Talk:Palladis Tamia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Removal of Citations on Meres Page, Restoration Here[edit]

Tom, I noticed that you've been pretty active in editing this page.It looks in good shape, but I've resupplied the material that you deleted from the "Francis Meres" page about the role Palladis Tamia has played in the authorship question. I think you're right that it didn't belong on the Meres page -- but it does, I think, belong here. What's the point of talking about the book if can't acknowledge its pivotal role in the history of Shakespearean scholarship, which I note has been fully acknowledged by Shapiro in the reference which I cited. I'd appreciate not having to get into an edit war on this. The past is the past. Now is now. Thanks. --BenJonson (talk) 01:24, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

The authorship question is not a notable characteristic or use of the work. It's a bit like inserting the Oxfordian theory in an article about the Geneva bible because of your interpretation of the marked passages in Oxford's Bible as an indication of his authorship of the plays, and so constitutes a WP:ONEWAY violation. In addition, none of the refs are suitable to source this page. the only WP:RS ref is not about Mere's work, and the other three are not WP:RS. Tom Reedy (talk) 06:31, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I've reverted your reversion, Tom. I'm not sure why you would refer me to WP:ONEWAY when you've just eliminated two footnotes to professor Shapiro, for whom your high regard is very well documented. Perhaps it's because you concluded from your vantage point of omniscience that "in addition, none of the refs are suitable to source this page." Why is that? I'm similarly puzzled by your need to bring my University of Massachusetts PhD dissertation into this dissertation. Talk about "not suitable!" It's a complete non-sequitur that inappropriately personalizes the discussion. No one's talking about that here, except you. Shall we stick to the issue at stake? You say that the role that this document has played in the authorship question is "is not a notable characteristic or use of the work." Your reversion is a good instance of a violation of IDONTLIKEIT. Literally dozens of references to the role that this document has played in the authorship question may be found all over the published literature of the question. I could easily have found a dozen more within a few minutes had I tried. I'm sorry, Tom, but as any good lawyer would tell you, the door's already been opened here. Even your favored version of the page lists the Shakespeare plays. Attempting to deny that Meres is important because of what he says about Shakespeare is a little like trying to deny that there's oxygen in air. Open your copy of Ogburn (1984) and start reading at the beginning. I respectfully suggest that it is time for you to stand down on this sort of wholesale deletion of the work of other editors. If you want to help build wikipedia, help to build it. Otherwise, I think you might want to find another hobby. Its a new day, Tom. The old stonewalling is not going to work.----BenJonson (talk) 11:45, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I see that you already reverted again, Tom. I'm going to request that you stop doing that and discuss first. You haven't answered my questions. You just went ahead and did what you wanted. I'm only guessing, but I'm guessing that that doesn't look good.--BenJonson (talk) 11:47, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

My esteem for Jim Shapiro has absolutely nothing to with it, just as his book has absolutely nothing to do with Palladis Tamia. The SAQ is a fringe theory. While it is perfectly acceptable to discuss whatever implications PT may have on the SAQ in an article about the SAQ in its various permutations, it violates WP:ONEWAY to bring it gratuitously into this article. To quote you from above, "Literally dozens of references to the role that this document has played in the authorship question may be found all over the published literature of the question", but not in the published literature about Mere's work.
You also might want to read the WP:BRD page and the WP:BRDWRONG page.
My mention of the Geneva Bible was in way of analogy. It's not all about you, but next time I reach for a comparison I will not mention any of your work. Tom Reedy (talk) 12:38, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
And yes it is a new day. I suggest you read up on it: The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose, at their own discretion, sanctions on any editor working on pages broadly related to Shakespeare authorship question if the editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. The committee's full decision can be read at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare authorship question#Final decision. Tom Reedy (talk) 12:40, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
The I suggest you be very careful in what you do, Tom. --98.218.42.191 (talk) 23:46, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Tom, BenJonson has supplied the very RS references you have asked for in previous ONEWAY arguments. The addition is cited to Shapiro, and you and I both know could be cited to dozens of mainstream sources. The Ogburn cite is also RS, being published by an independent reliable third-party publisher. The only question is the Brief Chronicles cite, which I am sure you can challenge in the appropriate places. Now that BF has been out a while, and several of its articles have been reprinted in unquestionable RS, it will be interesting to see how "notable" it has become (or is becoming). In any case, instead of deleting RS material, which you argue so strongly against in the articles you regularly edit, why not ever offer alternate wording, or some sort of compromise? Isn't that what the community really wants to see? Working together, compromise, etc.? I just don't understand your 'draw a line in the sand', 'no compromise', 'if you're not with us you're against us' position. I don't think anyone believes that its the wiki-way of dealing with contentious articles. Smatprt (talk) 23:03, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Apparently you still don't understand the principle of WP:ONEWAY, and apparently you didn't learn anything from your forced vacation. I would think you have enough on your plate right now instead of returning to edit-warring mode. I suggest you review this principle set forth in the Arbitration decision, as well as this one instead of continually pushing your POV in articles that have nothing to do with the SAQ. Tom Reedy (talk) 23:33, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Tom, which principle did you have in mind? Your link cites a number of principles, so I find it ambiguous at best. Please try to be more specific in your comments. For the reasons explained above, this article inevitably involves the SAQ. You can't get away from that. It is among the most commonly cited pieces of evidence in the debate. Why are you afraid of informing readers of that fact that letting them make up their own opinions on the merits? Thanks. --98.218.42.191 (talk) 23:45, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

