Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare authorship question/Evidence

Regarding User:Be Critical's evidence
There is, I think, a distinct difference between being an editor who contributes in one general content area -- i.e. Shakespeare and his plays and related matters -- and an editor who is a Single Purpose Account. The SPA pushes a specific point of view, and has little or no interest in editing otherwise. From what I can see, the description of Tom Reedy by Be Critical as an "SPA" is mistaken. Disclaimer: I have no connection with this case, although I'm sure I've edited at least one of the pages involved at some time in the past. In my lifetime I have read with interest various claims and arguments about Shakespeare's identity, but found none of them convincing enough to jettison the accepted paradigm - but I'm not married to the status quo either, I would have no problem setting it aside if the evidence was convincing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:35, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Beyond- I believe you are mistaken: "A single-purpose account (SPA) is a user account or IP editor whose editing is broadly limited to one very narrow area or set of articles, or whose edits to many articles appear to be for a common purpose. Many SPAs turn out to be well-intentioned editors with a niche interest, but a significant number appear to edit for the purposes of promotion, showcasing and/or advocacy.". It's now up to ArbCom to decide what kind of SPA Tom is. Smatprt (talk) 14:32, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "Many SPAs turn out to be well-intentioned editors with a niche interest"
 * Indeed Tom Reedy has, precisely, (and in my experience this goes for Xover as well) what here is described as a 'niche interest', which, on inspection, turns out to be a very wide field. He has an accomplished mastery, recognized by scholars in the field, of the vast area of Elizabethan-Jacobean, Shakespearean studies. He does promote two things, close knowledge of contemporary scholarship in these areas, and a stringent reading of WP:RS for drafting articles on the most varied aspects of this period. What he is advocating is a stringent method, the method of academic work, for compiling articles. He does not promote content, or a point-of-view, except in so far as these are verifiable in the complex hermeneutic negotiations of experts in the study of this era. Be-critical did well to make his list, and Beyond-my-Ken to make the distinction.Nishidani (talk) 21:56, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to disagree with you Nishidani, but I rather find the interpretation of WP:SPA applied in the recent submitted evidence pointy and novel. If one is to accept as given that the essay has any meaning beyond taking up space on Wikimedia servers, then there must be a distinction between a Single-Purpose Account and Non-Single-Purpose Accounts. I can find no way to read it that does not suggest SPAs “appear to edit for the purposes of promotion, showcasing and/or advocacy.” At the same time “ For these reasons, experienced editors often scrutinize the editing activities of new editors and SPAs carefully in a discussion to discern whether they appear to be here to build an encyclopedia (perhaps needing help and advice), or alternatively edit for promotion, advocacy or other unsuitable agendas.” The purpose of submitting evidence to the effect that one or several of the named parties are SPAs is to demonstrate that they are not Here to build an encyclopedia, but rather to advance their own interests (in this case, the Authorship agenda). By labeling myself and Tom as SPAs s/he is suggesting that because our interests (and corresponding expertise) happens to be related to Shakespeare—a topic with just shy of a thousand articles within its scope; covering linguistics, botany, biography, computer science, painting, a 400+ year era of history, popular culture, etc.—and where we spend our time on, among other things, fostering collaboration on improving articles, and improving the entire article and not just our favourite soapbox, that this is to be taken as an indication of bad faith and lacking neutral point of view (which are aong the things one worries about when encountering a SPA). The reasoning rests on there being no meaningful distinction between a postulated "good" SPA and a ditto "bad" SPA, and I find that significantly out of touch with the going opinion on the project (the term is, for instance, understood quite specifically to have the negative connotation on, say, AN/I, in my experience). I am, however, not going to waste time and space on answering it: partly because I can find no way to do so within this context that does not immediately devolve into some kind of close reading of WP:SPA with divinations of the framers' intentions, but mostly because I consider it to be more or less ridiculous on the face of it (i.e. it is an obviously baseless accusation). One section of evidence using the term "SPA" actually tells you something about the named editors' behaviour and goals (to wit, promoting their own interests), while the other tells you nothing except that the submitter has a particular interpretation of what "SPA" means. No matter. Its application to myself irks me, but is otherwise very inconsequential, so I will endeavour to not expend any more of mine, or anyone else's, time and energy on it. --Xover (talk) 22:51, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Um, X, aren't you agreeing with Nishidani? As for myself, if SPA means editing mostly in the area of Shakespeare and Elizabethan/Jacobean literature, I suppose I qualify, although I don't know what some of the articles I've edited or created have to do with Shakespeare authorship. Tom Reedy (talk) 02:36, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Probably. I often find myself in agreement with Nishidanni, whether I realize this is the case at the time or not. :-) Nishidani: No need for apologies or explanations: you very graciously commended Becritical on compiling the list—which overall effort I can also applaud—and my disagreement was mostly with the utility of that list as evidence given the interpretation of “SPA” applied therein. In fact, if anything, I should probably preventatively apologize to Becritical: I disagree with him/her on this point, but I hope my disagreement was not expressed too vehemently and did not devolve into disagreement with the editor (vs. disagreeing with the argument). As I said, overall it is a minor thing, and I've expended energy on it only because it irked me personally to be so labelled. --Xover (talk) 08:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, nuance! I thought I was writing in the 'if' (you think Reedy and Xover are SPA editors), then they could be said to come under that classification on in so far as they are 'well-intentioned editors with a niche interest' as opposed to editors who operate a single account to push or advocate a POV. I read wiki policy pages, as they come up, once, and promptly forget them, but I thought Smatprt's quotation indicates clearly two types of editor in that taxonomy, those with an axe to grind, and those who have a particular knowledge of a subject, bring a professional or semi-professional knowledge to bear on it, and limit their contributions to that area. Most of the math/science article content comes from SPAs, and there is nothing intrinsically derogative in being labelled one in the latter sense (I thought).Nishidani (talk) 04:50, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If someone edits a variety of science articles on multiple scientific subjects, we usually wouldn't call them an SPA. An SPA would be someone who edits a single article or set of related articles narrowly, e.g. (a favorite one) someone wanting to argue that the Special theory of relativity is wrong but who ignores other physics articles.  Similarly, editing a wide range of literary articles (or even just on a range of topics in Shakespeare studies) is a lot different from editing exclusively a handful of articles related to the SAQ, or (more narrowly than that) on a single hypothesis (Oxfordism) within the SAQ.  67.122.209.190 (talk) 04:45, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I just found this thread. "The reasoning rests on there being no meaningful distinction between a postulated "good" SPA and a ditto "bad" SPA..." The reasoning behind my presenting this evidence is that the IP presented evidence that NinaGreen was an SPA.  The reason I pointed out that others are also SPAs is precisely so that a distinction would have to be drawn between good and bad SPAs, rather than taking the accusation of "SPA" as a means of tarring an editor.  Other means of proving disruptiveness should be used, related to actual editing. The fact that this thread exists means that the evidence is having just the effect I intended, and no one here is going to be labeled an SPA in the negative sense without additional proof of actual bad editing.  And of course there aren't any hard feelings on my part re any of this Xover (: BE——Critical __Talk 05:27, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Tom Reedy's editing is also heavily weighted towards the SAQ, but less extremely than Nina Green's. He has edited over 500 separate pages.  67.122.209.190 (talk) 10:14, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Regarding SamueltheGhost's evidence
In regard to this remark on the evidence page:

