User talk:ජපස

I have a simple two to three step process for refactoring comments that seem to anyone to be uncivil:

1. You need to provide a specific reference to specific wording. A diff or link is a good start, but you need to quote exactly what part of the wording is uncivil and why. Is it an adjective? A particular phrase? etc. (For example, "I thought it was uncivil when you said 'there are dozens of isochron methods' here.")
2. You will need to be abundantly clear as to how the exact wording is perceived by you to be uncivil towards you personally and why you consider it to be uncivil. (For example, "When I was being persecuted in the Maltese riots of 1988, the favored phrase of the police as they shot us with their water cannons was 'There are dozens of isochron methods!' The phrase still haunts me to this day.")
3. Provide an alternative wording that provides the same information without the perceived incivility. This is not a necessary step, but would be helpful. (For example, "Instead of saying that phrase, could you just say 'Scientists use a large number of radioisotope ratios to allow them to date rocks.'? This phrase does not carry the loaded baggage that I associate with the wording you wrote but seems to have the same meaning.")

Once you provide at least information relating to the first two steps, I will usually immediately refactor. The third step is optional.

This editor is a
Vanguard Editor
and is entitled to display this
Unobtainium
Editor Star
with the
Neutronium Superstar hologram.

This editor is Grand Gom, the Highest Togneme of the Encyclopedia and is entitled to keep the floor plan of The Great Library of Alecyclopedias, including its ancient access keys.

WP:ONEWAY violations?

Would you please take a look at these diffs? [1] [2] [3] [4]

I've been reviewing the policies and I believe that Smatprt's strategy of wedging in references to the Shakespeare authorship question (particularly Oxfordism) into other articles violates WP:ONEWAY, and I also think it's misclassified as to the particular genre of WP:FRINGE it is. It appears that he's following my edits and reverting them. I've reverted one of them, but I don't want to get in a revert war and would appreciate your perspective before I do anything further. I've also notified Verbal to ask his opinion. Tom Reedy (talk) 00:03, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

First, I am not "following" Tom. I have these pages on my watchlist as I have edited them. In fact, it appears that Tom is trying to delete or reclassify all mentions of the SAQ minority viewpoint from various wikipedia articles that I have edited: [[5]], [[6]], [[7]] and [[8]]. Regarding the first and second links, Historical revisionism and Fringe theory, the regular editors of the HR page had never suggested that that the example was improper in any way, but here is a link to a related discussion where a consensus developed that the SAQ was an example of a Fringe Theory/Historical revisionism [[9]]. And here is a link to a mainstream reference that uses the term "revisionist" in describing the SAQ [[10]] (paragraph 5), and one that uses the same term in reference to authorship questions in general [[11]] (second to last paragraph). Tom is clearly using my edit history, following me around to pages he has never participated in, and reverting my edits. This behavior started after I filed a RFC/u against him. Is this a case of WP:STALK or WP:HARASS? I'd appreciate some input on this. Smatprt (talk) 11:16, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

This is typical of you to accuse your critics of doing what you do. I am using the SAQ "What links here" to find unwarranted linkage in violation of WP:ONEWAY, where your edits were made months and weeks ago. You reverted my edits within hours, proving that you use my user contribution page to follow my edits. In any case, these unwarranted mentions of the SAQ and Oxford-as-Shakespeare are clear violations of Wikipedia policy, and no vote by any number of drive-by editors that you rely on for support can change that. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:47, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Tom, you really need to learn how to set the preferences on your watch list. As you note, I have edited those pages, so my preferences are set so they AUTOMATICALLY appear on my watch list. I was on those pages and made edits. You came along later and reverted them. Period. And the fact remains that after the RFC/u was closed, you now are going to pages I have edited and reverting those edits. Whether it's a week or a month later, it's still a simple reversion. The only time days/weeks/etc come into play is when 3RR is being discussed, which it is not. Please continue to research these things. It would really help you to avoid making incorrect accusations like this. Smatprt (talk) 18:19, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

• Ahem*

The first two diffs Tom outlines seem relatively reasonable to me. Tweaking them is okay, but I don't really see a reason to revert. The third one is peculiar in that it removes a pretty good source. I'm not sure I understand the rationale that you're using for that one, Smatprt. The last diff strikes me as being a bit more problematic because of WP:WEIGHT. I would be inclined to revert that one until independent sources acknowledging that these perspectives were prominent were given, but I'm trying to maintain some independence here, and so will defer to someone else who thinks that reasonable. This talk page is monitored heavily, so it could be that all these problems are already resolved. If not, buzz me again.

WP:ONEWAY is usually a proposal that is invoked when people decide to lead editors to other locations in defiance of the mainstream understanding. Kind of like linking to flat earth from our earth article. IN this case, the only "oneway issue" I see is in the last diff, and actually it's bigger than that because it isn't just a link: it's an entire section. WP:BRD would incline me to think that removing that section and discussing whether it belongs or not is probably the best thing to do right now. Get a third opinion if you'd like, or post a message to WP:FTN.

And I advise that no one gripe about how people are following one direction or another, whether it be by user contributions or article differences or what links here. All this information (except an individual's watchlist) is public and available for scrutiny. EXPECT that your work will be double checked by others. That's what keeps Wikipedia honest. Keep the personal animosity out of it.