The links go directly to the principles. For example, the first link goes directly to "Talk pages". If you get confused as to which section the link goes to, you can look in the address window, which in this case reads http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare_authorship_question#Talk_pages.
And please mend your tone. The difference between you and me is not fear of "informing readers"; the difference is that I understand Wikipedia policy and you don't. Tom Reedy (talk) 05:44, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

The tone here is getting very heated...and use of the words "edit-warring" do not help. How about a compromise of some sort along the lines Smatprt suggests ?? As a "third party" who was never involved in any of the past issues which led to the Arbitration situation, I would be happy to participate in the discussion.--Rogala (talk) 02:35, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Did you just now remove another editor's comments? Or were those yours? Tom Reedy (talk) 03:16, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Nope...I didn't do it and they were not my comments. I noticed that two different comments disappeared though...both from a random IP address. I suggest that you restore them if you think it proper to do so.--Rogala (talk) 04:42, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Hmmm...unless like an idiot I accidently edited an old version of this page !! Which I might well have done...I think to be safe I will restore those comments.--Rogala (talk) 05:10, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Zweigenbaum (talk) 04:18, 8 November 2011 (UTC) In this regard, I would like to suggest additional language concerning the significance of Palladis Tamia, Wit's Treasury by Francis Meres, in the history of the Elizabethan era:

Palladis Tamia's profound historical and literary significance is that it introduced to the world the playwright whom some consider the greatest ever, William Shakespeare. Wit's Treasury issued the first plenary announcement that Shakespeare, already renowned in England for Venus and Adonis and Rape of Lucrece, was author of the previously anonymous or unknown popular works: Two Gentlemen of Verona, The Comedy of Errors, Love's Labor's Lost, Love's Labor's Won (now lost), A Midsummer Night's Dream,, The Merchant of Venice, Richard II, Richard III, Henry IV, pts 1-2, King John, Titus Andronicus, and Romeo and Juliet. Perhaps more remarkably Meres listed these works in the exact order that they appear in the First Folio, the compendium of Shakespeare's plays, suggesting that the order is chronologically accurate, occurring identically twenty five years apart, if not dated individually. The chronology of the plays has been a source of conjecture in modern times.

Palladis Tamia also contains a puzzle, a frequent amusement included in literary almanacs in the Elizabethan and Jacobean eras, which compares sixteen ancient playwrights to their (unevenly numbered) seventeen leading counterparts in then modern England. The Earl of Oxford ranked first, "the best for comedy among us bee [1] Edward Earl of Oxford". [i.e., 17th Earl of Oxford] Shakespeare was listed ninth. As the second list had one extra, the puzzle consisted in determining which of the seventeen moderns was simply a fictitious name for one of the other sixteen. Kenneth A. Hieatt stated that "...beneath a simple literal surface profound symbolic communication of an integrated continuity should take place covertly" in Renaissance literary contexts. This appears to be the case with the puzzle, because the Earl of Oxford's initials, EO, is the phonetic sound of 'I' in Italian,IO, which in turn looks like 10, the sum of Oxford [1] and Shakespeare [9]. It was a pastime for literary minds to ponder and best each other by, while leaving the average reader to believe the listing uncritically.

For modern historical purposes, it appears to indicate Lord Oxford and Shakespeare were one and the same playwright. This hypothesis would have to be corroborated by further research. Henry Peacham, Jr.'s Minerva Brittanna (1612) also employed the little English pronoun 'I' on its title page tribute which said in Latin, "By the mind I will be seen. Some commentators have suggested that the 'I' refers to the phonetic form of the Earl of Oxford's initials, EO. The attached Latin pun on the page is confirmatory, saying in anagramic Latin, 'Thy Name is Vere'. "I'/IO/EO appears throughout the puzzle-book, as repetitions of the mental teaser and a reminder of the person honored in the book as the modern Minerva, or Mind.

