Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Shakespeare authorship question

Mediation

I have spent some time looking over the dispute and acquiring a background knowledge to the case at hand and I think I have a solid basic understanding of the issues involved. Personally I think that (although perhaps stating the obvious) all that is needed following the spirit of the various policies involved. I would like to understand each persons point of view on this dispute.

Below please post a brief (less than 200 words) description of your view of the dispute and what you would like to see happen in terms of the associated articles. Please do not attack other editors and focus on the content. Seddon ^talk|^WikimediaUK 11:19, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Tom Reedy

My understanding is that Wikipedia is a collaborative project to build a neutral encyclopedia "representing fairly, proportionately, and . . . without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources" [1], not a place to advocate or promote fringe theories such as the SAQ, which "should be mentioned in the text of other articles only if independent reliable sources connect the topics in a serious and prominent way." The entire raison d'être of the SAQ is to right a great wrong, i.e. the putative misattribution of Shakespeare’s works, and insistence on including a brief mention and a link to the SAQ in other pages is clearly a tactic in that battle. Doing so violates WP:DUE, WP:OR, and WP:ONEWAY, and is the equivalent of mentioning the John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories in every article that discusses Kennedy and his family, administration, or policies. Espousing such a cause in other than directly-related articles thwarts the intent and spirit of policy and the goals of Wikipedia. An SAQ link in the Shakespeare template is already included on every Shakespeare-related page. The policies are quite clear, and Shakespeare-related pages should conform to those existing policies. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:17, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Nishidani

The fringe conspiracy theory has no serious academic backing. The best recent research employing ground-breaking techniques of stylometric analysis to establish attribution is unanimous in dismissing all of the alternative candidates that have been proposed. One version, by Looney, was proposed in 1920, with the confidence that archives would turn up a smoking gun. 90 years later, not one shred of evidence to support the conspiracy has been forthcoming. The small, if vocal movement, has populist roots, but no support in serious scholarship. Wiki has many pages on the subject, almost all poorly written, by editors who subscribe to these theories. The documentation there often comes from writers who have no background or qualified competence in Elizabethan studies, and to a specialist is virtually unreadable (Joseph Sobran, Mark Anderson, Charlton Ogburn, Richard Whalen, J. Thomas Looney or Diana Price). The articles cannibalize each other, often verbatim, as if proliferation were an indication of importance. See Shakespeare authorship question, Marlovian theory, Baconian theory, Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship, Oxfordian Theory - Parallels with Shakespeare's Plays, Prince Tudor theory, Chronology of Shakespeare's plays – Oxfordian, List of Oxfordian theory supporters, etc. Almost all of the content of these articles has been analysed, and dismissed by competent experts. I'm actually fine with keeping those articles,on the proviso that editors who believe these theories undertake to actually observe wiki standards of evidence, and write them to GA standard. I don't think a fair review of the quality of those pages would conclude that Shakespearean articles would benefit by the intrusion of amateurish sources and idiosyncratic material one finds there. If anything, pages on Shakespeare, as the most studied author in world literature, demand the highest standards, and should be written by exploiting the huge number of mainstream academic works under university imprint written by competent scholars, none of whom think this fringe material of any importance except as a minor blip in the history of marginal conspiracy theories.Nishidani (talk) 19:46, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Smatprt

I believe that specific content concerning a notable minority viewpoint has been systematically deleted from at least 11 articles, clearly violating NPOV, and feel there is no fundamental Wiki policy which argues against including an appropriate reference to the SAQ in these and other articles. BTW - the primary objection (ONEWAY) is a guideline, not a policy, so should not be the determining factor. It's also being misapplied.

I used to believe the SAQ fell under WP's broad definition of "fringe", but that description has narrowed [[2]] [[3]] to the extent I no longer feel the SAQ qualifies. Regardless, all minority and fringe theories are not the same. To equate the SAQ with Holocaust denial or FlatEarthers, for example, has no basis in Wiki policy.

An earlier question - "Would you expect a mainstream Shakespeare expert to have heard of the SAQ and be familiar with its arguments?" The answer is yes. Leaving it out should actually raise eyebrows, not the other way round. An appropriate mention (brief, to avoid weight issues) is certainly legitimate. As was noted, "it could even be beneficial, in that considering it can be used to clarify the relationship between the works and Shakespeare the man". Smatprt (talk) 02:24, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

SamuelTheGhost

I am in substantial agreement with what Smatprt has written above. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 16:42, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Betaut

Yep, I agree with Smatprt as well. I'm an academic, although I've never lectured on a Shakespeare course, so I pretty much consider myself to be an amateur. If I had come to Wikipedia and found no mention of the SAQ, I'd have been shocked. Like I've said before, the SAQ exists. It doesn't have any major academic backing, but it exists. And therefore is! There are books on it. There are articles on it. All Shakespearians are familiar with it, and if you look at the introductions to the various modern editions (Arden, Cambridge, Oxford etc), you'll often find the SAQ mentioned. Granted, it's mentioned so as to refute it, but nevertheless, they still consider it important enough to mention. On a more practical level, I freely admit, I'm not overly familiar with Wiki policy. I've read through the various pages mentioned above by Tom, but I've found nothing to justify what himself and Nishidani have been doing. They often accuse Smatprt of having an agenda and forwarding his own ideology. However, I've read through much of the material he has written which has subsequently been deleted, and I can find no sense of an agenda at all. In fact, I think the arbitrary attempt to delete large quantities of the material constitutes more of an agenda than adding (fully referenced) articles in the first place. I can look at this issue more objectively I think, than Tom, Nishidani or Smatprt, as I don't believe in the SAQ but I also have no problem with it being covered on Wiki. And looking at it from that perspective, I simply cannot understand what the problem is. Bertaut (talk) 00:44, 22 September 2010 (UTC)