User talk:Wightknightuk

Hello, Wightnightuk, welcome to Wikipedia. What's your main account?

This account's complete editing history (in toto, three edits) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Bishonen | talk 12:42, 10 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 13:25, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shakespeare authorship question

Please take the time to read the article, and take note of the references. It is a Featured Article, having been identified as among Wikipedia's best. That means a number of Wikipedians have contributed to writing and reviewing the article and have agreed that it meets our standards for sourcing and accuracy (among other qualities).

There is statement that reflects the mainstream opinion that the Shakespeare authorship question is a fringe theory. The statement is:

"all but a few Shakespeare scholars and literary historians consider it a fringe belief and for the most part disregard it except to rebut or disparage the claims."

That is sourced to a footnote, currently number 3, which cites seven works. These are those sources and some of the relevant quotes from them:

Kathman 2003, p. 621: "...antiStratfordism has remained a fringe belief system";
Schoenbaum 1991, p. 450;
Paster 1999, p. 38: "To ask me about the authorship question ... is like asking a palaeontologist to debate a creationist's account of the fossil record.";
Nelson 2004, pp. 149–51: "I do not know of a single professor of the 1,300-member Shakespeare Association of America who questions the identity of Shakespeare ... 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...";
Carroll 2004, pp. 278–9: "I have never met anyone in an academic position like mine, in the Establishment, who entertained the slightest doubt as to Shakespeare's authorship of the general body of plays attributed to him.";
Pendleton 1994, p. 21: "Shakespeareans sometimes take the position that to even engage the Oxfordian hypothesis is to give it a countenance it does not warrant.";
Sutherland & Watts 2000, p. 7: "There is, it should be noted, no academic Shakespearian of any standing who goes along with the Oxfordian theory.";
Gibson 2005, p. 30: "...most of the great Shakespearean scholars are to be found in the Stratfordian camp..."

Now if you want to further your research, take the time to read those sources. If you want to continue to argue that SAQ is not fringe, then you'll need to find an equivalent number of equally respected academics who have stated in print that the SAQ is not a fringe theory. I don't mean you find a number of examples of authors advancing anti-Stratfordian positions, and then use your own synthesis to say it implies a minority position. I mean you find a number of respected authorities on the subject who state as clearly as those above an opposite opinion. Then you'll be in a position to make a case about the fringe nature of the SAQ.

Hope that helps. --RexxS (talk) 02:12, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With the utmost respect and humility, I feel that your argument is ill-conceived and the references you site do not support the point you wish to make. The issue at hand is the difference between what is a ‘fringe position’ and what is a ‘minority position’. How do we determine the difference?

What distinguishes a minority belief from a fringe belief therefore? It is not merely the existence of debate, that much must be obvious. Neither is it the extent of the debate, a ‘fringe’ view will remain so however widespread it becomes. The test is in the quality of the execution of the debate. Has the issue moved from the realms of pseudo-science into a field of academic study?

It is suggested that the Shakespeare Authorship Question, the issue of whether or not William of Stratford was the principal author of the plays attributed to him, has moved from a fringe issue to a minority one. How can we verify that proposition? I would suggest there are three tests that one should properly apply:

1. Is there a significant population within the relevant academic community who consider the issue to be one that merits academic study? 2. Is the issue in fact one that commands or has commanded the attention of such academic study? 3. Is the issue one which has generated research by members of the relevant academic community?

Let us address those three issues in turn:

1. Despite the anecdotal evidence below, the only significant survey in this area was undertaken by the New York Times and has been referenced separately. In its survey of 265 Shakespeare Professors, the New York Times found that 6% felt there was good reason to “question whether William Shakespeare of Stratford is the principal author of the plays and poems in the canon” and 11% felt there was “possibly” good reason.

In other words, 45 of the 265 Shakespeare professors responding to the questionnaire agreed that there was (at least) ‘possibly’ good reason to “question whether William Shakespeare of Stratford is the principal author of the plays and poems in the canon?”

This is consistent with the area being recognised as one which merits academic attention. 2. Brunel University has run an MA Programme in Authorship Studies, the first MA programme of its kind in the world, convened by Dr William Leahy. Concordia University has run Shakespeare Authorship Studies Conference. There is evidence therefore that the area has already commanded the attention of academic study.