The utility of almanacs and compendia, such as Pallidis Tamia and Minerva Brittana, cannot be underestimated as cultural media of covert information in the early modern English state, as indicated by Hieatt. (Short Time's Endless Monument, Columbia:" Columbia University Press, 1960, p. 6)------END

If no one objects, I think this would be an interesting and necessary addition to the present article, which at present fails to state the context and importance of the subject volume. Also I think that the significance of this book is its relationship and use as the source by which we understand a crucial element of the Shakespeare issue, the first appearance of Shakespeare as a playwright, along with his plays. The other features are equally significantly historically. I can provide footnoting throughout. If this information cannot be included in a form agreeable to all, I would suggest removing the present text and rewriting it. How does the consensus stand on this matter? Zweigenbaum (talk) 04:18, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Uh, no. Tom Reedy (talk) 05:25, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Uh, no is not a positive discussion contribution and can be considered hostile. Would you explain your objections to the submitted information more explicitly and colleagially? Thank you. Zweigenbaum (talk)
In addition to all the reasons I have stated during this discussion, this and this, and the first and third items on this list. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:54, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Zweigenbaum...hmmm...most of the points in your post were unknown to me...so I cannot comment. I was, however, thinking that it would be very relevant for this article to include a balanced paragraph which notes that Palladis is an absolutely KEY reference for both traditional Shakespearean scholars and Oxfordian scholars....hence my suggestion of a compromise. To be honest, I think that the most likely reasons that Wikipedia readers would check out the article to begin with are 1) its relevance to Shakespeare's plays 2) its relevance to the SAQ with regards to Oxfordian beliefs. If the paragraph were properly constructed, I believe it would greatly enhance the article.--Rogala (talk) 04:54, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Rogala. The proposed amended wording is too detailed. I've pasted below the original wording which Tom keeps deleting. The purpose of that wording was to accomplish what Rogala suggests. If the wording can be improved, let's improve it. I'm not impressed by attempts to gerrymander this with all sorts of definitional arguments peculiar to Wikipedia. Let's keep in mind http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:I_just_don't_like_it, which seems to be the operant principle here. Tom keeps asserting that "SAQ is not central to Palladis Tamia." I don't understand how anyone who knows about either can assert that. The two topics have been mutually entertwined, with PT playing a central role in the history of SAQ for more than half a century, starting at least with O.J. Campbell's *Harper's* review of *This Star of England* and Ogburn's 1984 response. PT is cited in virtually every orthodox biography of the bard as a central plank of the biography and as legitimating evidence to confute the Oxfordian argument. What Tom seems to be saying is that he doesn't want Wikipedia to include intellectual history in its entries. --BenJonson (talk) 13:53, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
I don't even know why you're on this page; you were banned indefinitely from all articles, discussions, and other content related to the SAQ, William Shakespeare, or Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, broadly construed across all namespaces, back in April.
For the benefit of the rest of the editors here, and as a person who indeed is familiar with the SAQ and with Palladis Tamia and who does know that it is central to Oxfordian and other anti-Stratfordian arguments, I will further explain my position.
As you also know, anti-Stratfordians also use their interpretations of the inscription on Shakespeare's funerary monument to support their case. Oxfordians in particular believe that Ben Jonson was an important player in the deception, and they consider the dedication of Shakespeare's sonnets a major argument for the True Author's death before 1609. Shakespeare's Hamlet is considered by Oxfordians to be a portrayal of Oxford's life story, and as such a major plank in their argument.
According to your logic, every one of those articles should contain a section or an explanation of how they are important to Oxfordian and anti-Stratfordian theories, and indeed at one time Oxfordians were busily adding that to those various articles. That they are not now tolerated should tell you something about Wikipedia's policies and purpose.
The return of Smatprt seems to have signaled a renewal of the old attempts to use the encyclopedia as a promotional vehicle for Oxfordism. Those issues were discussed and settled by the SAQ arbitration, and in fact remedies were put in place so that editors can be spared the long, tedious process of dispute resolution that was used by Oxfordian promoters as a delaying strategy for so long. Again I urge all the editors involved in this and other pages to read the principles set down by the Arbitration Committee, including the blue links, most particularly conduct and decorum, tendentious editing, problematic editing and disruptive influence. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:02, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I refer the previous interlocutor, Tom Reedy, to my comment above. He rejected my discussion about possible changes to Palladis Tamia's article out of hand with no comment beyond "Uh, no." When others contributed he then wished to remove any discussion of any issue that might connect to Oxford as a possible candidate for authorship of the Shakespeare canon. This I do not understand as editing, but more like censorship, and I would like to know the basis for the astringency in this particular area. I would agree to a more general expression of the significance of Palladis Tamia to the history of the Shakespeare canon and its as yet not agreed upon creator. Palladis Tamia's significance falls into three groupings: announcement of "Shakespeare", 2)listing of "Shakespeare" and Lord Oxford in the same category, and 3)ad hoc listing of plays previously of unknown authorship but then attributed to "Shakespeare". Whichever verbalization that includes these points would be sufficient. Zweigenbaum (talk) 17:32, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

What policy governs this (or any) page?[edit]

