Talk:Roger Stritmatter

Questions
The first question, obviously, is whether I'm allowed to participate in a discussion, given that I'm still under a ban for editing anything that has to do with my areas of professional expertise as they are partly outlined in the article created by Mr. Reedy.

On the assumption that I might be, here are a few comments:


 * First -- this is a problem with the Shakespeare Fellowship entry -- the organization's purposes as set forth on that page and therefore in this subsidiary -- are much too narrowly defined. The organization's mission statement mentions a broad range of inquiry and educational goals in addition to the fairly narrow one of promoting the Oxfordian view of authorship.


 * I'm not sure why the article singles out the 2007 RES article to the exclusion of the other articles in the series that Lynne and I wrote. The articles are all available here: http://www.shakespearestempest.com. They include one that appeared in Critical Studies, widely recognized as among the most dynamic of all journals in the field of English literary studies, and another in the Shakespeare Yearbook, then edited by Douglas Brooks at University of Texas.


 * "Assumed the authorship..." hmmm..How about premised or some other appropriately NPOV word?


 * I'm not sure why the article says that I was educated at The New School and TESC, and implies that all I did at Umass was write a dissertation. I was educated at Lake Washington High School, TESC, The New School, and Umass.


 * "as a theme, an allusion, or a quotation." Not really.


 * "Treatise." Wholly inappropriate and prejudicial word. --BenJonson (talk) 18:38, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Short answer: no, you can't, since it's part of the topic and even included in the SAQ template. A bit ironic, I know—but really, can anybody ever be objective about their own bio? I don't know if you can even discuss it on your own talk page, but if I were you I'd move this discussion there instead of leaving it here, or delete it.
 * I included the articles that have been responded to by other scholars, as making my own summary is WP:OR. If anybody ever responds in print to your other papers, they can be added using them as sources. I modeled it on other articles about academics; they don't typically mention high schools. The wording of the marked passages comes from Mark Anderson. "Treatise" is a perfectly neutral word: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/treatise, and "assumed" is also. Tom Reedy (talk) 19:21, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


 * @BenJonson: I think the proper action would be to ask for an exemption either at the notifying admin's talk, or at the appeal (both shown in the notification). This is unusual, but my guess is that the community would be very reluctant to stop someone from commenting in a situation like this, particularly if the comments were infrequent, brief and moderately expressed as above. Johnuniq (talk) 09:11, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That would probably be a prudent move. This article is long overdue IMO, and my hope is that it not become a billboard or battleground where disputants try to "balance" the article in their own view by inserting the usual long-winded "explanations". That's why I reported with no disputation. I think it's a model of a NPOV BLP, and I hope the community agrees. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:02, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

"Stritmatter and Kositsky responded to the aforementioned criticisms by both Vaughan and Reedy in their 2009 Brief Chronicles article[12] as well as their 2013 book, On the Date, Sources and Design of Shakespeare's The Tempest.[13]"

What did they say? Doesn't fairness require a brief summary of both sets of arguments? The article summarizes with quotation Professor Vaughan's lackluster tautologies, but somehow when it comes to giving a man a fair shake on the page that allegedly summarizes his life's work, he's to be scared off with scarecrow announcements of moral superiority, while the real substance of his arguments is ignored, attacked, or belittled by card-carrying members of Wikipedia's

And why isn't this article marked with a sign indicating that the reverter-in-chief Mr. Reedy clearly has a material stake in the article, insofar as the legitimacy of his scholarship has been challenged and, in the eyes of many, discredited, by Kositsky and Reedy, and should therefore recuse himself from editing it? Just wondering.

And at what point in the evolution of this discussion will it be noted, for the record, that although this article continues to state that The Sea Venture is "generally accepted as a source for Shakespeare's The Tempest," it fails to supply a single post 2013 citation to suggest the accuracy of that statement. What is correct is that this theory *used to be "generally accepted." This is very poor form in a academic writing of any type.

From the looks of it, it is only accepted by a shrinking subcategory of orthodox Shakespeareans who are behind in their reading or who started off, like Mr. Reedy and Dr. Vaughan, with a strong need for denial and a serious lack of training in the relevant disciplines of the discussion. Doesn't strike one as being in the slightest NPOV--76.100.170.62 (talk) 21:19, 1 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Rather than start a useless contention, I just took the page back to where it was before Knitwitted started adding superfluous detail. By the way, you do know that laptop IPs identify their locations when they use WiFi, right? Tom Reedy (talk) 03:27, 6 June 2015 (UTC)


 * User Tom Reedy, you don't get to define "superfluous" here. And yes, any web saavy person knows what you say. That's how IT professionals catch crooks, criminals, and vandals. But here's the thing:  It's not what everyone else knows that you should be worried about - it's what YOU *don't* know that should be bothering you. But its never bothered you before, so why should anyone expect it to bother you now. There will come a day when everyone knows what you didn't know. Good luck, you're going need it.--76.100.170.62 (talk) 19:15, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Education
KW I put all the education in one graf. Hopefully by the time someone is working on their doctorate they've received an education. PhDs are awarded for contributing to a field of knowledge, which presumably already has been mastered. Tom Reedy (talk) 01:32, 12 November 2011 (UTC)


 * User Tom Reedy, someday people are going to wonder why you couldn't seem to open your mouth on the internet with insulting people with your own myopia. Dr. Stritmatter didn't master his field of knowledge - he's writing it right now. And his Provost has a new job for you. She can't wait to tell you what it is. It doesn't involve a lot of scholarly expertise, so she thinks it will be just your cup of tea. --76.100.170.62 (talk) 23:32, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Reverts
Please stop reverting. See WP:NOT, especially 2.3, 2.4, 2.9, and 2.10, and also this. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:23, 5 June 2015 (UTC)