Best,

ScienceApologist (talk) 17:55, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I have provided several more refs for the last one (Chronology) which show how prominent the chronology issue is. The newest refs show how prominently a noted authorship debunker addresses the issue. Even more refs can be forthcoming if requested, as the issue has been addresses repeatedly by researchers on both sides of the debate. I agree about the removal of the source in regards to number three, and will certainly restore it. I see no reason why both refs and both statements should not be included. As to rationale - to quote the message I left on Tom's talk page "As to Marprelate, first - I didn't add the initial mention (De Vere as Pasquill Cavaliero, as referenced to Appleton's book). I added the mention that DeVere is the leading candidate line. It's an obvious connection to be made: the article speculates on who Pasquill was, it mentions several candidates including newer scholarship, and one of those candidates just also happens to be the leading candidate for the works of Shakespeare. The additions hardly create undue weight, nor the appearance of a wp:coatrack. The one-way guideline just does not apply." Does that clarify my rationale for you as to why the information should not be deleted? Smatprt (talk) 18:24, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Um, Smatprt, the two refs you added to the chronology article make it clear that the alternative dating is WP:FRINGE. Using your logic, we could insert all kinds of references to fringe topics if someone has debunked tham

And Appleton's book is not RS; she was awarded a PhD for "life experience" in exchange for "tuition" by the same company that published her book, and in any case no academics have responded to her ideas, a requirement for Wikipedia if it is to be included in a non-fringe article. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:48, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that if someone is in the business of debunking, that makes the idea notable, but not necessarily prominent. Look at WP:Notability vs. prominence for more on that. In fact, I'd argue that an idea can only be prominent if it is mentioned almost every time the subject is mentioned. I do not think this is the case for the last option. I thank you, Smatprt, for restoring the source, but you might want to consider that tweaking the wording of those lines might be appropriate too. I think Tom's edit captures the general summary of the subject better. I have no way of knowing whether his removal of the last sentence was correct in light of WP:WEIGHT or not having almost no familiarity with research on this subject at all, but I'm inclined to think that what needs to be done is a careful consideration of a random assortment of sources to see if that idea is mentioned or not. Is that possible? ScienceApologist (talk) 18:40, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

In regards to the chronology issue, it's a pretty safe bet that every time the authorship issue is mentioned, the date of De Vere's death (1604) is almost always mentioned right along side the fact that the "accepted" chronology goes past that 1604 date. In fact, it is the primary anti-oxfordian argument. If the article/book is a "debunker" they normally leave it at that. If the article is more neutral or pro-skeptic, they will nearly always mention that Oxfordians do not accept the standard chronology and that no "necessary" source material has been identified past the 1604 date. It's certainly a prominent part of every authorship discussion that mentions Oxford (which most due because of his front-runner status. Smatprt (talk) 18:59, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

So, is this a "fringe of the fringe" issue? If so, I'm at a loss, but it certainly doesn't belong on the main pages then. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:11, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean. The Oxfordian Theory is the leading authorship theory and the only one to achieve prominence in the last 25 years. As such it is completely notable on its own merits and is prominently mentioned on a regular basis by the NY Times, Time Magazine, Newsweek, Harpers, Atlantic Monthly, etc., etc.. It also receives (by far) the most attention from mainstream critics such as Wells, McCrae, Bate, Shaprio, etc. I know Tom will disagree with me on this, but it has actually become the most mainstream of all authorship theories, by virtue of the fact that a number of academics actively support it and Concordia University has recently opened a multi-million dollar authorship studies center that focuses on Oxfordian studies. The university also hosts an annual "De Vere Studies Conference". Back to the chronology issue - all this goes to the point that there has been so much research on De Vere that an Oxfordian Chronology has been developed (unlike any other candidate) and that is precisely the dissenting view that the chronology article links to. Smatprt (talk) 19:23, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

So, you contend that Oxfordian Theory is not fringe? ScienceApologist (talk) 19:44, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Well that is a difficult question to answer, due to the extremely broad Wiki definition of Fringe (anything that departs from generally accepted scholarship). A clarifying question is in order - at what point does something become a "minority view" instead of a "fringe theory"? For that matter what is the difference between "alternative view", "minority view" and "fringe view"? I must admit to being a bit confused on this. Due to the very broad definition I mentioned above, I have gone along with the "Fringe" designation, but in view of the recent NY Times survey where 17% of university Shakespeare professors admitted "possible" doubt and only 31% called it a "waste of time", and the fact that several universities are now teaching the subject, at what point do these various wiki designations come into play? Your thoughts? Smatprt (talk) 20:36, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Minority views, alternate views, and fringe views are all roughly synonymous in Wikispeak (with one bizarre exception that I can point you to if you are at all interested). The difference is always in sourcing. prominence, weighting, and notability of the ideas. To give an example I'm intimately familiar with, one of my favorite "fringe theories" is DGP model which provides a plausible though probably intractable alternative to dark energy. Note that a large number of contemporary astronomers and physicists would probably be skeptical as to whether dark energy is real or not, but DGP theory, even though it was proposed by well-respected scientists and is of interest to many, is still treated at Wikipedia as a fringe theory. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:57, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

More people believe in that aliens have visited the earth than believe that someone else wrote Shakespeare. Is alien visitation a "minority view" and not a fringe theory? And don't misrepresent the survey by intermixing question answers. This type of mendacious argument is one reason why so many people groan when you show up to edit an article. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:21, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Returning to personal attacks so soon? Could you please, at least, respect ScienceApologist's request and "Keep the personal animosity out of it"? Smatprt (talk) 21:47, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I doubt you'll believe me, but I have absolutely zero personal animosity toward you; I have a lot of animosity toward the way you edit and argue. If you learned how to edit I think you would make a good Wikipediean, but your primary agenda seems to be to push your POV in as many Wikipedia articles as you can. Tom Reedy (talk) 23:34, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Shapiro's history, published this month, says that Oxfordian theory was dying on its feat in the 1980s, for sheer lack of ever proving any of its theories, i.e., 60 years of research with no smoking gun document turning up, as was originally expected, until new media adopted it following the extension of the 70s 'equal time' approach, even though this meant giving equal time to a fringe view. Much astute campaigning for moot court cases and newspaper and net profiles, got it back on its feet and thriving. Now Shapiro makes it quite clear it is successful in the media, but that, intellectually, there's nothing there. It is a noisy movement, very attentive to things like wikipedia and the NYTs and television, and staging splash events, but zilch, nada, nil, zero in terms of actual research results. It is as a theory, 'fringe', since it has obtained in 90 years, not one single piece of evidence for its wild proposition established to its credit by neutral authorities: it is, as a lobby, very successful at public self-promotion. Indeed self-promotion is probably more important to its members than the ideas themselves, which are just recycled endlessly from the deadwood of past, buried 'positions'. Nishidani (talk) 21:10, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