You raised this issue of my putative 'hostility' (to which you now add the charge of mendacity) with me here. I am unable to get to the bottom of your complaint, as I cannot understand the evidence you adduce. Perhaps it is clearer to others, but serious charges like that regarding my attitude to you require much more than those diffs, which simply support no such inference. There are many mysteries in the SAQ material, and your interpretation of my neglect of one remark you made as proof of some 'hostility' will remain one of them, at least for me.Nishidani (talk) 22:42, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The alleged 'hostility' is, I think, a matter of tone, difficult to demonstrate or refute. Your "lie", if memory serves, was listing him as an Oxfordian in a tabulation of Oxfordian and Stratfordian contributors. He became very exercised about this. Paul B (talk) 12:51, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If I did that, listing him as an Oxfordian, I certainly do owe him a public apology. I can't find anything except by diff searching at which I am totally incompetent. Nishidani (talk) 12:56, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The edit was on 12 October 2010. . I'm fairly sure you did apologise on your talk page when the error was pointed out. Paul B (talk) 12:58, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * this page. True. That is unfair. I will drop a note on his page and retract that.Nishidani (talk) 13:06, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't blame him for being pissed. I'd be pissed too. For all you know he could be the ghost of Sam Schoenbaum. Not only should you apologise you should shine his shoes for a month (although I don't know if ghosts wear shoes).Tom Reedy (talk) 13:27, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Ghosts only wear one shoe, as any reader of Pindar or Vergil (vestigia nuda sinistri instituere pedis, crudus tegit altera pero)), or Carlo Ginsburg would know, you ignarunt clunk (WP:NPA violation). But enough of this. I have emailed an apology.Nishidani (talk) 13:42, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, the irony! You don't even know how to spell ignernt. Tom Reedy (talk) 14:32, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've received the apology, which I accept, and hope that this particular matter can now rest. Although my Latin isn't bad, I popped the above quote into Google Translate, and got "Bare is the left the steps of a foot, they plant their steps", which I rather like. At this moment I'm wearing sandals (two). SamuelTheGhost (talk) 15:10, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well he said he owed you a public apology. We need to see it to ensure that it is servile enough and contains no hidden ironies or Latin insults. Hold his feet (foot?) to the fire. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:14, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Apropos Smatprt's evidence
Smatprt. I wonder if you could be so kind as to make your accusations commensurate with your diffs, and, in citing my remarks in diffs, construe their meaning correctly.

(a)'Nishidani shames a restricted editor, comments on his “deep pathology”.'
 * The diff cited here says no such thing.
 * "Pretending that the obvious needs meticulous documentation was part of the deep pathology of an earlier period in this page's history. Perhaps you don't know this, but precisely this strategy was what eventually caused a previous editor User:Smatprt, to be removed for a year. It exhausts the patience of everyone in its unilateral desire to equivocate or not hear, while pressing to home advantage some obscure cavil"
 * The deep pathology refers to the nature of debating styles, the pertinacious hairsplitting that overrules commonsense for such lengths that all purchase on the original issue is lost in discursive drift, and that made the article impossible to edit. I certainly think your method lends itself to an interpretation of 'strategy' (grammatically that refers to:'Pretending that the obvious needs meticulous documentation'), and that is admittedly subjective. But the pathology lies in the transactional style this engenders on a page, we all get sucked into futile disputes, and the collective result makes for the deep pathology of the archived pages, generalized neurotic to-and-froing on things that commonsense would not equivocate about.
 * Smatprt. Thanks for acknowledging this point, and adjusting your wording. However, the diff was to justify your assertion I 'shamed' you. As adjusted, there is no sense in adducing that diff for an ostensible 'shaming'. You might like to reconsider. Thanks Nishidani (talk) 06:44, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Nishi, you and Tom have mentioned my name or "the previous editor" dozens of times in the last month, continuing your accusations, and making claims about my "strategy" and other such. You now admit that much is "subjective". Regardless, I believe it has been a form of pa. It's that simple. I do accept your explanation of the use of pathology, so I have removed that quote. Smatprt (talk) 07:27, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

(b)'Nishidani attacks the past article editors with a series of insults, including derogatory comments about these editors technical expertise, interest in policy, etc.
 * The diff's key comment is apparently this:-
 * "'The whole history of this article is that some of its major editors appeared to use it as a doctrinal playground to showcase their private perspective on the question, showed no interest in mastering both the technical literature nor the policies regarding wikipedia articles aspiring to quality review.'"
 * That cannot be construed as an insult. It is part of a request to a newcomer not to constantly refer to an experienced editor in derogatory terms. I do believe that the article's editors for the fringe view show either little knowledge of the academic literature, or spend an inordinate amount of time challenging WP:RS on grounds that ignore key wikipedia policy regarding fringe theories.
 * Sorry, but accusing me of showing no interest in mastering policies, using the article as a doctrinal playground, etc. is indeed an insult and a form of pa. Smatprt (talk) 07:27, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Again. Please read the actual words. 'some of its major editors' is plural, and refers to a number of unidentified wikipedians, not to specifically yourself. It is not a valid diff for what you wish to argue.

(c)Nishidani takes jabs at Wikipedia, administrators, continues to belittle user Smatprt, and urges another editor not to be a “cheerleader” for Nina. 
 * I agree with Smatprt. I doubt anybody has worked as hard at mastering policies, with the possible exception of W.C. Fields studying the Bible on his deathbed. Tom Reedy (talk) 05:31, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I will deal with this diff in my exposition. It is a request that Warshy not poison the well in my attempt to engage with Nina Green. There is one piece of loose phrasing which, perhaps understandably, given my haste, you have completely misconstrued against my intended meaning. That is:'Administrators are overloaded with whiners'. That should be 'Administrators are overburdened by whiners (whose complaints waste administrators' time).' I have said this so many times on wikipedia, in counseling fellow editors not to raise trivial issues at AN/I, Wikiquette and other forums, that most people who follow me would recognize this meaning.
 * Nishi - "taken up the mission whose leading proselytiser, Smatprt, failed to complete, on behalf of de Vereans" - again, you continue to accuse of various things, drag me into another exchange, all in an insulting manner.Smatprt (talk) 07:27, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