This is consistent with the area being recognised as one which merits academic attention. 3. So far as the question of research is concerned we have an abundance of materials to which we may turn. It is understood that works produced by ‘independent scholars’ may be regarded as weaker evidence of research in the field. Nonetheless, it is certainly worth mentioning at least:

‘"Shakespeare" By Another Name’ by Mark Anderson (Gotham Books, 2005); and “Shakespeare's Unorthodox Biography: New Evidence of An Authorship Problem”by Diana Price.

However, we can also find good evidence of the Authorship Question being examined by more mainstream members of the academic community, for example: “The Truth About William Shakespeare: Fact, Fiction, and Modern Biographies” by David Ellis, Professor of English Literature at the University of Kent at Canterbury.

Ellis’s book addresses directly the question of authorship and the academic processes used in Shakespeare biography. Of course, from a mainstream perspective the most significant work must be Shapiro’s “Contested Will: Who Wrote Shakespeare?" - James Shapiro, Professor of English and Comparative Literature at Columbia University.

Shapiro’s book is an oft quoted source that aims to challenge theories oppositional to the Shakespearean orthodoxy. However, the existence of such a detailed book, directly addressed to the issue at end, is strong evidence that the Shakespeare Authorship Question is being treated as a subject of interest to the established academic community.

People no longer write books to prove that the earth is round, there is no need and no-one would buy them. Shapiro felt the need to address the Authorship Question by conducting new research on the point and publishing his findings for an eager public. This is a vital and ongoing debate to which, paradoxically, the works of the Stratfordian scholars are providing credibility.

This is consistent with the area being recognised as one which merits academic attention.

For the sake of completeness, I should properly address your own sources. You referenced eight sources and provided quotes from seven. Allow me to address those seriatim. In each case we must consider whether the source supports the statement in respect of which it has been used that ‘all but a few Shakespeare scholars and literary historians consider (the Shakespeare Authorship Question to be) a fringe belief’.

Kathman 2003, p. 621: "...antiStratfordism has remained a fringe belief system"; 1. Kathman states that he has a “Ph.D in linguistics from the University of Chicago” but he does not appear to hold any relevant qualification or higher education appointment verifying his credentials as an academic expert on Shakespeare. 2. The statement is prima facie anecdotal evidence in support of the reference, albeit that the credentials of its author may be questioned.

Paster 1999, p. 38: "To ask me about the authorship question ... is like asking a palaeontologist to debate a creationist's account of the fossil record." 1. Gail Kern Paster was Professor of English at George Washington University 2. The statement is prima facie anecdotal evidence in support of the reference, from an apparently reliable source.

Nelson 2004, pp. 149–51: "I do not know of a single professor of the 1,300-member Shakespeare Association of America who questions the identity of Shakespeare ... 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..." 1. Alan H. Nelson is Professor Emeritus in the Department of English at the University of California, Berkeley 2. The statement is prima facie anecdotal evidence in support of the reference, from an apparently reliable source. However, it displays bias by virtue of its obvious exaggeration, which is contradicted by the evidence of the New York Times Survey (supra).

Carroll 2004, pp. 278–9: "I have never met anyone in an academic position like mine, in the Establishment, who entertained the slightest doubt as to Shakespeare's authorship of the general body of plays attributed to him." 1. D. Allen Carroll is Professor Emeritus, Department of English, The University of Tennessee, Knoxville 2. The statement is prima facie anecdotal evidence in support of the reference, from an apparently reliable source. However, it displays bias by virtue of its obvious exaggeration, and is also contradicted by the evidence of the New York Times Survey (supra).

Pendleton 1994, p. 21: "Shakespeareans sometimes take the position that to even engage the Oxfordian hypothesis is to give it a countenance it does not warrant." 1. This statement concerns itself only as antagonistic to the Oxford debate. It is not a suitable reference to support the statement to which it purports to relate.

Sutherland & Watts 2000, p. 7: "There is, it should be noted, no academic Shakespearian of any standing who goes along with the Oxfordian theory." 1. This statement concerns itself only as antagonistic to the Oxford debate. It is not a suitable reference to support the statement to which it purports to relate.

Gibson 2005, p. 30: "...most of the great Shakespearean scholars are to be found in the Stratfordian camp..." 1. The quotation is simply irrelevant. It supports the general credibility of certain unnamed individuals within the Stratfordian camp, but it does no more. It is not a suitable reference to support the statement to which it relates.