New media adopted it in the 70's but it was dying in the 80's?? Either you have it backwards or Shapiro isn't making sense. (I also understand that Shapiro is taking credit for the Wilmont forgery discovery - or at least not giving credit where it is actually due??) In any case, since 1984 when Ogburns book came out it's been notable and prominent in the press, in publications, and, yes, in segments of the academic world. Which is why I said "in the last 25 years". In terms of a smoking gun, you have left out Oxford's Bible, and the published PhD dissertation that went along with it. I could, of course, argue that no smoking gun has appeared that proves William Shakespeare wrote the plays in spite of 400 years of searching by the academic world. Using the above logic, does that make the standard attribution a fringe theory as well? How about Vickers recent theories concerning collaboration or Shakespeare's monument? Are those Fringe? Smatprt (talk) 21:47, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

In any event, I would appreciate it if you gentlemen would let ScienceApologist actually answer the questions which I asked in good faith. Thank you. Smatprt (talk) 21:47, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Stritmatter's Geneva bible theory is evidence of nothing, as Nelson showed soon after it came out. We don't even know who wrote the marginalia, which are not in de Vere's hand. No one need 'prove' Shakespeare wrote the plays that bear his name on them in the tens of thousands of copies of quartos circulating in London when he was alive. If you doubt what all Elizabethan buyers of his books, and his acquaintences, at the time believed, then the burden of proof is on you. That is why you are a fringest, because you have a conspiracy theory which denies the obvious historically and academically attested facts.

Tom raised a question on your spreading the fringe viewpoint into normal wiki articles everywhere as though it were an alternative view within serious research- You highjacked his question, by refocusing the issue on what a NYTs article once wrote, just as, when we were givcen the sandbox option by SA, you simply jump everyone by lumping in your own edited version of the old useless article. This is astute politics, i.e., getting everyone to focus on what you do before any alternatives are produced- Nothing can be discussed rationally in this fashion, if you preempt everything by asking that we consider you. your sectarian ideology, etc alone, or before all other issues raised by that doctrinaire fringe belief system's presence in wiki can be touched on.Nishidani (talk) 10:44, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Unless we can sort out this issue Tom raised, as to whether the Oxfordian stuff is RS in the strictest ideal set forth by wikipedia, or just a hodgepodge of ideas self-published, mostly from non-university presses, by amateur researchers whose work is so poor historically it has never even earned a nod in formal Shakespearian scholarship, we are getting nowhere fast. Instance, the nonsense now under way on the Chronology of Shakespeare's plays, where Smatprt, abetted by an administrator, is pretending the problem we raised is non-existent, and has continued to revert and edit in material that is, even in his own coterie, regarded as pathetically weak. When I noticed this, I went and edited in on the Chronology of Shakespeare's plays – Oxfordian this evidence from perhaps the foremost authorship doubter researcher, who, despite her thorough attack on mainstream scholarship admits that the Oxfordian chronology is rubbish. If a major researcher, touted as such by her own maverick fringe, admits this side of their argument is woefully weak, and that there is no such thing as an Oxfordian alternative chronology, what is it doing here, Science Apologist? Who constructed this alternative dating, where are the sources? It's an editor's synthesis. Most of the plays in the Oxfordian alternative list are given no sourcing from de Verean classics. So who compiled it, and by what right is this WP:OR page allowed on wikipedia let alone linked to the main Shakespeare chronology page, as though it represented some alternative scholarly perspective? This is page by page gaming of wikipedia, and it's a fulltime job trying to cope with the trouble this is going to cause to the mainstream pages, if systematically everything on Shakespeare or the Elizabethan world is to have an adjunct 'OPxfordian' mirror page of amateurish challenges. User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] (talk) 20:32, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

The last edit by Smatprt looks very odd to me. I'd like him to explain why he thinks it is reasonable in light of WP:WEIGHT. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:08, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I missed this. Due to the compromise version posted by Bertaut, this is probably a non-issue now, but the reason for the (now deleted) edit was that Tom requested seperate references for every sentence in the section. As a result, several sentences needed to be seperated in order to clarify precisely what was being referenced. Also, regarding the issue of weight, I think a contributing problem is the overall length of the article, which was primarily a stub article needing expansion. In a fully developed article, the weight would not have been an issue. In cases such as this, is the answer simply deleting anything out of balance - or rather improving the overall article with additional material so that weight is no longer an issue? Smatprt (talk) 19:38, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, my question was simply: "Why do you think that this content deserves inclusion in that article?" ScienceApologist (talk) 03:07, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

No, not convincing. That bertaut finds a compromise that satisfies no one except you and himself, overlooks the original point. There is not a shadow of a doubt that the Oxfordian/SAQ movement in mainstream scholarship, which means all the relevant scholarship on the Elizabethan/Jacobean period, is regarded not only as fringe but as utterly unresponsive to the normal criteria and conditions of scholarship. You are, Smatprt, trying to avoid the larger question, by consistently limiting any overall assessment of the relevance of this fringe movement, with its methodology no one accepts, to specific talk and article pages. Let me note here for Science Apologist's perusal the remarks delivered by the world's foremost authority of the life of the Earl of Oxford (the alternative candidate), and one of the greatest living documentary experts on Elizabethan-Jacobean England. One could provide a dozen other sources from the mainstream, which however generally ignores replying to the vast literature generated by Oxfordians because it is beneath the contempt of almost anyone with a tertiary academic background.