(d)'Nishidani takes a jab at Arbitration on Wikipedia, calling it “dysfunctional”.'
 * Surtout, pas trop de zèle. This is not the first time a deeply ironic in-joke by myself to an editing companion has been ripped out of context, which is thoroughly comical, to try and make out, against the recipient's clear understanding, that I am attacking either them, or arbitrators. I was saying:'Sorry to see arbitration is so dysfunctional that you've survived in here, despite your lousy behaviour'.(tongue in cheek) That is called irony, and reads: 'precisely because arbitration is functional, you are still among us.' Pointing out the obvious has been one of the burdens of editing here.Nishidani (talk) 03:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Nishi, if that was a joke, you might want to look at the way you joke. It's insulting and seems to be part of your standard arsenal. I still think its inappropriate, but I'll post a different link and quote instead. There are so many to choose from :) Smatprt (talk) 07:27, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Jehochman's one week block led to this then thisthisand this. I can't find the AN/I page where this was overruled (just those 4 diffs took me, on this lousy connection 2 hours to gather). Check the date of that diff, and the sanction, and its immediate cancellation, though it unaccountably was cited as evidence for incivility in my permaban. The joke is obvious, it was written on April Fools' Day, which, to my everlasting grief, no one noticed! April Fooling can get you permabanned. This is the kind of thing which makes me highly diffident about arguing in arbitration by diffs, but that's the system we choose to work under. I'm trusting that January is two-faced, looking forward rather than back though, rather than poker-faced.:)Nishidani (talk) 11:58, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Leave Smatprt alone; he's doing fine. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:31, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I've also planned to use the "cheerleader" link in my evidence, to illustrate Warshy's nasty style of communication with opponents. I prefer it in this form rather than this, so as to show more clearly the contrast between Warshy's sneering and Nishidani's pleasantly reasonable tone. By all means let's all use it. Bishonen | talk 10:05, 20 January 2011 (UTC).
 * Or you could do it this way. Tom Reedy (talk) 13:21, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Ha ha! Apparently "soon" means "three years" to Smatprt. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:49, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Ha ha! Apparently now "soon" means "six months" to Smatprt. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:48, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I just want to add one or two points about Smatprt's evidence. Smatprt complains of "Tom’s war on the SAQ, deleting all mention of the SAQ from every article on Wikipedia that he could find, misinterpreting WP:COATRACK and WP:ONEWAY." Whether or not he "misinterprets" these policies is a matter for debate, I suppose, but I don't think he does. However, the assertion that he wishes to delete mention of SAQ from "every article" is palpably false. He has expanded some and supported the creation of new ones (such as the Derbyite theory one created by me). What he and others - including myself - oppose is the addition of SAQ material on articles that essentially have nothing to do with it - any Elizabethan/Jacobean writer or historical figure whose name has been brought up in Oxfordian literature; any article on plays, poems or other publications supposed to contain hidden messages pointing to Oxford. That, indeed, was part of Smatprt's strategy to make Oxfordianism as visible as possible on Wikipedia (and there's nothing wrong, as far as I can see, in calling this a "strategy"). A further point on "outing": though he does not mention it, the discussion Smatprt links to on Andy Jones' talk page was part of an attempt by Barryispuzzled (in one of his sock personas) to get BenJonson banned as a sockpuppet of Smatprt. Andy and myself were defending Smatprt against this charge. The casual use of names was not "outing", but a clumsy attempt to be supportive. Paul B (talk) 15:58, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Request for post to be refactored
Could a clerk or other uninvolved admin kindly refactor this post? It is made my an anon identifying itself as Richard Malim and therefore belongs in his section. Due to a formatting error it currently appears to be part of my evidence.--Peter cohen (talk) 11:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The formatting has been fixed by someone, who overlooked however that the section has to be shifted back up and resettled, indented, in Richard Malim's first section.Nishidani (talk) 12:28, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks to everyone who helped fix this and apologies to Richard for initially getting his surname wrong.--Peter cohen (talk) 16:33, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * An IP identifying himself as Richard Malim has again added a chunk of text to the bottom of the page that needs to be moved up to his evidence space. Paul B (talk) 11:40, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Regarding Poujeaux's points
(1)She (Nina) was right to point out that 'Bardolatry' does not belong in the lead 33. I pointed out later that wp:Lede says "specialized terminology and symbols should be avoided in an introduction."


 * Actually, Nina just lifted a whole section of the lead and put it down the page, and then said: 'Let's discuss.' Her reason has nothing to do with wiki policy, and you judge her move as being right on different grounds from those motivating her.


 * You justify her move on policy grounds. But you quote Wp:Lead highly selectively, omitting the crucial 'in general', and then the concluding third sentence. The section, untruncated, reads.

"In general, specialized terminology and symbols should be avoided in an introduction. Mathematical equations and formulas should not be used except in mathematics articles. Where uncommon terms are essential to describing the subject, they should be placed in context, briefly defined, and linked."


 * 'Bardolatry, the adulation of Shakespeare in the 18th century', perfectly fits this definition in Wp:Lede. It is contextualized, defined and linked. The discussion therefore was not a matter of some gut reaction by the 'Shakespeare team'. She was using radical surgery on a lead with a year's work behind it, preemptively, without recourse to policy, and got a detailed discussion. Bardolatry, contrary to your suggestion, is perfectly acceptable in terms of lead policy.Nishidani (talk) 12:09, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Calm down mate! I did not "judge her move as being right". In fact I said "in an inappropriate or overstated way". I entirely agree that her radical surgery was wrong. The point about Bardolatry is that it is not essential to use that jargon word.Poujeaux (talk) 16:26, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm as cool, in the thermometric, not slang acceptance of that word, as Aristophanes' agoric cucumber!:)Nishidani (talk) 23:59, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

(2)'She was also right to point out that "Not All Authorship Theories Postulate A Conspiracy" 34 - and eventually, 'all' was deleted after intervention of a neutral editor. Note that in each case her point was initially dismissed by the Shakespeare team.

The neutral editor was Hamiltonstone who, if I recall, changed it after he found suggestions amenable to her point from others. I had suggested 'generally', and I think he cited that there. You yourself acknowledged that I had proposed modifying 'all' myself here i.e., that in response to Nina's point I had suggested a compromise. Your suggestion there is a 'Shakespearean team' that consistently ignored her points, even when valid, misrepresents a complex set of negotiations. The effect is to give the impression that Nina naively walked into a wall or coterie of coordinated Shakespeare control freaks. The record is far more nuanced. Nishidani (talk) 12:30, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, I thought about all that too. Her claims of being "stonewalled" and her edits instantly reverted are not true, as probably about half of her edits are still in the article. Here's her edit where she moved the Bardolatry reference on 5 Jan, with the summary "Moved origin section from lede to Sh's Background, where it logically belongs." After she was reverted with the full consensus of editors, the word was retained by Poujeux in his rewrite.
 * It was actually Moonraker2 who first suggested taking the term out of the lede, a full 10 days later on 15 Jan, in this discussion after Alan rewrote part of the lede. And just by the way, the word is still in the lede, just moved to a new sentence,
 * I also find it more than a bit ludicrous to compare my actions on the first two days I edited (2 edits total) to her continued and repeated actions, which were fully discussed and explained. She has been editing since 16 May 2010, and she has been referred to policy pages and guidelines again and again, with the only result being her willful misreadings in order to gain a point. Tom Reedy (talk) 14:14, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Tom, first point about stonewalled, I agree, see my 2nd diff. Re Bardolatry, I said it shouldnt be there on Jan 12, but like so much else I guess it just got lost in the noise. Last point - OK for the May incident but what about the July one? On the 'outing' issue, I'm afraid you have broken the rules more than she has. Poujeaux (talk) 16:56, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah! You're right; I found your suggestion here, so you get credit. Nina didn't just "point out that 'Bardolatry' does not belong in the lead", she cut the entire section and moved it down. In any case I think further attempts at explanation would just go to show how confusing it gets around here. I think one of the archive pages is out of order, too, but how to go about fixing that mess is a mystery. I've dropped a note on your talk page about the other points. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:20, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * On the "outing" issue, I do think it is very problematic to make these accusations, since in no case was there any attempt to interfere with the spirit of the rules, which are about protecting the identities of people who wish to remain anonymous. They are designed to avoid intimidation of editors. I was interested in the fact that Tom knew who Ben and Smatprt were, true, but neither of us ever used that as a weapon against them. The discussion occurred on talk pages. Their names were casually used later by editors who thought the editors in question had nothing to hide, and who all use their own real names. Ben is open about his identity. Given Smatprt's editing history (creating the Stephen Moorer article), it seemed an understandable assumption. Also Smatprt misrepresents the policy. There is no rule that one should not confirm or deny one's own real identity. That applies to comments on other "closeted" editors, not to oneself. If a person is open about their identity there is no rule against using their name. You can perhaps say we should have been more pedantic about rules, but regarding Tom, even by July - a couple of months after Tom appeared - one can't expect Tom to be conversant with all rules. Editors come here to edit. They don't read all policy guidelines first. Perhaps the more managerially minded do approach things that way, but I suspect that for most of us it's only when an issue is raised that the details of policy get perused. Paul B (talk) 20:02, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Your latest evidence statement
Regarding this: "Another valid point she made was 'I felt like I was reading Shapiro' - too much of the content and style of the article is based on Shapiro's book."

