia to grant it Featured Article status when the edit history of the article establishes that the entire article was essentially written during the past few months by two editors, Tom Reedy and Nishidani, stridently vocal proponents of the orthodox view of the authorship controversy, while everyone of the opposite view was constantly reverted by them, actively discouraged by them from participating through endless equivocation on Talk pages, or outright banned from editing through their machinations in concocting spurious complaints, would be to violate everything Wikipedia allegedly stands for in terms of its principle of neutrality. It's bad enough that the article is now the playground only of those who champion the orthodox view of the authorship controversy, with everyone of the opposing view prevented from contributing to it and restoring it to neutrality. To grant it Feature Article status while those conditions obtain would indicate just how far Wikipedia has strayed from its alleged principle of neutrality.72.234.212.189 (talk) 17:46, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

This is what Gopnik said (in an interview), and it is exactly why we need to show that we can create a stable article that reflects real-world scholarship: "What worries me is the spread of information (I cited Shakespeare authorship and the Shroud of Turin in the piece) where the truth is known but the lies keep coming. Evolution and creationism. A kid going on line to do research on the Second World War is one fatal click away from negationism. That's worrying." [2]. If we can bring this article into the "featured" fold it will be a triumph for the wiki-way that will go some way to allay these very fears. Paul B (talk) 19:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment: Xover argues for the nomination on the grounds that "Tom has put in a tremendous amount of effort [into the article] over the past year." This is like my students arguing that they deserve an A because they worked really hard.

Its clear that Tom has worked really hard: through his industriousness, along with impressive contributions by "Nishidani," Paul Barlow, and perhaps others, the article has been well scrubbed. It is now a shiny new used car with a broken engine. Anyone who believes that conformity to established doctrine is a higher value than critical thinking should vote in favor of the motion.

Others may wish to pause before doing so. The article has a long and tumultuous history which, contrary to Tom's implication, is highly relevant to the present nomination. Most recently, informed parties who would have been involved in the editing process and helped to provide a more objective content, not to mention less awkward prose, have been bullied into leaving by Mr. Reedy and "Nishidani." Tom's reference to "high degree of stability" is an illusion, if not a *de*lusion*. Within the next six months, at least four new books, all of them endorsing or supporting an Oxfordian authorship candidacy are set to appear, some by major publishers.

The current bibliography of the article contains only a single reference the (multiple) works of Sir George Greenwood and fails to note that the arguments of J.M. Robertson, are from a historical perspective frequently unimpressive beside Greenwood's powerful cross-examination, as any number of more contemporary literary historians, such asHope and Holston From the perspective of intellectual history this is nothing short of pathetic.

If we examine the article from a more contemporary point of view, the same prejudicial deficiencies are glaring: Mark Anderson's "Shakespeare by Another Name," arguably the most important book (along withSaint Shapiro) on the subject written in the last six years, is not only scrubbed from the reference section but is not mentioned in the entire article! There is no reference to the establishment of Brief Chronicles or The Oxfordian, both peer reviewed journals of authorship studies. There is no reference to the contemporary dynamic circumstances of the Shakespearean industry, as exemplified, for example, by William Leahy's newShakespeare and His Authors: Critical Perspectives on the Authorship Question.

It should also be noted, for the record, that the nominator has a conflict of interest. Having been party to the negativism, lack of good faith, and etc. which has brought the article to its present uncomprehensive, pedestrian and prejudicial state, when the *application* of good faith might have produced more impressive results, he now wants his handiwork to be treated as a model of Wikipedia process.

In short, the article has suffered markedly from the single-minded prejudices of the recent crew of editors, and I would have concur with contributor 72.234.212.189, regardless of the circumstances of his or her situation, that the article hardly qualifies for nomination to this category let alone "election." Thank you for your thoughtful perusal of these comments.--BenJonson (talk) 17:33, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

note: the principle on which the footnoting is undertaken is in conformity with WP:RS and WP:Fringe. James S. Shapiro is an acknowledged Shakespeare expert. Mark Anderson (writer) is a journalist with no expertise in 16th-17th century literature, as are most of the "peer reviewers" on the board of Brief Chronicles. These are matters that have been discussed elsewhere. There may be legitimate criticisms to be made about the structure of the article or the use of sources, but we need helpful input, not disruption and walls-of-text from editors who have had plenty of opportunity to contribute to the article and recent discussions. Paul B (talk) 18:22, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Response: Mr. Barlow again illustrates a prejudice that seems to interfere with his understanding of simple factual matters that are beyond reasonable dispute, viz:

including the general editor, there are twelve members of the editorial board of BC. Of these,at least seven are either fully qualified experts in early modern English literature or have published (sometimes extensively) in topics on early modern English literature.

Five are full professors, one, Professor Ostrowski, at Harvard, where he will be this fall teaching a course of the authorship question. Professor Regnier has published extensively in several peer reviewed journals on the subject of Shakespeare and the law. There is no person in the world more qualified (some may be *as* qualified) to hold an informed opinion on the intersection between law and literature in the Shakespearean canon.

Two of our board members are recognized experts in the topic of pseudonymous literature: Michael Hyde, PhD Hyde served as the sub-editor for Walter Houghton on The Wellesley Index to Victorian Periodicals (from 1974-1980), a massive five volume compilation of more than thirty leading British-Scottish-Irish magazines published between 1800-1900. Georgetown adjunct Waugamun is a leading theorist on the subject of the relevance of psychoanalysis to literature and has written at length on the relevance of psychology generally and psychoanalysis in particular to the study of pseudonymous texts. Some of his many relevant publications are available on his website, which is at oxfreudian.dot.com. I attempted to insert a link to Dr. Waugaman's site, BUT, journalists take NOTE, this cleanup crew at Wikipedia has been so THOROUGH that Waugaman's site is blacklisted from Wikipedia. WOW! Way to go, guys! (n.b. I attempted to discover the problem with this and the site is not listed on any of the wiki Blacklists, so this MAY be some sort of bug. I sure hope so.)