'Traditional scholars with no conspiratorial axes to grind have concluded long since, on clear historical evidence, that William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon was the author of the poems and plays which have been ascribed to him by an unbroken tradition dating back to his own lifetime (1564--1616). Against conspiracy theorists who have made no headway since they first tried to make the pro-Bacon case in 1848, I argue that the documentary evidence for Shakespeare, which survives most abundantly in the First Folio of 1623 but also in standard historical sources (including Exchequer documents; the Stationers Register; title pages of printed books; printed, written, and oral comments by contemporaries; wills; and annotations by private owners of printed books and manuscripts), demonstrates the traditional claims. I also show that rather than seeking out and learning from historical evidence, conspiracy theorists misapply their energies to attacking and by intention intellectually destroying evidence. Lawyers above all should understand that documentary evidence supports the case for William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon and fails to support the case for Edward de Vere, seven-teenth Earl of Oxford, of the county of Essex, as the true Shakespeare.

The Shakespeare authorship debate is a classic instance of a controversy that draws its very breath from a fundamental disagreement over the nature of admissible evidence. Even the most partisan anti-Stratfordian or Oxfordian agrees that documentary evidence taken on its face supports the case for William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon and fails to support the case for Edward de Vere, seventeenth Earl of Ox-ford, of the county of Essex, as author of the poems and plays of Shakespeare.

A general audience or an audience of legal specialists may not appreciate the fact that virtually all anti-Stratfordians are outsiders to the profession of English Literature. I do not know of a single professor of English in the 1,300-member Shakespeare Association of America who questions the [*150] identity of Shakespeare,nor more than a handful of non-member professors of English in North America, nor a single professor of English in all of Great Britain or the European Continent. Among editors of Shakespeare in the major publishing houses, none that I know questions the authorship of the Shakespeare canon, though at least one has now ad-dressed the issue in his introduction. He concludes that "like many conspiracy theories, the extreme implausibil-ity of this one only seems to increase the fervent conviction of its advocates".

There exist professors of law, mathematics, medicine, psychology, sociology, and even theater among the ranks of the unbelievers. Anti-Stratfordians attribute this lop-sided alignment to internal professional disci-pline: Anyone who expresses a reservation will be denied tenure, drummed from the ranks, and returned to civil-ian life. I agree that 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 crea-tionist to be hired or gain tenure in a graduate-level department of biology, or for an outspoken anti-Sixteenth-Amendment tax-rebel to be hired or gain tenure at the University of Tennessee College of Law. But having ten-ure means never having to say you are sorry, and retirement means a release from all constraints. Thus, it may seem surprising that anti-Stratfordians within the profession remain vanishingly few after some one hundred and fifty years of attacks from mostly self-published authors and the popular press. More importantly, I attribute the paucity of doubters among professional literary historians to a culture in which mistakes of fact or argument bring shame on the perpetrator. Literary historians, like scientists, tend to share a common understand-ing of what kind of evidence counts, and what does not.ALAN H. NELSON (Professor of English (Emeritus), University of California, Berkeley).'STRATFORD SI! ESSEX NO! (AN OPEN-AND-SHUT CASE)'. Symposium: Who Wrote Shakespeare? An evidentiary puzzle' in Tennessee Law Review 2004 pp149ff.

I can supply a dozen other mainstream judgements by authorities in the field. This junk has no academic support. It is fringe, and it violates WP:RS, WP:ONEWAY, WP:Fringe and the aims of wikipedia, if thrown into serious articles that, like those regarding Shakespeare, have a huge abundance of absolutely superb mainstream academic sources under first class university imprint to cover everything dealing with these issues. The only place for this crap is on the relevant pages on the Oxfordian, Marlovian, Baconian hypotheses. No one objects to that. Tom and I are sick and tired of having to waste our time, which would be better used fixing the SAQ page, chasing up Smatprt's edits, which are now ranging onto pages like that of Hamlet, and the Sonnets, and therefore indicate that his intention is to insert the Oxfordian nonsense onto every page where Shakespeare is mentioned, a travesty. Find us a forum, where this can be thrashed out definitively, with a rounded number of independent wikipedians of repute judging exactly what this stuff is, fringe/minority etc., and we would be much obliged. Nishidani (talk) 21:12, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Mediation Case

A request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Genesis Creation Myth has been filed with the Mediation Committee (MedCom). You have been named as a party in this request. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Genesis Creation Myth and then indicate in the "Party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate in the mediation or not.

Mediation is a process where a group of editors in disagreement over matters of article content are guided through discussing the issues of the dispute (and towards developing a resolution) by an uninvolved editor experienced with handling disputes (the mediator). The process is voluntary and is designed for parties who disagree in good faith and who share a common desire to resolve their differences. Further information on the MedCom is at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee; the policy the Committee will work by whilst handling your dispute is at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Policy; further information on Wikipedia's policy on resolving disagreements is at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes.

If you would be willing to participate in the mediation of this dispute but wish for its scope to be adjusted then you may propose on the case talk page amendments or additions to the list of issues to be mediated. Any queries or concerns that you have may be directed to an active mediator of the Committee or by e-mailing the MedCom's private mailing list (click here for details).