Have you read Shapiro's book? Because I don't see how anybody who has could make that statement. Shapiro concentrates on an entirely different aspect of the authorship than the Wikipedia article does, though he necessarily does work in some well-plowed fields. Although he is cited 60 times, often he is only added as a backup cite to show that another, older cite is still considered valid, so he is cited 36 times as the only source for a statement or fact. Wadsworth is cited 40 times, and Schoenbaum and Bate 28 each, Love 26 times. If you follow that diff, you'll see that Nina's purpose in saying that was to suggest that the article contained plagiarism, just one more of several straws she grasped in an attempt to kill the article's chances at FA. Tom Reedy (talk) 19:14, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Tom, you are very good at arguing against yourself. Yes, Shapiro is cited about 60 times. It has recently been discussed on the talk page that the sneering sarky tone in the article came from Shapiro ("He never found those hidden manuscripts"). Your frequent attribution of motive does not help your argument. Sooner or later you are going to have to address the question of why it is that independent people keep coming along and saying the page is biased, or why the excellent editors you refer to in your evidence step in to support the anti-strat side. Poujeaux (talk) 10:50, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Apparently you've not only not read Shapiro, but any other authorship book written by an academic either, if you think Shapiro has a "sneering snarly tone". Just a matter-of-fact recitation of anti-Stratfordian arguments verges on the absurd for anyone with any grounding at all in history or literature. It is extremely difficult to keep a straight face when writing about this stuff. I evidently missed the boat when they were handing out whatever it is that other people have that allows them to do so. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:13, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Poujeaux makes a fair point, Tom. Everyone appreciates that you've put in a phenomenal amount of work on the article. But there are editors who disagree with one aspect or another. It's not that everyone who argues for change in the article wants to kill its chances at FA—far from it. It's just that several editors—of varying shades of opinion—have genuine concerns about the article in its current incarnation. It's the perennial WP problem for controversial articles. MoreThings (talk) 12:46, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * A distinction is consistently missed. A 'bias' perhaps presented in all of the academic literature on this subject should not be confused with a personal bias by editors writing to WPNPOV when that is informed by what has been a very stringently austere reading of WP:RS. Outsiders with no familiarity with the subject, but a great sensitivity to democratic rights, the notion of a balanced presentation of issues, minority concerns, can easily construe what is almost universally dismissed as fringe fantasy, as in fact a respectable opinion, minoritarian, in the world of informed opinion. From this perspective, yes, the article is biased, because scholars do not treat the conspiracy theories seriously. That is why, after spending months ransacking the literature and reading a lot of subsidiary literature which cannot even be quoted here (the fringe classics), some of us wonder if any of the outside contributors know what they are stepping into (or on). Neither Tom nor myself, to cite but two examples, have ever hidden our conviction that this stuff is cranky. That is the mainstream belief, and it is the overwhelming consensus of the RS literature. Our 'bias' is that of the literature, and Reedy's editing from August through September was strongly focused on checking what we had done against what WP:NPOV states, i.e. rewriting the text to rid it of the slanting our earlier obsession with content had left in. More work needs to be done. It would help therefore if new editors took a day or two to read just one of the main sources. Wadsworth can be read in 3 hours, Shapiro in a long evening. Nishidani (talk) 01:29, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * WP is all about accurately reflecting in our articles the bias that exists in RS. I don't think anyone would argue with that. Everyone, as far as I'm aware, agrees that the balance within the article should mirror the balance within the RS. I'd say that some editors feel that the article is problematic precisely because it does reflect the self-confessed bias of its editors. That bias permeates the article not as a result of a wilful attempt to subvert its neutrality, but because, as Tom mentions, editors find it difficult to keep a straight face. They find it difficult not to raise their eyebrows at the reader from time to time,  to give her an occasional dig in the ribs: "can you believe this stuff!".