Rogala, please review WP:ONEWAY. As I stated earlier, Palladis Tamia is important to the SAQ but the SAQ is not important to Palladis Tamia. This is not an article about the SAQ, nor should it even mention it. See Giving equal validity and WP:DUE, which are policies, not suggestions. Especially attend to the policy explanation, "Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention overall as the majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views (such as Flat Earth). To give undue weight to the view of a significant minority, or to include that of a tiny minority, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject."
While I understand your desire to compromise in the pursuit of an amicable editing environment, compromising Wikipedia's policies is not the way to do it. The way to do it is for all editors to accept Wikipedia's policies, no matter what it means for any particular POV any editor happens to be aggressively pushing, which is the case here. Tom Reedy (talk) 05:38, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
OK, I will re-read them now. Thanks, Tom.--Rogala (talk) 05:45, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Tom, I re-read your suggested links (several times) and have been thinking about them quite deeply. Let me start out by saying that I think they are highly relevant and I therefore can definitely understand "where you are coming from". I do not doubt that you acting in good faith and that you see your reversions and your refusal to compromise in the light of being a staunch defender of Wikipedia policies. In my opinion, the key portion of the policy which applies here is this part of WP:ONEWAY:

“Fringe theories may be mentioned in the text of other articles only if independent reliable sources connect the topics in a serious and prominent way. However, meeting this standard indicates only that the idea may be discussed in other articles, not that it must be discussed in a specific article. If mentioning a fringe theory in another article gives undue weight to the fringe theory, discussion of the fringe theory may be limited, or even omitted altogether.”

Can we all agree on this as the key policy which "controls" this issue ??

If ‘yes” this means the key follow-up questions are:

1) Do independent reliable sources connect the topics in a serious and prominent way ? YES or NO
2) Even if they do, would a compromise paragraph give “undue weight” to the fringe theory ? YES or NO
3) If it DOES give undue weight, should discussion be a) “limited” or b) “omitted altogether” ? A or B

Can we all agree on those three criteria as well ??--Rogala (talk) 06:30, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Rogala. First let me ask that you do not paste your text in the middle of another editor's message. It messes with the chronology and makes it hard to follow. Not a biggie, but just a courteous practice that makes interacting on what can be some very confusing talk pages.
To answer your questions, the only WP:RS sources that mention PT in context of the SAQ do so only to rebut Oxfordian assertions (Meres mentions Shakespeare and Oxford in the same paragraph as discrete writers; Oxfordians, of course have concocted all sorts of cryptograms and explanations to read Meres as a coded message that Oxford wrote Shakespeare, as exampled above). So the answer to #1 would be NO. The policy also says "Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views (such as Flat Earth)." Oxfordism is an extremely tiny minority, no matter how vocal its adherents, with much fewer believers then, say, alien abduction, so the answer to #2 is YES. Both of these give us the answer to #3, which of course is B.
Let me also say that policy applications are not determined by majority vote. In this particular case, as I have been saying all along, it is perfectly OK to mention PT in SAQ articles, but that use does not go both ways and is in fact WP:ONEWAY. Tom Reedy (talk) 12:44, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Tom, thanks for the comments.
1) I agree that if there really are ZERO WP:RS which connect the two in a serious prominent way, the policy prevents a fringe theory from being mentioned. At this point, I am not yet prepared to comment on your assertion that there are absolutely no WP:RS which meet the "connection criteria" above. So, if I may ask for your patience, can we put that temporarily aside ? I will address it as the last point (#3) in this post.
2) That being said, the first eleven words of the initial sentence from the policy above expressly contradict your reading that a fringe theory could NEVER be mentioned in other (presumably non-fringe) articles.
Here is that sentence again: "Fringe theories may be mentioned in the text of other articles only if independent reliable sources connect the topics in a serious and prominent way."
With all due respect, the actual policy seems to contradict your reading. Again, it says that "Fringe theories MAY be mentioned...if independent reliable sources connect the topics...etc".
Therefore, I respectfully maintain that we should be trying to focus our efforts on determining if there really are any WP:RS which could potentially meet the additional "connection criteria" of the policy...not on discussing a point which has been made crystal clear by the first sentence of the very policy which we both seem to agree to be operative here.
3) You discussed those potential WP:RS above and gave your viewpoint quite crisply as: "the only WP:RS sources that mention PT in context of the SAQ do so only to rebut Oxfordian assertions". You therefore acknowledge that WP:RS do exist to connect the two articles, but you also feel that they somehow don't meet the full "connection criteria" cited above because they are rebuttals. Do I have that right ??
If "yes", we both agree that a) there are WP:RS which connect the two works but that we also still need to explore b) their satisfying the full intent of the "connection criteria" due to their "rebuttal stance".
To that end, and assuming I have correctly understood your position, can you tell me exactly why you think the "rebuttal stance" of the admitted WP:RS means that they somehow fails to meet the "connection criteria" in sentence one of WP:ONEWAY ?
Thanks for your consideration.--Rogala (talk) 22:15, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Rogala, with all due respect, I'm not interested in answering any more of your questions. You have a history of carrying on long, drawn-out, and ultimately pointless exercises in hair-splitting. My position is clearly laid out, along with my reasons for holding it. I suggest you seek redress through dispute resolution if this means that much to you. I will participate in that, but quite frankly what you are doing now is in my opinion just a type of trolling using the same strategies of civil POV pushers, and I've had enough. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:42, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
That's a little harsh. I responded in a detailed manner to your concerns by actually analyzing the policy you cited and pointed out word by word how it says exactly the opposite of what you have been asserting. I did this because I think this clearly is a case where a compromise with the other editors is possible here and within the policy. It all revolves around the existence of WP:RS (which you already agreed existed) and their fulfilling the "connection criteria" as outlined in the policy (which is up for further discussion). I think if we stick to the issues and not get personal, this is easily resolved. I am going to "sleep on this" until tomorrow at least and I truly hope you feel differently tomorrow.--71.145.141.213 (talk) 01:42, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
This is not an RS issue. I suggest you search the dispute resolution archives for WP:ONEWAY and do some reading. Tom Reedy (talk) 02:03, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