Please indicate on the case page your agreement to participate in the mediation within seven days of the request's submission.

Thank you, Weaponbb7 (talk)

Enjoy.

http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/824

SAQ article

As overseer of the Shakespeare authorship question article, would you give your opinion of the neutrality of this edit? I left out the refs for clean reading, but I have RS for every statement. If this meets NPOV I want to get this job done so I can move on to other projects. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:44, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Could we please set up two drafts to use to compare the two alternate versions being proposed?Smatprt (talk) 14:51, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Never mind - I just did it. Here are the two versions:

• Talk:Shakespeare authorship question/sandbox draft

• Talk:Shakespeare authorship question/sandbox draft2

In the first version, I had already gone through the old article and cut away over half the material. So what is important from my viewpoint is looking at what further deletions are being proposed and asking for an explanation as to why the material is being suggested for removal.Smatprt (talk) 15:16, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd say this is a perfect case for NPOVN. Just ask what people think. If consensus cannot be had, we'll move toward more drastic measures. Thanks for all the hard work! ScienceApologist (talk) 18:06, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd agree with you if it didn't appear that everybody at that noticeboard is thoroughly sick of SAQ-related questions, as evidence by the lack of response to my two requests. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:16, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay, then try WP:RfC with a very tersely worded question: "Which version is better and why?" Post a simple link at the relevant noticeboards and sit back. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:31, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to be such trouble, but can you direct me to the Idiot's Guide to WP:RfC? Apparently I'm not bright enough to figure it out from that page. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:25, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

This tool is the easiest way to run one. ScienceApologist (talk) 03:33, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't help that the sandox drafts are entered in 'Discussion' pages, while the article page is empty. The result is, one cannot 'discuss' the sandox page one is working on. The sensible move would be to insert these as sandbox article pages, and leave the discussion page for, precisely, discussion. Can this be done?Nishidani (talk) 18:59, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

We can move them to user subpages. It's best to keep them out of main Wikipedia article space. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:15, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Agree. This might take awhile, but I think the result will be PhD dissertation quality, especially if we can get everybody rowing in the same direction with the same goal in mind instead of constantly wrangling for POV victories. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:19, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Since it appears that what has evolved is two competing pages with two very different approaches, can a talk page for version 2 be set up? It's becoming quite confusing to try to keep track. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:54, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

If we move one to User:Tom Reedy/SAQ1 and User:Tome Reedy/SAQ2, then there will automatically be User talk:Tom Reedy/SAQ1 and User talk:Tom Reedy/SAQ2, for example. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:04, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Why not just a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Shakespeare_authorship_question/sandbox2? I'm not familiar with all the buttons and levers, or I'd've done it the way Smatprt broke off the Sandbox2 page. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:29, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Either that or perhaps if we could agree to put up User:Smatprt/SAQ1 and User:Tom Reedy/SAQ2 we could work in parallel, under equal conditions. I'm only working on the SAQ2 page, for example, just as Smatprt is working on the other page, and I'm sure we'd would appreciate there a talk page to analyse what's been done, must be done, and conflicts with Tom (we've had a few), and anyone else. Smatprt could, if he wants, comment on the SAQ2 talk page, and we on the SAQ1 talk page, while neither interfered with the drafting of the respective articles. I see little other option than working up two alternative articles at this time. It lowers conflict, allows one to work comparatively freely and quickly, and is competitive, since the goal is to achieve better quality in wiki terms than one's editorial rival.Nishidani (talk) 18:37, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, SA. I believe this is the right way to go, because I probably would have reverted about half of Smatprt's recent edits by now. Tom Reedy (talk) 19:02, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Use the User pages since the associated talks are already there, I'd say. You can execute the move yourself using the move tab at the top of the relevant page. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:18, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Mmmm, I have no clue about what you're saying, but never mind, things are good enough for me at the moment. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:12, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

While we go through this process, I hope no one minds if I seek input from neutral editors on how to improve the draft I am working on. I would like to hear what uninvolved editors with various expertise have to offer. (Believe me, I know what the regular editors think!) Smatprt (talk) 21:07, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Not at all. Any improvement from whatever source is all to the good. I'm sure we'll both be keeping an eye on each others' drafts and cannibalising what we like about the other one. I think we'll make faster progress this way. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:10, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I've posted version 1 a few places for review and have only received a few comments. At Peer Review, I was told they could not review it because it was not an article, and was asked if I could move the sandbox version to article-space and then initiate a PR? Would that be possible - just temporarily, so that peer review can have a go at it? Smatprt (talk) 21:34, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Peer review should come later. The goal right now is to decide on which version should go up in the mainspace. After the community decides which one, then peer review can happen. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:53, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm. Apparently I erased your comment accidentally while posting mine. Apologies for that. Anyway, for what it's worth, here's my 2¢:

The reason you haven't gotten many comments is the same reason none of my requests have: they've had enough of Shakespeare disputes. Wait until Nishidani and I are done and then either we can try to merge (unlikely at this point, but who knows?) or request a jury to vote which version meets the criteria that was set out at the beginning. As they stand now, IMO neither versions do. The weakness in yours is that you're trying to make the arguments instead of neutrally summarising them. You might want to read other conspiracy theory and fringe theory articles for examples of NPOV writing. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:46, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Explanation of My Actions

I deleted all of the threads started by IP 173.169.90.98 because it was extremely obvious that that person is solely interested in pushing its point of view that the Big Bang is utterly false, and shaming anyone who disagreed with it. And I feel that the talkpage should not be turned into a graveyard of archived soapboxes.--Mr Fink (talk) 22:14, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Genesis creation narrative