Professor Gilbert, a man at most in his early forties, holds an endowed chair in theatre history at the University of Guelph; Professor Londré is Curators’ Professor of Theatre at the University of Missouri-Kansas City and Honorary Co-Founder of Heart of America Shakespeare Festival. She was the founding secretary of the Shakespeare Theatre Association of America. She is the editor of a selection of critical essays on Love's Labour's Lost, Love’s Labour’s Lost: Critical Essays published by Garland (1997) and Routledge (2000). Dr. Carol Chaski, one the members of our board who has not published in early modern studies, is a world recognized expert not only in forensic linguistics but in Frye standards for evaluating the authority of expert witnesses in the courtroom! Are you telling us that her area of expertise is not relevant to issues of authorship?

All of this information is readily available on the BC website. I don't know why it seems necessary to repeat it hear, except that some persons who might be too busy to visit the site and discover it for themselves might be tempted to think that you have any credibility.

Paul, leading aside your blind faith in Shapiro's expertise, which has been widely punctuated in numerous reviews and commentaries readily available on the internet, your willful misunderstanding of the relevance of the expertise of BC board members to the interdisciplinary mission of the publication, and your ironically pedantic efforts to deny Mr. Anderson his rightful place in the current discussion, based on the merits of his work and not his "professional" qualifications, in what universe do you subtract five from twelve and get the answer "most"? --BenJonson (talk) 21:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

It would take several volumes to unpack the deceptions and disingenousness here, but suffice it to say that it is largely irrelevant to the issue we should be discussing here, and is typical of the Phil Spector-like strategy adopted by Oxfordians here to utterly drown useful discussion in a sea of verbiage so that once one steps in to this incarnadine ocean, returning is as infinitely tedious as go o'er. Paul B (talk) 22:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Waugaman's blog (if that's the site Ben means) is not blacklisted [3]. Paul B (talk) 22:10, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Who is correct, Barlow or Oxver? You are contradicting one another. Please consult and get your story straight. Thanks.

There is no "story" to get straight. If you read what people say instead of jumping straight to paranoia mode, you would see that I was referring to http://politicworm.com/oxford-shakespeare/ while Xover was speaking of www.oxfreudian.com: though the latter was mistyped in an apparent Fraudian slip. Paul B (talk) 09:00, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Note BenJonson self-identifies as Roger Stritmatter, the General Editor of the journal Brief Chronicles he is here advocating, and has been made aware of the WP:COI guideline. The journal has been discussed at WP:RS/N twice and rejected as a WP:RS except in extremely limited circumstances. The mentioned blog, “oxfraudian.com”“oxfreudian.com”, is currently on the blacklist due to cross-wiki spamming. --Xover (talk) 22:31, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

@Xover: Perhaps you would care to explain why you find it pertinent to comment on my identity while ignoring the content of my remarks. Nor do I have a clue what you mean by the phrase that "he is here advocating, and has been made aware of the WP:COI guideline." This sounds like bureaucratic mumbo jumbo. Do you mean that I am advocating the COI policy? That's what it sounds like. But then you follow this by saying that "[he] has been made aware of the guideline." Huh? What's with the third person pronoun. I'm right here, and you can dignify me with a direct response instead of pulling this sort of "I'll loud talk you into going away" nonsense. The mentioned blog is not, as you so cleverly name it, "The Oxfraudian." Its "The Oxfreudian." Do you even know what that means? Do you find your own jokes entertaining?

I sure hope so because I find them juvenile. Regarding the statement that the journal has been rejected as a [WP:RS]] I will confess that not being a Wikipedia junky I was not aware of those discussions. Nevertheless, it does interest me a great deal that you would ignore the substance of my comments above regarding the standing the journal is achieving within the scholarly community of which it is part and go on insisting that just because a group of Wikipedia editors who are for the most part wholly uninformed of the content of the journal, and have never made any credible criticism of its content, that that is some sort of credit to Wikipedia. Its merely an indication of how incompetent Wikipedia often is at adjudicating complicated questions and how easily epithets replace real discussion on controversial topics. Your response is no more credible than your initial opinion, on which you have not yet commented, that it would be a good idea to approve this as a featured page because Tom put so much work into it. I can hear the violins playing in the background. --BenJonson (talk) 03:44, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

REQUEST: I would like to request that commenters refrain from talking about Nishidani and Tom Reedy or any other user and focus only on the article itself. I find such personal talk unprofessional, unhelpful, and annoying in this space. All of the stuff about Tom and Nishidani and the rest was settled in the Arbcom case. Everyone had their "day in court." Now it is time to talk about actual content. If you want to talk about editors, rather than content, there are other places for that. Wrad (talk) 18:11, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Wrad: Reedy and Nishidani have made themselves the subject of this discussion, by refusing to act responsibly as editors dealing with a controversial topic. For a very recent example, just check out the recent talk thread conversation between myself and Nishi. Within 5 minutes of my supplying two footnotes to an un-footnoted controversial claim, which passed muster all of the lo these many months when I have avoided this page like the plague it was turned into, apparently approved of by Nishi, Reedy, and the rest of the gang who has made this entry their own private playground by hounding anyone with alternative perspective, was still surviving and alive, but with no footnote! I can only conclude that Mssrs. Reedy and Nishidani either do not understand that controversial claims require clear documentation, or perhaps think that they are above the principle that on any controversial topic it is incumbent on the editors to chose as examples of documentation the strongest possible arguments on both sides, and not, as Reedy and Nishi prefer, to go about erecting straw men at every possible juncture in the discussion so that one side can be made to appear foolish and the other omniscient. Ha! According to ANY reasonable scholarly practice the sentence I edited REQUIRED a footnote, and I supplied TWO (with a slight amplification of the sentence to reflect more accurately the nature of the claim being summarized). Both references were to a peer reviewed journal, Brief Chronicles, which has Wikipedia entry and a prestigious line up of academicians on its editorial board, including one from Harvard.