Of the seven quoted references, therefore: 1 is anecdotal evidence in support from a questionable source. 1 is anecdotal evidence in support from a reliable source. 2 are anecdotal evidence in support from reliable sources, but displaying bias by virtue of exaggeration, and contradicted by the evidence of an independent survey. 2 are simply antagonistic to the Oxfordian position and do not support the statement. 1 is a statement in support of Stratfordian Academics generally and does not support your statement.

On balance, therefore, the sources that have been referenced do not support the statement that ‘all but a few Shakespeare scholars and literary historians consider (the Shakespeare Authorship Question to be) a fringe belief’. The additional sources that I have referenced, including the work of James Shapiro, evidences that the Shakespeare Authorship Question itself can no longer be disparaged and dismissed as a ‘fringe’ issue.

Wightknightuk (talk) 13:47, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, the references I cite have been the subject of several debates that you should be aware of before you try to criticise them. You may not substitute your own opinion for that of authors published in reliable sources. If you think that Shakespeare: an Oxford Guide, edited by Wells and Orlin, is an unreliable source in this context, then take your concern to WP:RSN and see how far you get. Nor do you get to smear Professor Carroll by accusing him of bias, simply on your say-so. You have been warned about the discretionary sanctions that apply to Shakespeare authorship question and I will tell you now that you have almost certainly crossed the line with those sort of comments.

Secondly, you are mistaken in your proposition about how to distinguish 'fringe' from 'minority'. Here is the definition from WP:Fringe #:

"We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field."

You'll find that authors like Erich von Däniken have written plenty of books such as Chariots of the Gods?, but the mere existence of a well-documented fringe theory makes it no less fringe. The view that extraterrestrial visitors were mistaken for gods is a very long way from the mainstream view held by scientists in the field, and that makes it fringe. That does not, however, mean that the books don't sell or that documentaries are not made about them. It is still a fringe theory, despite populist attention and serious academics taking the time to refute it. So it is with the many fringe theories propounded around the Shakespeare authorship question. The fact that David Ellis examines the question is exactly what I was referring previously when I suggested that the presence of debate is not evidence of support. You also need to get up to date: the University of Kent has not been post-titled "at Canterbury" since 2003.

Finally, you ascribe far too much importance to the NYT. It is simply inappropriate to suggest that the NYT uncontrolled survey counterbalances Professor Carroll's expert opinion. Additionally, you don't seem able to see that asking a question like "Is there any reason to question whether William Shakespeare of Stratford is the principal author of the plays and poems in the canon?" is just as likely to gain a "possibly" response from the mainstream expert who suspects Fletcher's contribution to The Two Noble Kinsmen is greater than Shakespeare's as it is to gain a similar response from a fringe proponent who believes Shakespeare did not exist. The survey is a blunt and frankly worthless tool for drawing any conclusions about the fringe position of the anti-Stratfordians. --RexxS (talk) 15:45, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, on the subject of what is fringe, I have set out criteria that sensibly states what is required. We are not distinguishing here between what is fringe and what is mainstream. We are distinguishing between fringe and minority. The use of the term 'fringe' to describe the reasonably held beliefs of a minority of academics who are sceptical or agnostic towards the Stratfordian position is at best discourteous and at worst disparaging of those academics.

I also refer to WP:Fringe # which states: "When discussing topics that reliable sources say are ... fringe theories, editors should be careful not to present the ... fringe views alongside the scientific or academic consensus as though they are opposing but still equal views." The distinction to be drawn here is that the opposing academic view is not fringe. There is a minority academic view that holds that the Authorship question merits attention. There are various fringe views which make a case for alternative candidates.

If you believe that my criticisms of your various sources have been properly addressed in other articles then I should be happy to read those views. However, I trust you will agree, on reflection, that the references to Pendleton, Sutherland & Watts and Gibson, whilst potentially relevant to the article overall, simply do not support the statement that ‘all but a few Shakespeare scholars and literary historians consider (the Shakespeare Authorship Question to be) a fringe belief’ and should be removed.

So far as the position of Carroll is concerned I would invite you to consider whether the quotation is not so obviously an exaggeration as to merit further examination or qualification. Carroll stated that: "I have never met anyone in an academic position like mine, in the Establishment, who entertained the slightest doubt as to Shakespeare's authorship of the general body of plays attributed to him."