 * That's why you guys are so wedded to fringe belief. You feel that you're doing the reader a disservice if you don't tell her, in no uncertain terms, that anyone who believes this stuff is a raving lunatic . I really cannot believe that if you'd been asked to write this article never having heard of WP, fringe belief would appear where it does now. That said, I'm open to persuasion. And that's pretty much where I came in. I feel the discussion you were having with Nina regarding fringe belief was useful (and that almost everything that has happened since has been anything but useful). MoreThings (talk) 15:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You seem to be trying to transform a rather rigorous reading of WP:RS into a pretext to assert a personal bias. 'Self-confessed bias'? We are all biased. Some of the coolest, impeccably rule-governed remarks all over here can be construed, often on good grounds, as instrumental uses by an editor to push his or her own POV. Neither Tom nor I have hidden the fact we concur with the historic consensus of academic scholarship on Shakespeare and SAQ that the counter-theories are riddled with cranky ideas or show a certain mania. It is the RS that define the subject as fringe, not Tom or myself. It is the RS that makes these harsh judgements, not us. If you read the record I have often had to struggle to get true believing editors from introducing 'evidence' that is patently ridiculous. I even pleaded with a deVerean academic to write one editor an email and advise him to stop pushing nonsense about the 'Mute Swan' reading of Ben Jonson's poem because it is palpably silly. The problem here was not of keeping a poker face while reading the 'evidence'. The problem here for drafters of the article was to get committed deVerean editors to understand the technical literature, and not play politics over every comma. Very few seemed to be willing to do the extensive reading of sources required to get this to GA level. When new sources were introduced, all one got was nitpicking and negotiations, a highly defensive posture to set up bulwarks.
 * I'd appreciate it if you removed that comment about us having a missionary programme to hammer home to readers that this is raving lunatic stuff. There are dozens of Shakespearean scholars who believe that (I personally think, rather, than it is an ideological mindset, like any closed system of thought, totally immune to empirical redress, which means it is not 'mad', but simply out of touch with the real world of contemporary knowledge). The article has, by common agreement, withheld most of the strongest testimonies by Shakespeareans on this in the RS. Somewhere in the archives I compared the leads of many fringe topic articles. The present SAQ comes out very positively if that comparison is made.Nishidani (talk) 23:42, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm happy to strike that remark and I apologise if it caused offence. It's a little tricky for me to know where to go from here without causing further offence. I'll just say that my intention was to let you know how I perceive the article and why I'm uncomfortable with it. I'm not an unbeliever. I think Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare, period. We simply have divergent opinions about the most appropriate wording and organisation for the article. MoreThings (talk) 00:55, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. No offense, feel absolutely free to speak your mind. Some things just puzzle me. I've always read the tone of Tom's work as redolent of the much lamented, and recently deceased Irvin Leigh Matus in its striving for a just balancing of the evidence and claims. That's my 'bias' of course. If you have an opportunity, read Matus's Shakespeare. In Fact, to my mind the best book on this subject, a model of urbanity despite his strong personal views (he was critical also of the Shakespearean establishment), and I think you might see the parallel. One can't expect external readers to be dragged into the atmospheric thickets of these scholarly debates, but to read through a few classic expositions can assist one to assess more objectively the tone of articles. Nishidani (talk) 01:08, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the recommendations. I particularly like the look of Shakespeare, the Living Record. I thoroughly enjoy anything that evokes the milieu in which Shakespeare walked and worked. I'm perhaps a little less taken with Shakespeare, In Fact. I've read enough about the SAQ in general biographies and criticism to persuade me that looking through the fascinating detail of each of the alternative theories might not quite be the most fun experience I've ever had :)MoreThings (talk) 14:26, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * "I really cannot believe that if you'd been asked to write this article never having heard of WP, fringe belief would appear where it does now." Oh yeah? Tom Reedy (talk) 00:24, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Ha! You have a long memory. I would still make a distinction between you giving your own opinion in a newsgroup and you being asked to write a neutral article summarising RS, preferably in their own words. If you're saying that you would have used fringe belief even in those circumstances, then of course I'll take your word for it. MoreThings (talk) 00:55, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * It seems a rather trival matter whether or not the phrase used was "fringe belief", "fringe theory", or some other expresssion, polite ("academically discredited arguments") or impolite ("lunatic nonsense"). That the phenomenon exists and that we sensibly have guidelines to deal with it is what matters. Whatever way we phtase things, there will allays be a difference between academic debate about a range of theories currently considered possible within a discipline and ideas that are simply not taken seriously by the discipline. Some of those ideas have popular followings, for religious, nastionalist, emotional or political reasons. Wikipedia attracts editors who want to promote such ideas, as we all know. Hence the many conspiracy theory articles and others. Paul B (talk) 21:14, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Its rather odd that everyone keeps beating up on "conspiracy theories" - May I remind you that this case is here greatly in part to the allegation of an "Oxfordian conspiracy" to take over the Wikipedia Shakespeare articles? Why is it so outlandish to write about a conspiracy in Elizabethan England (the age of conspiracies and plots), yet the filing party and his supporters here readily believe in a modern day conspiracy. It seems rather hypocritical to me. Smatprt (talk) 21:19, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The term conspiracy theory now refers to the modern phenomenon whereby mass media (and particularly the Internet) causes groups of people to cluster around various attractive ideas. There are plenty of extremely good websites with well-written and referenced expositions that prove everything from the fact that the Moon landing never occurred to the fact that no plane hit the Pentagon. By definition, Oxfordians are people who do not accept results of relevant academic research. People who dismiss the academic establishment often find themselves on Wikipedia where they naturally do not accept established policies. Johnuniq (talk) 23:02, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I can only speak for myself, but I endorse and accept all established policies. And in my dealings with Schoenbaum, BenJonson, Peter Farey, and most other SAQ minority editors, I have not seen them challenge Wiki policies either. I would hope that, unlike some of the parties here, you and most others do not endorse the concept of guilt by association. Smatprt (talk) 23:48, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * "By definition, Oxfordians are people who do not accept results of relevant academic research." As one of those with a completely open mind on this question, I am troubled by the suggestion in this that "relevant academic research" has found definitive answers and that Oxfordians are all in the wrong. There is little certainty, and all positions can be argued.
 * "People who dismiss the academic establishment often find themselves on Wikipedia where they naturally do not accept established policies." For me, this begins with an incorrect premise and moves on to a conclusion which is a non sequitur in any event. Moonraker2 (talk) 03:52, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Let us take a hypothetical situation: Suppose that nearly all relevant scholars (those whose day job is to study Shakespeare and his history, and who publish work that receives serious independent review) concluded that Shakespeare wrote the works. In that scenario, it would be the case that Oxfordians do not accept relevant academic research, and an Oxfordian editor who dismissed the academic establishment might be inclined to not accept claims from another editor that WP:NPOV requires the SAQ article to make definitive statements to the effect that Shakespeare was the author.
 * If you accept my conclusions from the hypothetical situation, it only remains to decide whether sources such as those described at this SAQ footnote show that the hypothetical situation is realized, and I have not seen any reason to doubt the information in that footnote. Of course Shakespeare authorship question should (and does) describe the uncertainties regarding details of Shakespeare's life which lead to the anti-Stratfordian position, and the Oxfordian theory should be (and is) explained. However, WP:DUE and WP:FRINGE are strong principles that are always applied (eventually) in the many cases like this. Johnuniq (talk) 07:11, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I think the length, breadth, and passion of the debate generated by fringe belief suggest that it's not a trivial matter. We're talking about what comes after "all but a few [Shakespeare] scholars...consider it..." in the first paragraph of the lead. That's a decision that would be important in any article. Fringe belief is controversial among SAQ editors, and has been for a long time. If we had really strong RS for it then there could be no argument. To justify a statement as prominent and categoric as the fringe belief one there really should be a solid consensus among editors that the statement is supported by RS. MoreThings (talk) 11:54, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Apologies, but there appears to be a flaw in your logic here: given the strength of the RS there should be no argument; the fact that there is argument in spite of this is the reason we're now at ArbCom. --Xover (talk) 15:41, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * In my view, settling that kind of question is not something for arbcom. An rfc would have been a better way. If there had been an rfc I think there's a strong possibility that your view would have prevailed, because fringe means something different in the wikiworld than in the real world. I don't think you could sell the case that most RS explicitly say that it is fringe, but I do think you might be able to sell the argument, here on WP, that fringe is a reasonable interpretation of what the RS do say. I'm not buying, but I think many would. MoreThings (talk) 16:23, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Re Protonk's evidence
I can't see why Reedy is singled out there. In that thread, Paul Barlow, then Xover and Tom Reedy all questioned the use of the New York Times piece. They argued it was methodologically flawed, given its tendentious phrasing, to give a verdict patently at odds with what a large number of comments by Shakespeare scholars, as opposed to teachers, think of these theories. We all accept that anti-Stratfordian views are entertained by a small minority of the public, of which diverse English department teachers may be an exiguous constituency. Several of us are opposed to attempts to confuse this 'small minority of opinion' out there as representative of what the Shakespearean academic mainstream, i.e., what period scholars engaged with Shakespeare's works and life think. There is a very substantial number of citations throughout all threads indicating unambiguously that, as opposed to college teachers of English, academics who work and publish on Shakespeare dismiss  the antiStratfordian literature as absurd, cranky or not noteworthy. In any one year, 650 new books, 1,500 articles, and 100 doctoral dissertations devoted to Shakespeare beg for attention (Jack Lynch, Becoming Shakespeare 2007 p.285). Of the 1000 doctoral dissertations passed over the last decade, a controversial one by Roger Stritmatter, fits this definition. One in a 1000 is not a 'small minority'. If academic works by tenured scholars, working on the Elizabethan period and deeply sceptical of the mainstream view, constitute a 'small minority' of such specialist publications, Nina or Smatprt or anyone else is welcome to list them, and show thereby that we are incorrect. They don't ever do this. They just refer back to a single newspaper piece(coming from a source, the NYTs, whose resident Shakespearean contributor was a sceptic, and whose apparent bias drew public letters of protest from the Shakespearean establishment). As Xover put it,'This survey does not support changing how we represent scientific consensus from ~0% to 22%. Period.' There were very good reasons why several wikipedians rejected the utility of that ref. for the misleading impression it gave with respect to what other sources say. It certainly wasn't a quirk of Reedy's to do so.Nishidani (talk) 03:39, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I guess Tom has become the default whipping boy here. The perils of sticking your head out and doing the work, I suppose. Anyways… Keep in mind that Protonk is approaching this from a completely different angle than we are. His involvement—hence his “view” into our world, and the small slice of all available data that he's had a chance to evaluate—is limited in a couple of ways. First, he was presented this question in the form “Is the NYT a RS?” (which it is, generally, on enwiki), so he would naturally evaluate it based on the criteria for what is a WP:RS (vs., say, evaluating the reliability of Schoenbaum vs. Greenblatt). Second, his whole view (presumably) of the Authorship issue comes through that one survey, so his starting point is that survey and whether it is obviously flawed. So from his point of view you have a well-established WP:RS reliable source, that does not have obvious flaws, that gives a significant percentage of people that can accurately be classified as “Academics” who in some way indicate knowledge of or give credence to Authorship. Compare this to our perspective on this: our default source standards are things like: written by a specialist of good renown in the relevant area, published on a university press or specialist journal with strict peer-review standards, has survived subsequent critique and commentary by ditto experts. In other words, our default mode would be to disregard anything in the NYT as irrelevant popular crap (and the bias of the relevant NYT editor certainly wouldn't have helped had I been aware of it at the time). Compare to Protonk's view, formed with the NYT article as the only frame of reference. And to add insult to injury, when we informally use the word “academics” we (the collective “we” of the relevant article talk pages) tend do so sloppily: we don't mean “anyone affiliated with academia”, we mean “specialist in the relevant field” (and we're usually fairly elitist about which of those specialists are “good enough” to be worth listening to, a natural consequence of having so many publications to choose from in this area). So from our point of view, those that answered the survey “don't really count”, but from, e.g., Protonk's perspective these are actually bona fide academics. He has absolutely no way of knowing (presuming he isn't a closeted Bardolater ;D) that the overwhelming consensus among the actual specialists in the relevant area disregard Authorship as not only without merit but even patently ridiculous. The Authorship crowd want that in because saying “22% of academics” sounds to most readers like a significant minority; and we don't want it in because it radically misrepresents the reality that “0% of relevant specialists” find it valid or worthwhile. But making that distinction is extremely hard, particularly since “22% of academics” can be argued to be strictly “true”, even if entirely misleading. And had we not had to contend with POV pushing wanting to use this as the camel's nose we might all, I imagine, have been willing to entertain the possibility of using the survey as a RS for saying something like “Despite lacking any merit, it seems to have sown confusion among non-specialists” (pick your own topping: the survey is indicative of something, we just disagree about what, in a non-scientific, pop-culture kind of way). Protonk's main thrust, as I recall it, is that it is a RS, it's just  a question of “RS for what?” We know, in our bones, that the scientific (note the distinction) consensus is universally against any kind of Authorship, but we have that knowledge from far far too much study of the topic. It is a useful reminder that, for instance, the ArbCom cannot possibly know this, and it would take more than three or four pithy quotes—from scholars that they don't know from Adam—to provide them with that same context. Iff one were to attempt it one would first have to provide them with a survey of the entire field; establish which researchers are considered authorative; demonstrate a lack of relevant dissenting points of view; etc. And, for instance—and I believe Shapiro made this point—it would be very hard to discredit the authors espousing the Authorship side when all mainstream scholars disregard them to the point of not bothering to rebut their claims, research, and standards of evidence. In other words, any argument in this case that relies on the reader knowing that Authorship is bunk is highly likely to fail in the face of even a rudimentary counter-argument; and will be drastically weakened even lacking such. Arguments and evidence, to be effective, must of need rather rely on showing that the relevant editors behaviour is inappropriate essentially regardless of the merits or lack of for their position. Not that I'm suggesting we should concede the point—far from it—but we certainly can't rely on it alone. --Xover (talk) 08:31, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Eminently well-said and impeccably fair. The point reminded me of DBachman's two comments when the WP:fringe discussion was conducted just about a year ago.
 * "(a)The fringe theory article should indeed make the distinction between fringe-within-academia and completely-off-the-wall-batshit-crazy. Many items move from the former into the latter category over time, when a formerly arguable academic hypothesis becomes solidly refuted but lives on in crank publications. A useful criterion is that academic mainstream may be wrong at any given moment but forces itself to make progress over time, while fields of crackpottery simply grow weirder over time, possibly fracturing into subsects but never making any progress."
 * "(b)I would be inclined to agree that the Shakespearean authorship thing would qualify as an example of the fringe-within-academia category, while the Apollo hoax stuff is solidly in the off-the-wall-batshit-crazy one."
 * There too, all the evidence we (those of us who subscribe to a stringent reading of WP:RS, whatever frustrations this may occasion) have collapses this otherwise important distinction made by a wikipedian of vast experience who however is judging matters in principle, without apparently anything but a passing acquaintence (?) with the history of the subject. For the overwhelming consensus of academic specialists is that this is completely-off-the-wall, and forms no part of the curriculum of Elizabethan and Jacobean historical and biographical study and yet it is studied as a fringe phenomenon by academics, in terms of the sociology of knowledge, popular perceptions of Shakespeare, as an historical subject which in the high tide of Baconism exercised some fascination even on men of literature, as it no longer does, having been devastatingly demolished by J M Robertson in 1913 etc. I myself first came across it only on reading the aside by Arthur Quiller-Couch (1920) in the general preface to the Cambridge Shakespeare, in Love's Labour's Lost, in the 1969 reprint, which read:
 * "'It has been computed that of the lunatics at present under ward or at large in the British Isles, a good third suffer from religious mania, a fifth from a delusion that they belong to the Royal Family, while another fifth believe either that they are Shakespeare, or that they are the friends or relatives or champions of somebody else, whose clothes and reputation ‘that Stratford clown’ managed to steal; or, anyhow, from touching up the Authorised Version to practising as a veterinary surgeon.'"
 * It is, in short, studied within academia, but forms no part of academia, being dismissed as wholly alien to the scientific study of Shakespeare and his times, but worthy of study by Shakespeareans for its brief blip in the earlier records, and its hydra-like power as a public myth to survive all scholarly deconstruction.Nishidani (talk) 10:59, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Where are all these academics who consider the SAQ a minority--not a fringe--topic? You don't hear of them because they aren't the ones pursuing Shakespeare scholarship in peer-reviewed journals. Here are the two relevant part of the NYTimes survey which supposedly shows that the SAQ is "best characterized as a marginal view".