The first issue of BC has had excerpted from it by Gale publishing, in their annual Shakespearean Criticism (2011, forthcoming in April) an article by Dr. Earl Showerman, MD, on the classical sources of Much Ado About Nothing. Shakespearean Criticism is an annual academic publication sold exclusively to University libraries, published by the largest and one of the most prestigious publishers of academic series and textbooks in the world, that has published 57 volumes. This year they are publishing not only Showerman's article but another by Charles Burford, an outspoken and articulate advocate of the Oxfordian position, on the psychology of feudalism. According to Nishi's logic (if it prints something I don't like), SC would not be "RS" -- and his bizarre claim that BC isn't either is followed with a "You should know this" sneer. Do you think its possible that just perhaps Nishi and Mr. Reedy have been so busy editing this page that they don't have a clue what is actually happening in the outside world of Shakespearean scholarship? Sounds that way to me.

The result of months of domination of this article by Reedy and Nishidani is eloquently summarized below by 72.234.212.189 "It does not present any of the essential arguments which make the non-orthodox view compelling, and which gave rise to the authorship controversy in the first place and which have kept it an ongoing topic of interest for decades." Nishidani's reflexive censorship of my attempt to supply a footnote only confirms how thoroughly and savagely this practice has been enforced for far too long by these two (aided and abetted by others).

I don't know how it can reasonably be expected that persons actually knowledgeable of the subject under discussion should continue stuff rags in their mouths about this kind of misbehavior out of some sort of alleged loyalty to the "principle" of never criticizing such perverse and damaging actions. I'm sure that in some other universe Nishidani is a perfectly lovely human being. As an editor of this particular Wikipedia page he is neither competent nor civil. Indeed, he seems to adhere without deviation to the principle that he is always right, and anyone who questions him will be contradicted and insulted. Well-intentioned attempts to find common ground, such as by supplying appropriate documentation to unsourced claims, are rejected with bogus definitional arguments that never engage the substance of the issue.

Wrad, with all due respect, this sort of thing is not in the best interests of Wikipedia. I, too, would prefer to discuss content. But Reedy and Nishi have made that all but impossible to do so, by various means including (very frequently) imposing arbitrarily and typically false definitions on key terms like "RS" without any discussion or defense. The motive is very clear from the pattern they have established over many months: to censor the voices of those who have something significant to say on this topic and preserve the dogma of an entrenched paradigm, whatever the cost to Wikipedia or to the values of informed discourse on questions of significant intellectual and public matters. This is vulgar and should stop. You should not condone it.--131.118.144.253 (talk) 21:19, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Editors are relevant. Tom Reedy brought them up: 'an intensive editing process by many excellent editors'. This is manifestly not the truth. The edit history of the article shows that it is the product of two editors, Tom Reedy and Nishidani, both indefatigable proponents of the orthodox view. Their view is that anything which opposes the orthodox view is the pushing of a non-neutral point of view, which is manifestly ridiculous in an article which is purportedly about the authorship controversy. The reality is that the article as it now stands does nothing but disparage the non-orthodox view. It does not present any of the essential arguments which make the non-orthodox view compelling, and which gave rise to the authorship controversy in the first place and which have kept it an ongoing topic of interest for decades.72.234.212.189 (talk) 18:46, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Cardinal to the claim that this Wikipedia Article warrants featured article status is the assertion that the Shakespeare Authorship Question constitutes a 'fringe belief'. This by itself suffices to disqualify the claim on the grounds of non-neutrality. If someone were to claim that Shelley had written Lord Byron's works, that would certainly constitute a 'fringe belief'. But it is clear that the two situations are not the same, because the questions about the Shakespeare Authorship not only show no sign of diminishing after at least 150 years, but are increasing in scope and influence year by year. When a major best-selling orthodox Stratfordian author like James Shapiro sets aside four years of his life to write a novel type of 'refutation' of anti-Stratfordian theory ('Contested Will'), and when more of the masters of evidence of the US Supreme Court lean towards authorship scepticism, than towards orthodoxy, along with innumerable other signs, then this is blatantly no longer a 'fringe belief', but rather a 'minority belief'. It is indeed a kind of bunker mentality, supported by circular definitions of legitimate scholarship, that denies this obvious and ever more overwhelming flood of data. Featured Article status must therefore be opposed on the grounds of the article's clear non-neutrality.Sucamilc (talk) 22:24, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Note the account Sucamilc was registered today and has made a single edit on Wikipedia: the comment above. --Xover (talk) 22:35, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

'Be open and welcoming.' (Wikipedia guidelines.) Thank you, Xover. Sucamilc (talk) 22:51, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Rm from main page by Bishonen: Thank you for confirming that on this subject Wikipedia has wholly abandoned its ethical responsibility to allow all sides of a discussion to be heard. The only saving grace of course is that the entire transcript is archived. I suppose to be consistent you should probably delete this comment also. Best regards,--BenJonson (talk) 01:59, 2 March 2011 (UTC), MA, PhD, Associate Professor.

Continued below. Not relevant to reviewing the article. Please post that type of discussion here in the first place!