New Section- The Parts Which Tom Keeps Deleting[edit]

Since Tom can't seem to bear allowing this to remain available to general readers for more than five minutes at a time, I'm reproducing the disputed passage in talk here so everyone can see it and we can have an intelligent discussion about it, which is difficult when one editor keeps making multiple reversions and offers no substantive clarification of his justification for this kind of pre-emption. Here, for the record, is the proposed wording for us to work with:

Palladis Tamia has been cited as an important source for both sides in the Shakespearean authorship controversy. In addition to being often cited as evidence for the chronology of the Shakespearean plays, the book is regarded by orthodox Shakespearean scholars as an important witness to the traditional view of Shakespearean authorship, both because of its listing of Shakespeare as a prominent playwright by 1598,[1] and because Meres also mentions Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, as among several who are "the best for comedy amongst us." To the Oxfordians it has signified that Oxford was known as a prominent comic writer.[2] To traditional Shakespeareans, on the other hand, it has seemed that Meres' double reference to both Shakespeare and Oxford means that he knew that Oxford could not have been the author of the Shakespearean works.[3] A possible solution to this contradiction was proposed in a 2009 Brief Chronicles article which employs a detailed numerical analysis of the structure of Meres' "comparative discourse" to argue that while Meres pays lip service to the distinction, on a closer view he actually suggests the identity of Shakespeare and Oxford.[4]

As I already remarked, these citations, especially on Tom's favored side, can be multiplied many times over. So central is the document to the authorship question that Ogburn (1984) starts off his book addressing the matter and devotes many pages to discussion of it. Shapiro in the cited reference seems to consider it one of the most important pieces of evidence for the orthodox perspective -- and he's correct about this, imho. According to Campbell and Quinn, the document's allusions to Shakespeare are "of great importance in determining the dates of the early plays, and the Sonnets, as well as attesting to Shakespeare's stature among his contemporaries even at this comparatively early stage of his career." I'd be happy to bring in further illustrations as needed to substantiate the point. --BenJonson (talk) 13:39, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