 * Which of the following best describes your opinion of the Shakespeare authorship question?
 * 2% Has profound implications for the field
 * 3 An exciting opportunity for scholarship
 * 61 A theory without convincing evidence
 * 32 A waste of time and classroom distraction
 * 2 No opinion
 * Keeping in mind that only one answer could be ticked off, I would say that only 5 percent of those polled have a positive view of it. Is that "marginal" or "fringe"? According to Wikipedia, "A fringe theory is an idea or a collection of ideas that departs significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study." Is 5 percent a significant departure or a marginal view?


 * Now look at this one:


 * Do you think that there is good reason to question whether William Shakespeare of Stratford is the principal author of the plays and poems in the canon?
 * 6% Yes
 * 82 No
 * 11 Possibly
 * 1 I don't know
 * What the anti-Strats wanted to do in the article is include the 11 percent "possibly" in their statement, "In a New York Times poll, 17 percent of Shakespeare scholars answered 'yes' or 'possibly' when asked if there was good reason to doubt Shakespeare's authorship", which gives an unrealistic idea of the poll, especially when "yes" is put first in the statement ("possibly" means maybe yes, maybe no). This is what anti-Strats routinely do.


 * Some respected Shakespeare scholars (including Stanley Wells) have gone so far as to compare anti-Stratfordism to a mental illness, which is a radical statement coming from members of the staid Shakespeare establishment. We have nothing that extreme in the SAQ article, and went to great lengths to find statements that were not offensive or extreme, but that made it clear that the SAQ is a fringe belief in the academy. I'm sure more anti-Strats are found in the general public goes, and in fact it draws its biggest supporters from the public, but that is not at all what is meant by a "fringe theory". Hell, the U.S. economy would collapse overnight if everybody woke up completely rational one fine morning. But even so, there are more people who believe in alien abduction than that someone else wrote Shakespeare. The only reason it has a tonier reputation than alien believers is because of association: if you're going to go off the deep end, it's much better to go off the Shakespeare board than the alien board--most people automatically tug their forelock when they hear the name "Shakespeare", while their reaction to aliens is a bit more frightful.