• @BenJonson: you misunderstand, or fail to read, Andy Walsh's comment. Nothing has been deleted. Your axe-grinding has been moved to the talkpage. To this page. See where Andy Walsh says so? The talk or "discussion" page is the place for discussion, but please beware of disruption and personal attacks on the talkpage also. Standard discretionary sanctions apply to this article. Bishonen | talk 02:40, 2 March 2011 (UTC).

@Bishonen: Thank you for the clarification. I suppose I mistook the astounding remark "I've just moved volumes of nonsense to the talk page I will consider administrative actions for disruption applied to involved individuals" at face value as being the sort of thing a responsible administrator writes in a "community" that is seeking the truth. "volumes of nonsense?" "consider administrative actions for disruption applied to involved individuals?" Really now, LaserBrain, was it necessary to categorize the material you removed in such a prejudicial mannner and to issue these threats against people who are merely standing up for common decency? Apparently so. And that's a damn pity. I apologize for misunderstanding, but this kind of high-handed admining does nobody any good and gives Wikipedia a bad name. If you need to move something, why not just say "I moved XYZ" instead of writing your own prejudice all over the page that remains so that anyone turning to the now moved material will already know what he or she is supposed to think about it? Bishonen -- you're a hero for the neutrality of your correction. Please consider applying your own comments about disruption when you review the history of the editing of the page in question. 95% of the disruption has come from the parties now controlling the editing. Thanks.--BenJonson (talk) 03:22, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

[Counts on fingers. ] OK.. so in your opinion a maximum of five percent of the disruption came from the editor who was banned for a year? I have in fact followed the history of SAQ talk, and also the arbitration case, and I find your opinion quite surprising. Bishonen | talk 04:11, 2 March 2011 (UTC).

Ben, I apologize for characterizing your rhetoric as "nonsense". It's clearly not nonsense, and I clearly have a flair for the dramatic hyperbole. However, my point remains valid. Whatever wars have been fought over this topic, their aftermath is unwelcome at FAC. Since I also happen to be an administrator, I will not hesitate to act in that capacity when the need arises. --Andy Walsh (talk) 03:43, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

My moderate argument about the absence of the criterion of 'neutrality' was also included in the designation of 'nonsense', something which would seem to confirm the point made. In the case of Shakespeare, Doctor Johnson gave as the criterion of an established author that "He has long outlived his century, the term commonly fixed as the test of literary merit." (Johnson, 'Preface to Shakespeare') By the same criterion, the Shakespeare Authorship Question has long outlived its century, and shows no sign of diminishing, as I pointed out. This is directly relevant to the question of 'neutrality', in relation to the claim of 'fringe beliefs', one of the issues on which comment was INVITED, yet adminstrators immediately moved it, by a sort of conditioned reflex, to this talk page. The standards of logic employed on behalf of orthodoxy here are infantile. Any sensible and even-handed Stratfordian would squirm to observe - only thay cannot, because it has been moved to this backwater - the tactics employed on their behalf.Sucamilc (talk) 19:27, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Given the extremely heated nature of the debate on this subject in the past, couching any statement in personal attacks or delivering it in a way that shows a disregard for Wikipedia's civility rules is ultimately unhelpful and merits blocking. It is absolutely necessary that everyone involved stick completely and totally to the content of the article and not cast aspersions, assume bad faith, or issue personal attacks.

In other words, commentary on content is invited, but a lack of civility will result in a block. Wrad (talk) 21:09, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Naturally, if you ban, or remove from this page, all dissenting positions, you can achieve ‘stability’, and eliminate ‘edit wars’. But this is manifestly Orwellian strategy (in the sense of 1984). Of course, by the same token, by the mad logic of Wikipedia procedures, I do not doubt it will prevail. Yes, indeed, we love Big Brother.Sucamilc (talk) 21:34, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Sock/meatpuppets

I've blocked Sucamilc as a disruptive SPA and obvious sock/meatpuppet. I second the request first placed on this nomination not to engage these types of accounts—it only encourages them when they realize they have an audience. --Andy Walsh (talk) 22:40, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from PametPuma, 4 March 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} Comment: I'm fully aware of all the work that has gone into this very comprehensive article, but I wonder if readers will wonder about its balance and neutrality when they check the footnotes and find that of the 232 footnotes 222 (96%) are for sources that support Shakespeare of Stratford and/or argue against an alternative candidate. And of almost a hundred references only eight are anti-Stratfordian, which appears to be the subject of this article. And only one of four external links is anti-Stratfordian. No one would expect a 50-50 split, but the emphasis seems so lopsided as to appear to betray a (hidden?) bias. Appearances do matter, especially if this is going to be a featured article. I'm not sure what we can do at this point, but I fear that the credibility of the editors and indeed of Wikipedia itself and how its policies and guidelines are applied in controversial articles may risk coming in for some significant criticism. Should we re-visit this article and its sources? PametPuma (talk) 14:29, 4 March 2011 (UTC) PametPuma (talk) 14:29, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Almost all reliable sources (WP:RS) are "Stratfordian". Paul B (talk) 14:32, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I.e., Editors have used, following the guidelines for this kind of subject, sources written overwhelmingly by competent, recognised scholars who have taken the trouble to master the methods required of any academic study of an historical field. This has imposed a particularly strenuous burden on those who have undertaken to write and improve the article. If there is some fault, it lies not with wikipedia, but, as is often asserted by 'anti-Stratfordians', with the structure of modern historical sciences as they are taught at university level, which requires severe tests for acceptance, such as earning a Phd. and submitting one's work to peer-review, rather than to the opinion of vagarious friends, or members of private cultural groups or societies.Nishidani (talk) 15:57, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Your comment/feedback isn't actionable unless you provide examples of mainstream (meaning, not fringe), reliable sources that haven't been represented. Simply stating that the majority of sources support such-and-such viewpoint is not actionable. The majority of sources at Elvis Presley support that he's dead. --Andy Walsh (talk) 15:16, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Most anti-Stratfordian sources are either primary sources, self-published and promotional sources, or otherwise non-reliable sources for Wikipedia articles. While I understand that Oxfordians and other authorship advocates think the article is biased because it includes the evidence for William Shakespeare instead of concentrating on making the various arguments is as persuasive manner as possible, the article is meant to be descriptive of the general nature of anti-Stratfordism and the academic response, as required by Wikipedia policy as set down in the guideline WP:FRINGE.

Wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopedia, and I daresay anybody would be hard-pressed to find another encyclopedia that gives as much space to the various anti-Stratfordian theories and other fringe theories as it does. That it does not parrot the arguments of the various Baconain, Oxfordian, and Marlovian web sites is not a valid complaint. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:11, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Since this edit request is under discussion, and doesn't seem to be in the right place, I'm untranscluding it. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:17, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Re the issue of "balance": Wikipedia reports information from reliable secondary sources, with a due balance between significant views that are discussed in scholarly secondary sources. Wikipedia is not like a befuddled media outlet that "balances" each story by giving equal time to the pro and con sides. See WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE and WP:SECONDARY. Johnuniq (talk) 01:17, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Both Schoenbaum's Lives and Wadsworth's The Poacher from Stratford are surveys of the various anti-Stratfordian theories. While they make it clear in the final few pages that they agree with the academic consensus, neither of them make any arguments for Shakespeare or against the other candidates. Tom Reedy (talk) 02:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Metadiscussion on behaviour (moved from main page)

I also submit that an article should be lauded as a Featured Article not only for its content and style, but for its development process. A particularly contentious article is likely to suffer from problems of WP:AGF, WP:OWN, and WP:CIVILITY, and the process followed by the SAQ article editors has been exemplary of this problem. Is it possible to edit such a contentious article while also adhering to Wiki ideology? SAQ may prove it is nearly impossible in certain situations, but it would be a shame to flaunt such a conclusion by making this FA.Jdkag (talk) 09:11, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is looking for 'praise' (lauded). The article has not suffered from any notable contentiousness for almost seven months now, as more than a dozen editors of widely differing backgrounds and expertise have come to it to scrutinize and purge its defects, and improve its qualities. Subsequent editing has shown no problems of incivility or ownership, and WP:AGF hasn't arisen because all are editing to the article, not against each other. The process has been notably civil, esp. since Arbcom stepped in. Finally generic objections repeated against an article whose many editors have demonstrated a willingness to undertake whatever third party experts ask of them so that the criteria of the encyclopedia's highest expectations are fully met misses the point. There are many articles in this 'controversial' area desperately requiring a clean-up and dedicated redaction to meet minimum standards. Rather than harp continually about the putative failings of the one article that has so far received thorough community-wide attention per a strict reading of the relevant policy protocols, it would perhaps be more productive to tackle those that fail every test of WP:NPOV such as the Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship. Nishidani (talk) 09:27, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Few love to hear (or to admit) the sins they love to act.Jdkag (talk) 12:23, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Again, do you have any specific actionable objections? This is not a discussion page. Tom Reedy (talk) 12:24, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

All candidates at FAC are judged on the criteria in WP:WIAFA, which does not include the development process. As far as objecting, you need to give specific actionable requests, not just WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:53, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Further reason for opposition: behavioral problems. A particularly contentious article is likely to suffer from problems of WP:AGF, WP:OWN, and WP:CIVILITY. The process followed by the SAQ article editors has been exemplary of this problem. It may not be possible to edit SAQ in line with Wiki ideology, but it would be a shame to flaunt such a conclusion by making this FA. Restored from Discussion. Jdkag (talk) 21:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

And returned. "Behavioral problems" are not part of the featured article criteria, and thus should not be discussed on the main review page. You're welcome to participate in the review, but you must keep your comments there on-topic and provide specific, actionable reasons for your opposition to the article's promotion. Failure to do so will likely lead to your oppose being discounted by the delegates, and continued behavior-related posts will result in you being barred from participation in the review process. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:08, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Knitwitted, 15 March 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} I don't understand why Hope & Holston's book The Shakespeare Controversy: An Analysis of the Authorship Theories, 2d ed. (2009) is not listed as a reference. It is the best source for the authorship question as it was written from a neutral point-of-view. And I don't understand why Shapiro's book is accepted as a reliable source. The book is not footnoted at all. Failure to properly document one’s work is a big no-no in the world of historical research. No one knows what "facts" in his book are derived from which source. Wikipedia may be misattributing "facts" with Shapiro's book when the "facts" should be attributed to their original source(s). Knitwitted (talk) 12:40, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

'neutral point of view?' Have you read the book? Or its programmatic declaration that in their summaries 'People who have been denounced as lunatics are seen as truth-seekers . .Cranks become respected authorities and respected authorities become cranks.' (p.3)

The reason why we don't include it is because the writers have no background in Shakespearean studies. Kim Holston has written biographies of Susan Hayward and Richard Widmark. Warren Hope has done some critical studies of modern poets. Their summaries are wholly skewed to their belief that Clifford D. Simak, a science fiction writer, got it right when he depicted in a futuristic novel Time University as one where de Vere's true authorship had been established. Shapiro's book uses the endnote system to provide the bibliographical basis for his chapters. He's a recognised authority on Shakespeare.Nishidani (talk) 13:19, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

From the author's bios: Warren Hope is an adjunct English instructor and lives in Havertown, Pennsylvania. Kim R. Holston has written or cowritten several books for McFarland. He is a part-time audio-visual librarian at Chester County Library, Exton, Pennsylvania. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:15, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