The importance of PT to Shakespeare as per Campbell and Quinn is in the article; nobody's arguing about that. The importance of the SAQ in relation to PT is the issue; among the academic consensus that importance is nil. Again you fail to make any kind of argument against WP policy. I don't think you really understand it, but that is really not germane to its applicability in this case. If you think differently, Wikipedia has mechanisms in place to solicit opinions from experienced editors. See WP:DISPUTE.
And your comment above, "one editor keeps making multiple reversions and offers no substantive clarification of his justification for this kind of pre-emption" is a falsehood if you're referring to me as that editor. I have offered extensive and detailed reasons, and I'm tired of your supercilious tone, so please mend it or I will be forced to take other action. Tom Reedy (talk) 14:10, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Can the "bad blood" between you two never mend ? I am earnestly trying to set a "good example" here and advocating a compromise if (and only if) one is permissible per Wikipedia policy. I think it just MIGHT be and that you two are really not so far apart as it might seem. I think we should focus on step by step logical arguments and the WORDS in the policy. I have an entire section above which specifically (and with a fine tooth comb) addresses the WP:ONEWAY policy as it applies in this matter WORD by WORD and logical point by logical point. May we look at that ??--Rogala (talk) 22:27, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Allow me:
  1. "Fringe theories may be mentioned in the text of other articles only if independent reliable sources connect the topics in a serious and prominent way." Benjonson has shown this to be the case.
  2. If mentioning a fringe theory in another article gives undue weight to the fringe theory, discussion of the fringe theory may be limited, or even omitted altogether. One small section in this article would hardly give undue weight to the minority view.
  3. "If no independent reliable sources connect a particular fringe theory to a mainstream subject, there should not even be a link through a see also section, lest the article serve as a coatrack." Again, Benjonson has shown this is not the case.
Tom keeps reverting when the consensus does not support his revert. As such, Tom is going against policy. Tom has said that "no compromise" is possible. This also goes the wishes and reputation of the wiki community. Smatprt (talk) 01:38, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
I'll try one more time to explain to you what the policy is and how it applies.
"Fringe theories may be mentioned in the text of other articles only if independent reliable sources connect the topics in a serious and prominent way." Benjonson has shown this to be the case.
BenJonson has shown this to be true in one direction only: fringe theories enlist it to aid their arguments. The key word here is "prominent" (you can tell because it is blue-linked in the passage). The link goes to WP:UNDUE, in which you can read the sentence (as I have pointed out, with no response or discussion of this point from you), "Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention overall as the majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views (such as Flat Earth). To give undue weight to the view of a significant minority, or to include that of a tiny minority, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute."
"If mentioning a fringe theory in another article gives undue weight to the fringe theory, discussion of the fringe theory may be limited, or even omitted altogether. One small section in this article would hardly give undue weight to the minority view."
I refer you to the subsection WP:VALID just below WP:UNDUE, especially the sentence (as I have pointed out earlier, with no response from you), "Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or even plausible but currently unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship."
"If no independent reliable sources connect a particular fringe theory to a mainstream subject, there should not even be a link through a see also section, lest the article serve as a coatrack." Again, Benjonson has shown this is not the case.
To repeat one more time, this is not an RS issue. Shapiro includes one sentence about Meres and Oxfordism: Crushingly, for those who want to believe that the Earl of Oxford and Shakespeare were one and the same writer, Meres names both and distinguishes between them, including both "Edward Earl of Oxford" and Shakespeare in his list of the best writers of comedy (while omitting Oxford from the list of leading tragedians) (p. 268 UK, 236 US). Yes, Shapiro is a reliable source for the SAQ, and he uses Meres to establish that Shakespeare was a recognized playwright, but this article already covers that and a book about a fringe theory is not considered an appropriate source. You cannot cite a source in which the topic is not the main subject but merely a passing mention.
And just FYI, a consensus of editors cannot override Wikipedia content policies. You have been trying to push your POV in Shakespeare-related articles since you returned from your topic ban, and your disruptive actions have awakened the resentful throng of Oxfordian POV-pushers who evidently think that the ArbCom sanctions have expired with your return and don't apply anymore, to the extent that BenJonson, an editor with an indefinite topic ban, felt free to reinstate Oxfordian material and sources in this article with impunity. They are mistaken; I urge you to reconsider your actions. Tom Reedy (talk) 05:26, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────In addition, the sources are examples of the claims the section makes; they don't state them. You can't make a claim and then back it up with examples; statements must be sourced rather than being based on the opinion or assessment of editors. Section excised. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:49, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Tom, you keep promoting the POV that it is not permissible to even mention the relationship of the Palladis Tamia (hereafter “PT”) to the SAQ within the PT article itself due to the existence of the Wikipedia policy known as WP:ONEWAY.
This is, prima facie, an unsupportable POV as the very first sentence of that policy describes UNDER EXACTLY WHICH CIRCUMSTANCES this type of “mention” is permissible. Here is that sentence yet again: “Fringe theories may be mentioned in the text of other articles only if independent reliable sources connect the topics in a serious and prominent way."
1.I refer you to the THIRD word in the FIRST SENTENCE of the policy. It is “may”.
Definition of “may” - “to have permission”. In other words, the policy starts off by describing when it is permissible to mention a “fringe theory” in the text of “other articles”.
2.The policy then enumerates the conditions where one “may” do so: RS must “connect the topics in a serious and prominent way”.
Definition of “connect” – “to place or establish in relationship”
Definition of “serious” – “of or relating to a matter of importance”
Definition of “prominent” – “readily noticeable”
3. The WP:WEIGHT policy is indeed hyperlinked to the word prominent. Why is this ?? The answer is found, yet again, in the very first sentence of THAT policy…most specifically in the fourth word from the end of that sentence: “ Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint.” In other words, the reason for the link is that it “clarifies” how to interpret and apply the concept of “prominence” in light of the separate and distinct policy WP:WEIGHT.
4. Reasonable Conclusions:
A) If the SAQ is mentioned in the PT article at all, there must be WP:RS which connect the relationship of the PT to the SAQ in a serious and prominent way.
B) If such RS exist, and we editors choose to “mention” the SAQ in the PT article, it should be noted that it has been used to support both the traditional Stratfordian position and the Oxfordian position.
C) In doing so, the Stratfordian viewpoint should receive a larger proportion of any “mention” and the Oxfordian viewpoint the lesser proportion of any “mention”.
Note: I think it is readily understood by all editors here that the KEY SIGNIFICANCE of PT as it relates to the SAQ is that it clearly mentions both the name Shakespeare and the name of current leading candidate (Oxford) as Elizabethan playwrights. It is therefore cited frequently by people holding opposing viewpoints of the authorship. That is extremely notable.--Rogala (talk) 23:43, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Let's explore your "reasonable conclusions" a bit further by analogy, using some questions I asked earlier that you failed to address.
According to your interpretation, If the SAQ is mentioned in the PT article at all, there must be WP:RS which connect the relationship of the PT to the SAQ in a serious and prominent way.
Now I wrote above that the word "prominent" is key here, and you didn't establish that any of the mentions of PT connected with the SAQ in RS were prominent as per WP definitions, but overlook that for the moment.
As you also know, anti-Stratfordians also use their interpretations of the inscription on Shakespeare's funerary monument to support their case. Oxfordians in particular believe that Ben Jonson was an important player in the deception, and they consider the dedication of Shakespeare's sonnets a major argument for the True Author's death before 1609. Shakespeare's Hamlet is considered by Oxfordians to be a portrayal of Oxford's life story, and as such a major plank in their argument.
Now I know of several RS sources that rebut those contentions, and according to your "reasonable conclusion" B, If such RS exist, and we editors choose to “mention” the SAQ in the PT article, it should be noted that it has been used to support both the traditional Stratfordian position and the Oxfordian position. So IOW you are saying that it is permissible, as long as due weight is given (your "RC" C), to insert a section or an explanation of how they are important to Oxfordian and anti-Stratfordian theories into every one of those and other Wikipedia articles.
Is that about it? Tom Reedy (talk) 04:14, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
No, I am merely asking you to stop insisting that the existence of WP:ONEWAY in and of itself prohibits ANY mention of the SAQ in the PT article. It is a prima facie fact, established by the first sentence of the policy, that your POV on this is simply wrong. This is, in my opinion, the sole stumbling block to forging a COMPROMISE here (one permissible per Wikipedia policy)...which is, as ever, my goal on articles where editors hold widely divergent views. We should all be discussing the WP:RS which you have already admitted DO exist to see if they meet the "connection criteria"...exactly as I suggested above. If they do, then we should politely discuss how to best organize any mention we choose to make.
BTW, I believe that I actually did address your questions. Please read my responses again. If you still think I have not satisfied you, then I regret the misunderstanding. Please tell me why and I will then respond further.--Rogala (talk) 00:58, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Either you are indulging in semantics or I am. The first sentence of WP:ONEWAY reads, "Fringe theories may be mentioned in the text of other articles only if independent reliable sources connect the topics in a serious and prominent way." "Only if" is a condition, which means that otherwise fringe theories may not be mentioned in the text of other articles. It is indeed WP:ONEWAY that determines whether the SAQ or any fringe theory can be mentioned in any article not about that theory, including this one, and in any case I have been referring to many other policies and guidelines other than WP:ONEWAY.
I'm not doing this because of any personal bias or POV. All my arguments are policy-based. You should re-read my arguments to try to understand exactly what I have been saying.
Again, the importance of the SAQ in relation to PT is not at issue; it's fine for SAQ-related articles to discuss the topic and link to this article. What is not fine--as I believe I have demonstrated to anyone with a good grasp of WP policy--is that discussing the SAQ and linking to it in this article. RS about PT do not mention the SAQ, although the connection does go the other way. If there were an RS about PT that devoted space to its use in the SAQ, then we would be having this discussion.
I cannot find where you responded to my questions about whether linking to other articles such as Ben Jonson and Shakespeare's Sonnets is allowed. I would appreciate if you would point that out to me. Tom Reedy (talk) 02:05, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Tom, thank you for your very polite response. Would you do me the courtesy of giving me a "yes or no answer" to the following: In the very first sentence of your last post, did you just admit that the SAQ can be mentioned in the PT article IF there are WP:RS that "connect the topics in a serious and prominent way" ? It seems to me you did, in which case, we can now move forward and talk about the WP:RS which exist to see if they meet the "connection criteria".