 * And there's always this. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:15, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Shakespeare project guideline
Perhaps as part of the solution to the problem we have here we could, as a wikiproject, draw up a guideline on how authorship issues are to be dealt with on Wikipedia. I don't think this would be a cure-all. Our problems are serious enough that something else is needed, but I think it would help. The guideline would set up standards for how the issue is dealt with both on SAQ focused articles and in more mainstream articles that might have some overlap. Wrad (talk) 21:17, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * On controversial articles dealing with subjects comprehensively covered by scholarship, I think the solution is quite simple. Raise the bar of RS, and require that all statements in the text reflect the best contemporary, peer-reviewed scholarship.Nishidani (talk) 00:08, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that should be true of any Shakespeare article, given the wealth of excellent sources available. Wrad (talk) 00:15, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I doubt if any new guidelines would help. WP:WEIGHT and its associated guidelines (WP:FRINGE, WP:ONEWAY, WP:COATRACK, and others) have been flouted for years, and I expect any new ones would be, too. I don't guess it would hurt to draw up some specific directions on how they're to be interpreted for Shakespeare articles, though. Tom Reedy (talk) 01:06, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Wrad, why don't you post this at the workshop page? Tom Reedy (talk) 12:25, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

SAQ and Wikipedia in the news
---Just want to illustrate the kind of international stage this dispute is on right now. Wrad (talk) 03:45, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Folger Shakespeare Library "By the 1970s the authorship controversy was on life-support—and the anti-Stratfordians admitted as much. But the Internet, a breeding ground for all sorts of theories, including conspiracy theories, has breathed new life into the movement.  Wikipedia provides a level playing field (and, more recently, a bitter battleground for opposing sides)." -- James Shapiro
 * Wall Street Journal "Those who would deny Shakespeare's authorship, long excluded from publishing their work in academic journals or through university presses, are now taking advantage of the level playing field provided by the Web, especially such widely consulted and democratic sites as Wikipedia." -- James Shapiro
 * Chronicle of Higher Education "Delia Bacon's book did not find a wide audience in the 1850s, although her ideas managed to reach the likes of Mark Twain. If she were working today, she could have spread her theories far and wide via the Internet. Much of the Shakespeare lore and speculation online comes from anti-Stratfordians, who Shapiro says have proved much Web-savvier than their rivals with secure academic perches. "Those who would deny Shakespeare's authorship, long excluded from publishing their work in academic journals or through university presses, are now taking advantage of the level playing field provided by the Web, especially such widely consulted and democratic sites as Wikipedia," Shapiro points out in Contested Will."
 * The Literateur "One of the most rewarding things about writing this book has been hearing from teachers—especially in the UK—who are grateful that I have given them the material to respond to students who are curious or confused about who wrote the plays, or who read on Wikipedia that there are major doubts about Shakespeare’s authorship." -- James Shapiro
 * The Australian News Blog"Anyone looking for a primer on the authorship question can check out the Wikipedia entry here [link provided]." -- Stephen Romei, Literary Editor
 * New Jersey Online Star-Ledger "Shapiro makes a compelling case for Shakespeare, but it is doubtful that the matter will rest there. When a website on the authorship question was established two years ago, it attracted 600,000 hits. In their research, future scholars no doubt will employ Wikipedia, Google and Yahoo, three words thankfully not found in the Shakespeare canon."


 * It's also worth noting Shapiro's statement in his TLS article last year, which identified the James Wilmot forgery; "I have no doubt that James Wilmot's entry in the DNB will quickly be emended; but with so much invested in extending the history of recorded doubts about Shakespeare's authorship, I am less confident that those consulting Wikipedia will see much altered in the many entries on that site devoted to the fantasy that Shakespeare did not write the plays." ("Forgery on Forgery", TLS, March 28 2010) The irony is that our Wilmot entry had been altered to reflect the new findings even before his article was published! However, Nina's very first edits (as an IP) were attempts to roll it back and fulfil Shapiro's prophecy. Paul B (talk) 17:51, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Contensted Will (See especially the last paragraph carrying onto the next page. Shapiro's examination of the state of SAQ on Wikipedia leads him to conclude that on Wikipedia: "Persistance and the ability to get in the last word, rather than expertise, are rewarded.") In the academic Shakespeare world, Wikipedia is becoming a poster child for the undermining of expertise. Wrad (talk) 18:58, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Still more:


 * ''New York Times comment by a reader: "This article completely misses the point. The author of the Shakespears plays WAS NOT William Shakespeare, theatre owner, it was Edward De Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford. Perhaps Mr. Mackey could educate himself on this point. Perhaps even look it up on wikipedia."


 * Shakespeare Oxford Society Online News: "In case you haven’t seen this, there is a nice Wikipedia entry about the forthcoming Roland Emmerich film — Anonymous. The article states right at the beginning that the film presents Edward de Vere, the 17th Earl of Oxford, as the true author behind the Shakespeare works. ... The section about the Controversy is interesting highlighting how James Shapiro really misrepresents in an op-ed piece the positions taken by three U.S. Supreme Court Justices at the famous 1987 moot court case on the Shakespeare authorship question. ... Note especially the quote from Sir Derek Jacobi, who plays the narrator of Anonymous: 'I’m on the side of those who do not believe that the man from Stratford-upon-Avon wrote the plays. I think the name was a pseudonym, certainly. [Anonymous] puts the authorship question firmly and squarely on the big screen. It’s a very risky thing to do, and obviously the orthodox Stratfordians are going to be apoplectic with rage.'"
 * Tom Reedy (talk) 19:05, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Bertaut's comments
Bertaut writes the following "One of the main principles of 'Stratfordian editors' (I use that term with tongue firmly in cheek) here on Wikipedia is that no 'proper' Shakespearians engage with the theory, either to support or refute it, but this is no longer tenable with the publication of Shapiro's Who wrote Shakespeare?". Bertaut is repeating a claim repeatedly made by anti-Stratfordians as evidence that SAQ is in some sense a legitimate scholarly field. But Shapiro's book is just one in a long line of books replying to anti-Stratfordian claims. It's not new at all. In chronological order, others include: GH Townsend, William Shakespeare Not an Impostor, George Routledge (1857), Wadsworth, Frank, The Poacher from Stratford: A Partial Account of the Controversy over the Authorship of Shakespeare's Plays, University of California Press (1958); HN Gibson The Shakespeare Claimants (1962); George McMichael, Shakespeare and His Rivals: A Casebook on the Authorship Controversy, Odyssey Press (1962); Irvin Matus Shakespeare in Fact (1994); Dobson, Michael (2001), "Authorship controversy", in Dobson, Oxford Companion to Shakespeare, Oxford University Press (2001); Kathman, David, "The Question of Authorship", in Wells, Stanley; Orlin, Lena C., Shakespeare: an Oxford Guide, Oxford University Press (2003); Scott McCrea, The Case for Shakespeare: The end of the authorship question, Greenwood (2005). That's just a selection of the main texts, not including numerous articles, reviews etc or technical discussions of Baconian ciphers and other specific arguments.