In the second paragraph on p. 281 (the first page of his "Bibliographical Essay"), Mr. Shapiro writes "For those seeking an overview of the controversy, there are a number of fine surveys, all of which I have found helpful and reliable: ... Warren Hope and Kim R. Holston, The Shakespeare Controversy (Jefferson, N.C., 1992)..." And thank you for your clarification regarding Shapiro. Yes, he is a recognized authority on Shakespeare... not an authority on the authorship question. Knitwitted (talk) 14:15, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Hope and Holstein is an Oxfordian work, as you know. And indeed, your cohort BenJonson told us you would be coming here. Tom Reedy (talk) 14:22, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Do check me here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Knitwitted . Thanks! Knitwitted (talk) 15:17, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

There is no such thing as an "authority on the authorship question" in the sense you mean, since the "authorship question" is not an academic subject except as a rather marginal object of study. We don't accept Alfred Rosenberg and Hans Gunther as experts on the "Jewish question". We do accept historians who study the period. Paul B (talk) 15:35, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

My argument is that I'm well-qualified to judge the soundness of a supposedly historically-written book. Mr. Shapiro's book lacks proper documentation. I believe his undocumented book would be mightily thrown back regardless of his credentials had he submitted it to any historical group including fringe groups such as http://www.bcgcertification.org/ . Knitwitted (talk) 17:01, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

If Shapiro is a reliable source then his assertion that Hope & Holston are a reliable source regarding the authorship question should be satisfactory. And, no, I don't know that Hope, et al's book is "an Oxfordian work." Kindly quote your source. Knitwitted (talk) 15:53, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

A polite remark does not mean more than the fact that an author is being ... polite. Paul B (talk) 16:00, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

By "Oxfordian work" I mean it promotes Oxford-as-Shakespeare. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:15, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

And how is Tom Reedy an authority on what constitutes an "Oxfordian work"? Knitwitted (talk) 16:25, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

The preface mentions "Oxfordian" 4 times, but none of the other candidates. The Introduction says "We too are convinced that Time will eventually establish that William Shakespeare was Edward de Vere". I have not read any further so I don't know if the book is worth citing but it is undoubtedly Oxfordian and you certainly can't claim that it is NPOV. Poujeaux (talk) 09:30, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

BTW... Shapiro also cites three other books plus two bibliographies as being both "helpful and reliable" regarding the authorship question. I'm not familiar with any of these. Knitwitted (talk) 16:31, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

But perhaps these sources plus Hope & Holston would be better starting points for your article rather than Shapiro. Knitwitted (talk) 16:44, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

One author's reliability does not give him/her dictatorial powers to assert it in others, though, of course, that is not what Shapiro is doing. He does not tailor his language to suit the requirements of WP:RS! In any case what he means by "reliable" here is irrelevant to what is meant by it on wikipedia. He presumably means that the authors don't lie. WP:RS is something different. It is about how we make assessments of publications, and includes the point that authors can be relied upon to make judgements (which is not to say that their judgements are necessarily correct, but that they have authority). Your last sentence is bzarre. The logic seems to be: Shapiro's reliability means that these other guys are reliable therefore we should bypass WP:RS and not be using Shapiro! Paul B (talk) 18:26, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Why don't ya'll just say what you really mean: Professor Hope (PhD, English, and award winning poet) has written a book we don't like. It comes to a conclusion we don't like. Therefore it is not RS. This is an honest summary of your arguments.--BenJonson (talk) 12:12, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I admit it would be a bit "bizarre" for Wikipedia to cite those "reliable" publications as cited in Shapiro's book rather than his own book which is basically a compilation of prior research. Knitwitted (talk) 19:21, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Of course he relies of earlier research as all scholars do, but it is anything but a "compilation". In fact most of the books you refer to are better described as "compilations", since they are summaries of arguments that have been made over the years. I don't think you understand thr concept of Reliable Source as it is used here. A scholar who studies - say - the history of scientific ideas in the Victorian era will - and should - use as sources publications by writers of the time. In a sense, of course, the writers studied are coming up with the "original" ideas, but the scholar is commenting on them; looking at what kind of evidence was available; why certain ideas caught on, or were ignored; how they fitted attitudes of the time etc etc. That's the point of historical scholarship. He may also compare these writers with modern scientific knowledge in the area. This is pretty much what Shapiro does. It does not make the work of a Victorian scientist "reliable" in Wikipedia's sense if a modern scholar uses their work as a source and states that it is a "reliable" account of what the author thought at the time. These are two quite different concepts. Paul B (talk) 21:47, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

That is pretty much what Hope and Holston do. But since they offer a different point of view from Shapiro, one that you don't like, they are not RS, but you will go out of your way to make all sorts of lame excuses for the quite manifest, gigantic errors and leaps of judgment in the Shapiro book. No one here is saying that because Shapiro made a fool of himself in his book he should not be cited at Wikipedia. After all, he teaches at Columbia. So why is it that you are so focused on issues of external prestige that you seem unwilling to deal with the actual merits or particular arguments?--BenJonson (talk) 12:12, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I assume everyone here has seen Dr. John M. Rollett's criticism of Shapiro's book at http://www.amazon.com/review/RK5WBY736S24H/ref=cm_cr_rev_detmd_pl?ie=UTF8&cdMsgNo=94&cdPage=10&asin=1416541624&store=books&cdSort=oldest&cdMsgID=Mx1SUA70OJAGSC#Mx1SUA70OJAGSC . In my opinion, errors and omissions (including a lack of attribution to proper sources) such as those pointed out by Dr. Rollett taint Professor Shapiro's credibility. Knitwitted (talk) 16:42, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