Yet it is the very nature of the scholar to doubt, to question and to challenge. The NYT Survey demonstrates that a minority of relevant academics are prepared to question established theories, however firmly held. The testimony of Prof. Carroll, whilst perhaps accurate as to its sentiment, and I am sure made in the utmost good faith, can hardly be intended as an expression of statistical relevance. If it was, then his remarks should certainly have been accompanied by the sort of qualifying language which has been used in connection with the NYT article.

The word 'bias' in this context may have been ill-chosen. There are more appropriate terms for a person who is so entrenched in his view that he will not 'entertain the slightest doubt' about a subject. Let me go so far only to say that Prof. Carroll's statement suffers by the weight of its own obvious exaggeration.

The reference to David Ellis being "... "at Canterbury"" was a quotation from the referenced page of his publishers. Wightknightuk (talk) 16:57, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your signature

As a courtesy to others, and to prevent Sine Bot endlessly signing your posts, it is recommended that signatures contain a link to the editor's userspace. Could you please read WP:SIG for further advice, and adjust your signature so that it links at minimum to your userpage. If you are writing your name in text at the end of posts, please either use four tildas ~~~~ or click the signature box on the edit toolbar. If you have set up a custom signature in preferences, please uncheck the box marked "treat the above as wikimarkup", to allow the interface to link to your userpage via your signature. Alternatively - as you don't seem to feel the need for a multicoloured sig or one containing symbols, piped links or any other fancy formatting, you can simply clear whatever is in the signature box itself, and the software will automatically generate a signature with the appropriate links. Thank you for your courtesy in this matter - let me know if I can be of assistance with it. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:39, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[Elen of the Roads] I am greatly obliged by your assistance in this matter. I had been signing with the appropriate four tildas, but there appears to have been an error with the relevant user profile settings. I hope I have now corrected this and the signature following this post should now publish correctly. Perhaps you would be kind enough to confirm that this is the case?

In any case, I am sincerely grateful for your courteous and helpful engagement in this matter.

Wightknightuk (talk) 10:31, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look at this. I can confirm that your signature now appears to be functioning in the usual fashion - thanks for tweaking it. The username is red because you have not created a userpage (in case you were wondering) - there is no requirement to create one if you don't want. Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:06, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Please review the discretionary sanctions listed at Wikipedia:ARBSAQ#Final_decision, and you may as well read the whole page while you are there. If you engage in further advocacy of fringe theories related to the Shakespeare authorship question or any related article, you may be subject to a sanction without further warnings. Have a nice day, Jehochman ^Talk 12:57, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I have read the Final Decision and note the concern of the Committee about the way the article has been edited in the past and the conduct of all parties in that process. I am concerned here with the specific issue of whether the SAQ should properly be regarded as a fringe issue, particularly in light of the recent developments in the field,some of which post-date the committee's findings.

As ever, I am sure all parties would prefer to engage in a courteous exchange. I am sure that your remarks concerning sanctions against me were not intended in any way as a threat and should not be construed in themselves as disruptive editing.

I invite comments within the relative solitude of these talk pages in the hope that we might achieve some form of consensus outside any mediation or other dispute resolution procedure.

Wightknightuk (talk) 13:56, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not beat around the bush. You're operating a single purpose account. This very much looks like a banned or sanctioned editor returning with a new account. You're behaving and editing just like the others. Either you stop behaving and editing like them, or you will be banned very shortly. Jehochman ^Talk 14:16, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[Jehochman] You are wrong. I am not a banned editor and I have never been sanctioned. Suggesting that my comments come from some kind of biased position seems to breach WP:NPA.

I am new to Wikipedia as I am new to the Authorship Debate (although not, of course, new to Shakespeare). That does not mean this is an SPA. I have been interested in the Wikipedia project for some time. This is simply the first issue that inspired me 'into the abyss'.

I understand that this article has had a very troubled history. Nonetheless, it is reasonable to expect that seasoned editors will respect WP:DNB and WP:AGF.

I am keen to progress the debate by reasoned argument and consensus. I re-iterate my good faith and lack of bias and I encourage active engagement. Wightknightuk (talk) 15:23, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On a point of information, it appears that the ongoing sanctions to which you refer relate only to "any editor subject to a discretionary sanction under this decision". Would you please explain how you say I may be subject to further sanctions without notice?

Wightknightuk (talk) 17:15, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]