I do recognize that you have pointed out other policies, but the policy at the heart of this discussion is, and has always been WP:ONEWAY as it provides two things: 1) the prima facie fact that, per Wikipedia policy, fringe theories MAY be mentioned in other articles under certain conditions and 2) the exact conditions which must be met to allow this (namely: the existence of WP:RS which meet the "connection criteria").

BTW, I recognize that WP:ONEWAY also says that even IF those conditions do exist, there must still be balance in presenting fringe theory information per other WP policies with the majority view given the PROMINENCE it deserves. No argument there...hence my idea that a compromise is possible here...one which is fully permissible per Wikipedia policies.

Would you also please give me a little which to digest your last paragraph regarding your questions about Ben Johnson and Shakespeare's Sonnets ? I promise I will get back to you quickly on that.--Rogala (talk) 21:19, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Tom, in response to your other questions, I would say this: Just because it is "permissible" per a clear Wikipedia policy to mention something, that does not always mean it MUST be mentioned by a given group of editors. This applies to our PT discussion, as well as your Ben Johnson and Sonnets examples.
In the case of PT, since it specifically lists BOTH William Shakespeare and the current leading alternative candidate (Oxford) as Elizabethan playwrights, I think one can probably make a good case that it would be sufficiently notable and relevant enough so as to merit mention of its relation to the SAQ (as long as it is done with due regard to other Wikipedia policies).
With regards to Ben Johnson and the Sonnets, however, I think it is much tougher to make that case. If one could find a Ben Johnson quote about one of the leading alternative authorship candidates where he called them “a writer” or “a poet”, one might have something, but I don’t know of any such quotation from Johnson.
One more general thought directed at you: Contrary to what you might believe, I do recognize the danger of people trying to artificially elevate the visibility of fringe theories by excessively mentioning them in mainstream articles. I think it is proper that you as an editor are passionately aware of that as well. Hope that helps answer your questions.--Rogala (talk) 21:43, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Round 3—or is it 4?[edit]

Rogala wrote: "In the very first sentence of your last post, did you just admit that the SAQ can be mentioned in the PT article IF there are WP:RS that "connect the topics in a serious and prominent way" ?