I sure could use your help here. I made an edit to the lead citing one of the top Bible scholars of the 20th century, which Griswaldo keeps reverting. Slrubenstein | Talk 02:05, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

"Keeps" implies present continuous action. I reverted the change once offering a rationale. After Slrubenstein immediately reverted to his changed version I not only made no future reverts but also decided it was best not to argue with him because of how poorly we have interacted on another talk page recently. I just want to make sure this is clear. Also I was under the impression that convention here was to discuss on the talk page if one makes a change that is reverted and not to simply revert right back. I guess I was wrong. Anyway it's immaterial because I'm bowing out of any future interactions with Slrubenstein. I hope you can help Slrubenstein and the discussion he's partaking in. Best.Griswaldo (talk) 02:33, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Userpage questions

Is the content on your userpage intended to be true and neutral, or is it merely a personal reflection or essay? Does the info, like the section with "rules", reflect official guidelines or policies of Wikipedia, like WP:FRINGE and WP:CENSOR? FYI: The article on pseudoskepticism is referenced to a website by Robert Todd Carroll, the author of The Skeptic's Dictionary, who also used the term there on the site. Isn't Truzzi's stated definition intended to criticize skeptics who are not neutral? I'm confused. Please explain. foxyma 09:36, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

For the most part, the rules do reflect many of the official guidelines and policies. The section on pseudoskepticism comes from the way the term has been used in Wikipedia as an epithet. Describing someone in particular as a pseudoskeptic cannot be done on Wikipedia and, if you see that happening, it is a surefire indication of POV-pushing. ScienceApologist (talk) 11:01, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Does the use of psuedoscience suggest that something is false or fraudulent, and thus the term is considered pejorative as mentioned on Wikipedia? Or is it rather a neutral term whose definition is misconceived or misunderstood? Is it synonomous with unscientific and non-scientific? Please continue to reply here. Thanks. foxyma 11:35, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

The word pseudoscience is a pejorative that is used by the consensus of reliable sources commenting on the subject (including those listed on my user page). This is similar to, for example, the term popular culture as distinguished from high culture by its critics. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:12, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

NYC Wikipedia Meetup Saturday, May 22

New York City Meetup Next: Saturday May 22nd, OpenPlans in Lower Manhattan Last: 03/21/2010

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, review the recent Wikimedia Chapters Meeting 2010, plan for the next stages of projects like Wiki-Conference NYC and Wikipedia Cultural Embassy, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the March meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:19, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Non-standard cosmology

I'm not going to protect the article for the minute, because I've blocked the IP for 3RR violation. However, be very careful- you're fortunate (or clever, but I'll AGF) that you 4 reverts were over a longer period. By my (possibly inaccurate given that is 1:30AM) count, one more revert from you is 4 which will get you blocked with the same expiry as the IP. Once his block expires, try discussing on the talk page again and if that fails, request protection again and I'll probably fulfil the request. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:40, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Continued harassment

Can you look in here [[12]], and on the talk page where I mentioned you. Tom raised this here last month and you weighed in on this edit already, saying the edit seemed "relatively reasonable to me". In spite of this, Tom went back and deleted the entire section. Also, I filed a request for advice concerning Tom's assertion that the ONE-WAY policy could be used as an excuse for edit warring. Both Tom and Nishidani went on attack mode here: [[13]], bringing up unrelated issues, personal attacks, etc. Can you intervene or offer some advice? Smatprt (talk) 16:17, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

What is the outcome you are looking for? It looks like people are opposed to that particular section and many have explained why. Do you want that section included verbatim or can you try to workshop a new suggestion? Have you determined whether your opponents are uniformly opposed to mentioning SAQ at all at that page or is it just your wording? I'm not sure I understand what your goals are and so have no real way of knowing what direction to take this request. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:33, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

The only "people" opposed to the section are TomReedy and Nishidani, hardly neutral editors, and not at all regular editors of that page. They are simply continuing their deletion campaign. Neither have they suggested alternate wording, resorting to a deletion of the entire section. Am I receptive to alternate wording? Of course. But none has been offered. Have I determined that my "opponents are uniformly opposed to mentioning SAQ at all at that page" - by their complete deletion, I can only say yes. And more than that, they appear to be uniformly opposed to all mentions of SAQ on Wikipedia, with the exception of the SAQ page. My goal is balance and the end of this deletion campaign that they are conducting across numerous articles. Does that answer your questions? Smatprt (talk) 14:54, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the proper thing would be for you to show everyone how the sources you cite justify the words you write. I checked, as per below. There is absolutely no correlation between the sources, as cited, and the text you wrote. This is called [WP:OR], and on my understanding other editors are not obliged to negotiate, so you can finesse the original research. They rightly elide the edit as unjustified in terms of the sources given. To keep talking is to no purpose. Answer for once the specific documented evidence that you are fabricating text, and feigning to reliably source it.Nishidani (talk) 15:01, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