A review on Amazon.com has absolutely zero status. IMO, Shapiro could have been more generous to Rollett and Wright, but he does mention them and this has no relevance to the criteria of WP:RS. Rollett only displays his own ignorance. He repeats the long-debunked view that the Labeo referred to by Hall is the lawyer Marcus Antistius Labeo. In fact it refers to a bad poet, Attius Labeo, satirised in Hall's principal source, the Roman writer Persius. Also Shapiro quite explicitly denies that "doubts about Shakespeare" began in 1750 (he mentions a bad joke in 1759, which has nothing to do with doubt). Rollett is all over the place. He's right about just one thing though - the hyphen. That's a Shapiro slip. He's really explaining the printed use of the 'e' contrary to the typical manuscript spelling. Paul B (talk) 19:03, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes. If I believe Wikipedia, then I do believe Prof. Shapiro has trumped Dr. Rollett. Per Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Wilmot#Supposed_Shakespeare_research, "In 2010, James S. Shapiro declared the document a forgery based on facts stated in the text about Shakespeare that were not discovered or publicised until decades after the purported date of composition." Again, if my beliefs are correct, I believe that is sufficient evidence to burst Dr. Rollett's 2002 bubble. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knitwitted (talk • contribs)

I've no idea what you are trying to say now. The James Wilmot article gives due weight to Rollett and Wright and identifies the chronological sequence of research and publications. Rollett and Wright are given more space than Shapiro and appear first. You must know this, since you've quoted from the article. Paul B (talk) 15:21, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Why don't you give the link to the 2003 article so people can read for themselves what was reported? Wright never made any statement stronger than "probable". Excerpts from the two articles (emphasis mine):

Wright reported on continuing research into a discovery first made by Dr. John Rollett of Ipswich, England, namely that the entire story of Wilmot having searched for years for any news of the Stratford man—and finding nothing—may have been a 20thcentury fabrication.

Professor Wright acknowledges that a definitive case for establishing the Cowell report as a forgery has yet to be made, if it can be made, given that the challenge may require the task of proving several negatives.

Dr. Wright cautioned his audience that further research and undertakings—such as dating the paper and ink of the alleged 1805 report—would be necessary, but he felt that he and Dr. Rollett had made enough progress to date to make the story public.

We await with excitement the work, insights and discoveries of Drs. Wright, Rollett and Rubinstein in their continuing inquiries into this likely Baconian fraud, and we look forward to Professor Wright’s planned transcription and publication of this document with a revelation—if a revelation is possible—of who may have written the mysterious manuscript that fantastically appeared without any provenance in the Edwin Durning-Lawrence library at the University of London in 1932.

Wright had seven years to research and publish, as he had said he planned to do. That he didn't is no one's fault but his, and nobody would expect Shapiro to sit on his original contribution that proved it was a forgery Tom Reedy (talk) 15:38, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

So, because he did not publish, Shapiro is allowed to write a book that presents himself as having discovered, a la the great genius, the significance of the document all on his own? And will be rewarded for his dishonesty by seeing his book advanced to the authoritative source sine qua non on Wikipedia? You seem to be trying to shift attention away from the real issue, which is whether Shapiro's account of this event possesses even a modest degree of credibility in this regard. It does not. He manifestly attempts to fool the reader into thinking that he himself discovered that the document was a "forgery," and conceals the truth: he read about the likelihood that it was a forgery in a publication that you guys now say is not "RS." It's obvious why you do so. If its not "RS" then wikipedia will forever be prevented from correcting Shapiro's self serving and partial account, and hence will effectively be colluding with the Columbia prof. in misrepresenting the history. I'm surprised you aren't quoting "A reader from Brooklyn" as your source. He's RS, right? He agrees with you and everything he says sounds just like your hero, Shapiro. --BenJonson (talk) 12:12, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

 Not done: no consensus. Please remember that the {{edit semi-protected}} template should only be used to suggest specific, "X" to "Y" changes, per the template documentation. -- gtdp ^(T)/_(C) 17:55, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

reply to Jdkag

I've interleaved responses to Jdkag's comments. Paul B (talk) 16:51, 15 March 2011 (UTC): Actionable items:

• article's first line opens with a negative term (argument) instead of a neutral term (theory, belief, etc)
  • why is "argument" a negative term? It seems neutral to me.
• ”Shakespeare’s authorship was first questioned in the middle of the 19th century” – according to whom? Other views? “Some scholars believe that…” would be more NPOV. (Also, the anomalous lack of records, which was noted by early biographers, is equally relevant to the subject.)
  • This is not disputed since the identification of the Wilmot forgery. Of course reliable sources prior to that do date it a bit earlier.
• no statement in lead as to why the four candidates are mentioned
  • The statement is made later. It would just clog the lede.
• "Shakespeare’s authorship was not questioned during his lifetime" – Other views? How can this be a proven fact? Shouldn’t it be “As far as scholars have been able to determine… although authorship doubters believe…”
  • Reliable sources assert this. Of course fringe ones claim that all sorts of coded messages exist in virtually every 16th and 17th publication. We go by what reliable sources say. To add "As far as scholars have been able to determine" is weasely. It would be like saying "as far as scholars have been able to determine the Bush administration did not blow up the twin towers on 9/11."
• lead ends with “They campaign for public acceptance of the authorship question as a legitimate field of academic inquiry and to promote one or another of the various authorship candidates”. This is an article about the theory. It’s not about the doubters themselves. This line does not belong in the lead.
  • I don't see this line as necessary, but I don't see what's wrong with it. The article is about the theory and its history, which includes the campaigns, lawsuits, publicity etc. These are all discussed.
• ”Anti-Stratfordians claim that this indicates a person very different from the author reflected in the works” – use of “claim” is not neutral. Suggest “believe” or “say”.
  • Fine, no problem. Change it.
• Case Against Shakespeare section: There is an editorial voice present, which is effectively refuting the case while it is being presented. The "case against" should be summarised baldly, without comment; the refutation is part of the "case for".” I believe this especially applies to the first two sentences in the section, which serves as a set-up for the “case for”.
  • This has already been dealt with. See the talk page.
• History and particulars of the “group theory” are inadequate, both in the history section and the alternative candidates section. The various group theories have received much attention over the years. One would not know it from this article.
  • This is a matter that could be debated till the proverbial cows put their feet up. It would be impossible to come up with a solution that would satisfy everyone about which theories or arguments are more or less important. However it is a fact that it is individual authors who have created followers. Group theories have cropped up on and off, but have never developed major followings. They are duly mentioned.
• Baconian and Oxfordian theory sections are too long and detailed. They are not summaries and do not even follow the basic technique of Wikipedia Summary Style. Why is the unpublished George Frisbee given so much weight, for example? Major arguments surrounding the candidacies are also missing, such as Oxford’s bible, Bacon’s Tempest connections, etc. In short, expert opinions on the minority viewpoint are not represented accurately, if at all.
  • Why are they "too long"? They are longer than the other two because more has been published on these two candidates. And how do they not "follow the the basic technique of Wikipedia summary style"? Again, it is impossible to prove which arguments are most or least important. "Oxford’s bible" is a recent argument devised by Roger Stritmatter (aka user:BenJonson). Our old friend Nina Green dismisses it. It has had no significant historical role in the creation and maintenance of the theory, so most RS do not discuss it (though it is briefly discussed by Shapiro). "Bacon’s Tempest connections" are mainly a preoccupation of user:Barryispuzzled, which is why they feature so heavily in the current Baconian theory article, which he created. They have not played a major role in the history of Baconism.
• The article is quite long, especially the history section, which has its own article. Again, summary style is not being followed. The "case for" section is also incredibly long and throws the weight of the article out of balance. Perhaps the section needs its own article?
  • The balance of content should favour the mainstream view, per policy.
• Process: The preface to the list for featured article criteria, states that these criteria are: "in addition to meeting the requirements for all Wikipedia articles." Good behavior/process (e.g., adherence to WP:AGF, WP:OWN, and WP:CIVILITY) is a fundamental WIKI requirement for all articles, one that is not met by the SAQ page. Given the assumptions of the current editors regarding editors of differing viewpoints and regarding how those differing viewpoints should be treated, it is not likely that the SAQ page will meet fundamental WIKI requirements in the near future.
  • Editors with different viewpoints are welcome. POV pushing is not. That is policy.

Paul B (talk) 16:41, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Response by jdkag: Editors with different viewpoints are welcome? First, I have no interest in this subject other than in providing information to Wiki readers. However, when I added one reference to one candidate citation on the SAQ list page, increasing the number of references from 33 to 34, I was immediately reverted, and I was accused in the ensuing discussion of bookspam, of trying a publicity stunt, of pushing POV, of edit warring (a false accusation, as I did not revert), of trying to reduce the level of Wikipedia by citing self-published work (also a false accusation), and in general of violating Wiki standards. Paul, you also accused me of not really wanting to improve the article; Nishidani stated near the beginning of the discussion that I would probably ignore whatever he said and try to edit the article anyway; Tom said I was wasting everyone's time. It's all here. Anyone who has studied the SAQ issue and found it plausible is automatically considered an unreliable source by the current tag team of editors, the result being that the article cannot accurately present the reasons for which the SAQ issue exists. Over the centuries, many educated people, fully capable of reviewing the evidence for Stratfordian authorship (as Nishidani calls them, "sundry lawyers and judges," though the list also includes university presidents, academics, scientists, and historians) have come to the conclusion that the evidence is wanting. The article portrays such people as being argumentative and self-serving and the general tone of the article is one of blunt disrespect for the issue. Editors who want to change the article, in order to treat the subject with more respect, are shown the same disrespect that I was shown.Jdkag (talk) 19:11, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

This has been discussed repeatedly. In this article we have tried to stick to reliable sources. The book you wanted to add was clearly not RS by any standard. Why do you keep harping on this? If you feel strongly about it, take it to one of the relevant discussion boards to get the input of the community as a whole (Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard; Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard). You state that I "accused" you of not wanting to improve the article. For the record, I responded to your inaccurate assertion that editors were not giving "both sides of the story", since all candidates were treated equally. I wrote, "you are not remotely interested in giving both sides of the story, since you do not add books on any other candidate. If you showed good faith by collating material on all the candidates (where possible, of course), finding when they were first proposed and identifying prominent literature promoting their claims, you might improve the article by giving the reader more comprehensive information than a mere list of names." I also added "If Jdkag genuinely wishes to provide information to the reader he/she will add the relevant literature on all of the candidates, where is it accessible. Adding one example of advocacy for one candidate does not help". Paul B (talk) 19:22, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean, you did not revert? What is this and this? I suggested three times that you open up a case at WP:RS, 1, 2, 3, in accordance with the final decision of the recent arbitration case. You chose to ignore my suggestions (or anybody else's, a prime example of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT), and instead repeated the same comments over and over, resulting in an impenetrable wall of text, the type of editorial disruption that is specifically addressed in the sanctions. Your actions here at the FAC are similar, ignoring Nikkimaria's instructions and reinserting your content that she had moved. Tom Reedy (talk) 19:55, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Those reverts were before the discussion was opened; once discussion began I did not revert. But there's no point in our arguing over the discussion that took place; it's all recorded for anyone interested in knowing what took place.Jdkag (talk) 21:49, 15 March 2011 (UTC)