My reply: Read exactly what I said and see if you see any discrepancy between it and how you interpreted it: "If there were an RS about PT that devoted space to its use in the SAQ, then we would be having this discussion."

Can you see a difference? I have brought up other policies for a reason: Editors can't take policies out of context in an effort to do whatever they want; policies and guidelines are designed to fulfill Wikipedia's purposes, not to get around them. Reliable sources for an article can't be passing mentions in sources devoted to other topics. That's why we can't just read one policy or guideline and apply it to every case; editorial judgment is called for, and in those situations where editorial judgments disagree, there are dispute resolution processes that are supposed to clarify them. The decisions cannot be based on some mistaken ideas of "censorship" or misunderstandings about the Constitution or the Magna Carta or the Universal Declaration of Human Rights or any vague sense of "fairness"; they must be based on the WP:FIVEPILLARS, which are the policy statements put in place to achieve the purpose of Wikipedia, i.e. "to act as an encyclopedia, a comprehensive written compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge." However, all that information can't be in one article.

I see that on your user page you have a statement of your editing philosophy; mine has already been worked out for me before I got here in the policies. I don't need to figure out what those are; all I need to do is read them and try to understand and apply them. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:05, 11 November 2011 (UTC) P.S. You didn't answer my question. I know what the guidelines say; what I want to know is if you think it is permissible to insert a mention of the SAQ in those articles. Because if you do, then we're not on the same page at all. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:16, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Again, I do not think we are actually too far apart here.
Tom, please humor me on this one question..."yes" or "no" please: Does the first sentence of WP:ONEWAY explicitly state that fringe theories (under very specific circumstances) MAY be mentioned in other articles ?
If you answer "yes" to the above (and I hope you do as it looks to be written in exceedingly plain English in the policy itself) please note that I do NOT disagree with your idea that "editorial judgment" is still needed in deciding exactly when and how it is appropriate to mention such theories (which is where the other policies you mention naturally come in).
If you answer "no" then please educate me as to why that first sentence even exists and, in your opinion, what you think it means.
My answer on the other hypothetical cases which you cite: It is technically permissible IF AND ONLY IF there were WP:RS which satisfy WP:ONEWAY, and since I don't know of any, my current opinion is "no, it's not permissible". Likewise: IMO, it would clearly be unreasonable, per WP policy, to attempt to insert mentions of the SAQ on EVERY article related to Shakespeare.--Rogala (talk) 10:18, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Now that you've worded the question in that way, I can answer "yes".
Now answer this question: do you think there are such sources that meet those specific conditions for this topic? Tom Reedy (talk) 14:12, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
1) Thank you VERY much Tom. I regret it took that much typing to get here, but at least we can say we agreed on something.
2) I suspect YES but don't DEFINITELY know yet. That will be for ALL OF US to discuss over what may be weeks if past history is any indication. I do think a reasonable argument can be made that WP:RS do exist which meet the criteria (or I would have not suggested a compromise attempt in the first place) but I suspect you do not, is that right ? Frankly, after some discussion, I may change my mind and agree with you. I am just glad we are now at this point of the dialogue. As an indication of where my mind is at on this, I will offer the following:
This is one of only two cases where I instinctively think a (properly weighted) mention of the SAQ is perhaps justified in THIS SPECIFIC TYPE of article (if and only if applicable WP:RS can be found, that is). The other one would be "The Arte of English Poesie" section of the Puttenham article and for similar reasons: notability and reader interest / topicality.
Question: Does the notion that "I might think this", make sense to you without further explanation as to exactly why ? I'm not asking if you think I am right, but only if you can see how I might group those two together as a "special category" of mainstream article which should perhaps mention the SAQ (if permissible via WP:RS) due to notability and reader interest issues (and by extension why I did not feel the same way about your Ben Johnson or Sonnets examples) ?
3) I am in no rush to try and push any edits however, so let's just proceed slowly and rationally without any edit warring, OK ?? I am completely eschewing WP:BRD out of both an "abundance of caution" and respect for others with regards to anything to do with the SAQ.--Rogala (talk) 07:05, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
    • ^ James Shapiro, Who Wrote Shakespeare?: The Case for William Shakespeare of Stratfordonline e-book, 2011, n.p.
    • ^ Charlton Ogburn, The Mysterious William Shakespeare, Dodd, Mead & Co., 1984, 195-96.
    • ^ Shapiro, ibid.
    • ^ Robert Detobel and K.C. Ligon, "Francis Meres and the Earl of Oxford," Brief Chronicles I (2009), 123-137.