My only suggestion is to read the talk page discussion for context. I would also suggest that the use of such charged language as "attack mode", "edit warring", and "personal attacks" in the original complaint are uncalled-for. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:02, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Tom and Nishidani, is it possible to include some text about SAQ that either of you would agree to, or is it plain that no section belongs in the article? ScienceApologist (talk) 17:15, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Of course it is. All I am asking is that evidence not be faked, and that the editor writing his edit according to the source he cites, paraphrases that source faithfully. If Smatprt can provide me with a reliable source classifying SAQ as an example of historical revisionism, I'll happily drop my objection (so long as he cleans up the egregious falsification of the passage he links to the Newsweek article, which simply does not support his assertion.) It is not up to Smatprt or Bertaut or Ssilvers (who as an admin should know better)to make a synthetic judgement about whether SAQ fits 'Historical Revisionism' or not. They need a reliable source. They have not provided one. I was taught this in the first weeks on wiki, by a master. Why do I have no one supporting this obvious point here?Nishidani (talk) 17:25, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I understand Smatprt's difficulty. He thinks that a non-academic, non-peer reviewed book under a minor imprint written by two Oxfordians, namely Warren Hope (Montgomery County Community College English teacher)and Kim Holston (audio-visual librarian at Chester County Library, Exton, Pennsylvania), The Shakespeare Controversy, when it says, 'this is a history written in opposition to the current prevailing view' gives him ground to interpret the book as sanctioning the SAQ as one of 'historical revisionism'. Look pal, do we really have to keep explaining these simple things. This means that all the fringe stuff articles now have to be crammed into 'Historical Revisionism', from Nostradamus to the Christ Myth, because they all have true believers who challenge some aspect of normative historiography. I mean, I've been here 4 years, made 15,00 edits, and talked with hundreds of guys round here. I don't know why one has to keep arguing this. The extreme fragility of this kind of edit from the perspective of wiki policy is obvious, and nothing can be done because, at crucial moments, while Smatprt does all the work, out of the corridor step Ssilvers, Bertraut or a dozen others, either to revert to back him up, or vote to tilt a survey of 'community opinion' in his favour. He is the Oxfordian workhorse, and whinges aboput just two of us. But he has a 'concealed' community out there, ready to back him, without their even troubling to check what the man does. Nishidani (talk) 17:48, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Nishidani, do you know of any reliable sources which might describe SAQ as Historical Revisionism? ScienceApologist (talk) 17:50, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Well I did a search and came up with nothing. I think co-editors on the Israeli side of the I/P area where I used to edit know that if I come up with RS material favouring their perspective, and not mine, I stuck it in, regardless. I've read 3 books this month on the history of SAQ and none of them mention it. Sorry anyway. I find the time spent fixing bad edits, instead of writing to an article, annoying. Just blowing off steam above.Nishidani (talk) 17:56, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Got it. I wonder, though, whether a synonymous phrasing might be had in one of the sources you researched. To explain by example, sometimes when I'm researching a subject that is plainly pseudoscientific, the source that is actually the best one in describing an idea as such doesn't actually use the word but instead makes the case that the subject is pseudoscientific by using plainly synonymous terminology, descriptions, and criticism. While some nitpickers complain that since the source didn't use the word pseudoscience we shouldn't either, a plain reading and a nod toward summary style writing usually trumps any concerns about original synthesis. It's a fine line, but one that's worth considering especially with fringe articles. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:06, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

As you can see on the talk page, I told Smaprt that if he came up with an RS decribing the SAQ as historical revisionism I would quit the field, but there are none, because it is not an example of it; it is pseudohistory or Historical revisionism (negationism), which denies historical reality, not reinterprets it. I have not put it on the latter page because the other examples are so repugnant that I fear its very presence would violate NPOV by association. I did put it on the Pseudohistory page, which is where it belongs.

Seems reasonable to me. Smatprt, do you have a response to this? The proposal is to keep SAQ on the pseudohistory page rather than the historical revisionism page. Nishidani and Tom Reedy, you might do well, if and when this subject comes up again, to point out and simply keep consistently and succinctly stating that the appropriate categorical umbrellas for SAQ are pseudohistory and historical revisionism (negationism). WP:TLDR will prevent most people from considering anything beyond this. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:31, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

And now smatprt has called out his posse consisting of the exact same editors who take absolutely no interest in the SAQ until Smatprt gets in a bind. He has done so several times since I've been editing the SAQ-related pages beginning in December, and they are always the same people. If you could cast an eye at the edit history you might want to venture an opinion, but this all gets so tiresome so quickly I wouldn't blame you if you declined. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:22, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

If you want, place a quick note on the talk pages of these users to the effect of "The preponderances of reliable sources on the question of what umbrella term applies to the Shakespearean authorship question indicates that the answer is either pseudohistory or historical revisionism (negationism) and not historical revisionism. If you have a reliable source to the contrary, please introduce it at Talk:Historical revisionism. Thanks." If this behavior continues without discussion, feel free to request page protection in order to jump-start the conversation. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:31, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Will do. Appreciate it. Can we go back to work now? Or at least until the next complaint? Tom Reedy (talk) 18:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Response

Two days ago, a complaint re Tom, at WP:Edit warring. Yesterday one against me at WP:wikietiquette, and now to ScienceApologist about both of us. It's called forum-shopping.

Since you mention me here, I will recapitulate the problem, which I am sure bores everyone.

(a)I see almost no one edits with Smatprt. Tom and I happen to be the only editors who are actually familiar with the scope of his SPA activism on behalf of the Oxfordian fringe theory on wikipedia. Most outsiders, to whom he addresses complaints, and who trouble to look at the 'evidence' have no grasp of the wider range of his activities over many Shakespeare pages, which is (see the latest instance below) patently and verifiably fraudulent in its specious use of sources which do not support his WP:OR promo scribblings on the de Verean theory. They do not appear to understand his purpose in editing wiki, which is to promote wherever possible an academically moribund 'theory'.

(b)He has his version of the SAQ page, and fiddles with it, not much recently. The page is a mess.

(c) In the meantime he strays to other pages, Shakespeare's Sonnets, Hamlet etc., with edits that are singularly crafted to insinuate the de Verean belief-system into articles that should, ideally, deal with the up-to-date scholarly work on Shakespeare.

(d) Now he is pitting the Historical Revisionism page with a promo blob of material lifted verbatim from the SAQ page. He has not worked on it. He has just clipped and pasted a few lines from the SAQ article and plopped them there to draw attention to Oxfordian ideas.

(e)Look at his edit.

(i)He cites the Oxfordian theory as an example of historical revisionism. His source is Warren Hope, Kim Holston, The Shakespeare controversy: an analysis of the authorship theories, 2nd rev. ed. McFarland, 2009. No page number is supplied. Googling for 'revisionism' and 'revisionist' fail (for me) to give any example of such a discussion in the source (Hope and Holston), therefore, prima facie, because of Smatprt's laziness, other editors are left with the perhaps misleading impression that the SAQ is classified there as an example of 'historical revisionism'.

(ii)Historical revisionism was first used of Edward Bernstein's infra-Marxist theoretical rereading of Marx. It then became more widely used of a revised attitude within a political-academic community to some hitherto standard accepted version of an historical narrative. Thus we have the revisionist interpretation of America's entry in the WW2, of the American Civil war, of the Holocaust. The term here means an academic infra-mural controversy, conducted by historians within their discipline.

(iii)Smatprt doesn't understand this. The challenge to the mainstream view by fringe cliques here doesn't constitute 'historical revisionism', for which he lacks the necessary secondary source. 'Historical revisionism' is often discussed by Shakespearian experts, with regard to gender, political readings. But the de Verean nonsense is not discussed, indeed it is dismissed for what it is, incompetent nonsense, since its methods do not meet the elementary conditions of historical analysis.

(iv)His second source, to justify the insinuation that Oxfordianism uses scientific method is a Newsweek article. 'Was the Bard a Woman' para.5, which reads:-

(v)'Edward de Vere, widely regarded as the leading contender, died 12 years before Shakespeare, requiring a revisionist chronology of the plays.'

This has no mention of scientific method. It uses the term 'revisionist'. But the revisionist chronology is a problem for the fringe clique, arguing their case against another 'fringe' clique, the Marlovians. The article has nothing to do with 'scientific method' or 'mainstream Shakespearean scholarship'.

The article in Newsweek is dated June 28, 2004 and merely notes that a certain Robin Williams will address the Shakespearean Authorship Trust (Oxfordian lobby of fringe believers) in London on her theory that Mary Sidney Herbert, the Countess of Pembroke, was Shakespeare.

Williams' book, Sweet swan of Avon: did a woman write Shakespeare?, came out in 2006 published by a Berkley computer-graphics firm, Peachpit Press . Williams has no tertiary degree, the farthest she got was attending (not graduating from) Santa Rosa Junior College . Her book died on its feet.

Therefore, the passage, constructed from Newsweek, reading:-

'where authorship doubters have used the scientific method to propose numerous alternate authorship candidates, and have suggested revising the presumed chronology for the plays in order to match the historical time frame of the various nominees.'

Is a pure fiction, ungrounded in the ostensible source, which is flagrantly incompatible with even a generous reading of WP:RS, and constitutes an egregious example of WP:OR by User:Smatprt. 'Authorship doubters' do not, apart from the Oxfordian fold, revise the chronology. De Vereans themselves do not (as shown by Elliott and Valenza) use a 'scientific methodology'; they just backdate by 12 years every standard dating, to fit their candidate, and have no evidence to justify this construction.

He does this so often, that I have called his editing fraudulent, which may be a technical violation of Wiki etiquette, but which describes what he does accutately. It is not collaborative to constantly drop into edits material that is false, fictional, not based on the sources adduced to support it, and repeatedly restore that crap when editors point out the problem. One cannot be asked to keep paying lip-service to WP:AGF or WP:Etiquette when the larger issue of ideological motivated Spa fraudulent editing is consistently ignored by admins who have to hear out the plaintiff.

The rest of the blob consists of a clipped shortlist of famous people, and a link to a NYTs article showing some professors think it is possible to question Shakespeare's authorship

In short, his edit contains two sources, one of which lacks a page number to be verified, and which does not asppear to support 'historical revisionism', the other from Newsweek does not support the constructed passage, with its 'scientific method'. And lastly, what remains is just clipped as a promo device.

There. Another hour wasted, in trying to keep standards on wikipedia from being broken by an incompetent and apparently fraudulent SPA editor pushing a fringe lunatic theory all over the place.

My apologies if you have read this far. But, really, how long does one have to put up with this nonsense, which is spreading like a contagion to many pages due only to the ideological promotional activities of one editor? These endless complaints are only functioning to spread the impression among outside admins that he has two fixated and hostile wikiwarriors harassing him, when it is simply a matter of two experienced wikipedians trying to keep numerous pages clear of ill-sourced, fraudulent WP:OR promo blobs by an Spa ideologue with a fringe world-view. Nishidani (talk) 09:13, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

From the lede: "historical revisionism is the reinterpretation of orthodox views on evidence, motivations, and decision-making processes surrounding a historical event. The revisionist assumes the interpretation of a historical event or period, as accepted by the majority of scholars, needs significant change." - None of your comments addresses this. Are you seriously saying that the Shakespeare Authorship Question is not a "reinterpretation of orthodox views on evidence" or that SAQ researchers "assumes the interpretation of a historical event or period, as accepted by the majority of scholars, needs significant change"? This defines the SAW to a "t" and nothing you have posted argues otherwise. Smatprt (talk) 15:12, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Please answer my objections. I analysed your edit. It is fraudulent, in citing sources which do not back up what you wrote. You made a WP:OR infraction, and refuse so far to answer my evidence that you did so. I am fully entitled to delete WP:OR edits, particularly if, even after evidence is given that they are such, the abusive editor puts them back, in what is egregiously an act of persisting knowingly in fraudulent editing. Nishidani (talk) 15:22, 20 May 2010 (UTC)