Bertaut's first assertion ("one of the main principles of 'Stratfordian editors'... here on Wikipedia is that no 'proper' Shakespearians engage with the theory, either to support or refute it") is therefore clearly not true in fact. No editor here has ever said that at all to my knowledge, and the current SAQ page amply refutes that assertion since it refers to all the books listed above and gives the history. Shapiro's book differs from the others in one significant way. He's not interested in making a point-by-point refutation of anti-Stratfordian arguments, but rather placing them in historical and cultural context. He wants to explain them as ideologies in their time, appealing to emotional and intellectual proccupations of particular eras (including our own era of internet conspiracy theories and on-line debate). What this represents is a shift towards seeing SAQ arguments as historically/culturally interesting phenomena, worthy of discussion as an object of study, not as theories to be refuted. Indeed the whole premise of the book is that arguments have been so thoroughly refuted by modern scholarship that that's no longer an interesting thing to do. It was actually at the beginning of the 20th century that these ideas had their greatest academic legitimacy (see here for the context). It's sleight of hand to present Shapiro's book as evidence of increased legitimacy given to SAQ arguments when in fact it represents the opposite. An analogy: early Christian writers spent a lot of effort trying to prove that pagan gods such as Zeus and Apollo don't really exist, because they were arguing with people who believed in them. Modern scholars who study Greek myths do not refute arguments for the existence of Zeus and Apollo, rather they look at why people believed what they did and what those beliefs meant to them. That's not because the real existence of Zeus and Apollo has somehow become more widely accepted since late antiquity, but because it's no longer a live issue at all. Paul B (talk) 09:27, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Paul, these are not Bishonen's comments, they are Bertaut's! Please edit to avoid confusion. Poujeaux (talk) 09:36, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, sorry. Silly slip. I've changed the name. Rather than use strike-through I've just altered it for ease of reading. Paul B (talk) 09:39, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Regarding Richard Malim
"The resolution of historical questions depends on evidence and this is where historians and lawyers have to be consulted, as they, and not literary academics and critics, are the experts in the field of evidence" Of course, a doctorate in the subject of literary history is absolutely unnecessary, as long as you have a degree in litigation or criminal law. Perhaps we can ask Alan Dershowitz or summon up, with the assistance of Percy Allen's medium, who was in direct contact with Shakespeare's world, the spirits of Learned Hand or Oliver Wendell Holmes, or Clarence Darrow to figure out where literary historians and period specialists went wrong. . .I can see I'm not going to catch much sleep tonight as, like counting sheep, the names of several hundred historians, ancient and modern, pass through my mind as I review their qualifications in law to find out whether I should trust them any more. Payback time will come, I guess, when the Supreme Court's decisions on tort arbitration or taxation law are delegated to people with a degree in literature.Nishidani (talk) 11:55, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The standards for legal evidence and literary evidence are not the same. That they are assumed to be so is one of the specious principles anti-Stratfordians put forward. Another one is the idea that Elizabethan drama is just like modern drama, only with the characters talking funny. Tom Reedy (talk) 12:31, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The standards of legal evidence might well be relevant if they were actually being applied, but does anyone really believe that Stevens applies those standards? He is indulging in amateurish speculation, that's all. He says "He never had any correspondence with his contemporaries, he never was shown to be present at any major event -- the coronation of James or any of that stuff. I think the evidence that he was not the author is beyond a reasonable doubt." That's just a parody of logic. So presumably Marlowe, Kyd, Webster and all the other authors whose correspondence does not survive, or does not mention playwrighting, are to be denied their works too. And how does being present at a coronation make one more or less likely to be a playwright? The comments are indicative of a fundamental ignorance about the mores of the period. That's why you need detailed knowledge of the literature and values of an era; of the extent and kind of evidence that survives; of the coventions of literature. Without that knowledge Stevens has nothing of value to say. Paul B (talk) 13:01, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

More Things' evidence
More Things states "'Paul, above, can’t locate the part of WP:FRINGE which legitimises Nina’s demand for an RS for fringe theory. It’s here: “The governing policies regarding fringe theories are the three core content policies, WP:Neutral point of view, WP:No original research, and WP:Verifiability." No, that's not it at all. That's just a list of policy links. More Things is misdescribing what I said here. Nina demanded an RS using the exact word "fringe". There is no such policy, and as I said elsewhere, WP:FRINGE would be unworkable if there were. It is analagous to asking for a reliable source that uses the exact word "notable" in order for the subject of an article to pass WP:NOTE. 'Fringe' and 'notable' are terms chosen by the Wikipedia community to describe particular judgements made about topics. We do not expect the outside world to use those exact words. If a theory is described as "utterly preposterous nonsense in which no scholar believes" are we to exclude it from the "fringe" category because the author happened not to use the word "fringe"? And yet that is what Nina was insisting upon. Any number of sources that used other words with the same meaning were arbitrarily excluded by her interpretation of the guidelines. Furthermore, there are some fringe theories that are so fringe that they are not even discussed in RS. That too is addressed in WP:Fringe and would include aspects of SAQ. Paul B (talk) 16:26, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I enjoyed reading More Things' piece; I thought it was quite entertaining.
 * Nina didn't demand an RS; she demanded an RS that met her idiosyncratic requirements, because she claimed that the SAQ "field" had changed so rapidly in the past 10 years. The sources had to have been written by specialists with a PhD in English renaissance literature and have been published in the past decade, although she said that a source written in 2003 was actually too dated to use. She said Alan Nelson was not RS for the Oxford biography because he wasn't a "trained historian" (read this bizarre discussion if you feel suicidal and want to end it all), even though he's written many historical books, and that the only reviews of his Oxford biography that counted were those of "trained historians". She also repetitively declared that scholars such as Carroll, Love, Schoenbaum or Nelson could not be classified as literary historians.
 * It's funny how none of her strictures apply to anti-Stratfordian sources. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:27, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Mysteriously the fact that the editorial board of Brief Chroncles consists almost exclusively of people with no qualifications whatever in the literature or history of the Tutor-Stuart era does not affect Nina's belief that it is a reliable source. Paul B (talk) 18:34, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Paul. My point is that anyone can challenge any part of any article. From WP:CHALLENGE: "This policy requires that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed to a reliable published source". Nina challenged "fringe belief". Unless you're going to argue that the RS said one thing but really meant "fringe belief" then you have to provide RS saying "fringe belief".


 * The problem with WP:FRINGE is that it makes a binary distinction between fringe and not fringe. That leads editors into thinking that it defines a group of articles which have their own rules and exemptions. It does no such thing. All articles are subject to the core policies.


 * WP:FRINGE is pernicious. I'm pretty sure that if it didn't exist SAQ wouldn't use "fringe theory". So what we have is guideline terminology leaking into article space, and that should never happen. Editors should read the sources and either summarise them in their own words, or even better summarise them in the words of the sources themselves. Because of WP:FRINGE editors start scanning RS looking for anything that will support the use of "fringe", thereby skewing the whole article.


 * WP:FRINGE starts off by defining fringe theories as ideas that depart significantly from the mainstream and ends up by giving as an example that Paul McCartney died in 1966. Well yeah, that departs significantly from the mainstream, as I'm sure Macca would agree. Any guideline that allows for such latitude in interpretation is guaranteed to result in the kind of endless to-ing and fro-ing that SAQ sees. I think it would have been much better to have called the guideline something like WP:CONTEXT and to have stressed that any article which can be seen as part of a broader topic area should inform the reader about its position within that broader area. For most articles that involves no controversy at all. It comes as a natural part of putting the article together.


 * The very term itself: fringe theory coats the thing in an academic patina that it just doesn't merit.In the context of the SAQ it conjures the image of herds of bard bods coming together to discuss the weighty issue of SAQ as Fringe Theory. In truth, if they discuss the SAQ at all they look at the substantive issues—they don't waste time worrying about whether or not to call it a fringe theory, and nor should we. MoreThings (talk) 22:57, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * According to your logic, per WP:CHALLENGE that I could require every instance that infers that water is wet within the encyclopedia to provide one or more sources that states that as fact - in unequivocal terms. This is patently foolish, you will agree - because first it has to be agreed that there is a legitimate challenge. Now, I give that there may be a case for the precise usage of the term "fringe theory" - but that it would need to have consensus that there is a case. Otherwise it opens the entire subject/talkpage open to vexatious challenges on what might be considered mainstream orthodox NPOV commentary. The appearance of such wikilawyering is something that has raised concern in the past and has been raised in this process. Abuse of process is as indicative of bad faith as is disregard for same. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:18, 25 January 2011 (UTC) ps. Per AGF, I am assuming that the "bubbling cauldron" section of your evidence is intended to be in a humorous style. I am correct, yes?
 * WP:CHALLENGE refers to material that is likely to be, or has been, challenged. Nobody has challenged that water is wet and I guess that nobody is likely to. The use of "fringe belief" has been challenged, and so a RS must be provided. Yes my evidence is intended to be light-hearted. Yes I meant what I wrote. MoreThings (talk) 00:33, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The trouble with your theory about the SAQ, MT, is that it has been labeled a fringe theory long before Wikipedia existed. I suspect that without WP:FRINGE, you'd have even more promotional articles trying to pass off fringe or marginal topics as mainstream, since doing so is one way of promoting them. Tom Reedy (talk) 02:32, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "Your theory??". Read MT's statement: "For the record, I think Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare--William Shakspeare of Stratford Upon Avon, the upstart crow." Poujeaux (talk) 14:12, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Uhh, I wasn't referring to the SAQ theory, Poujeaux. I was referring to MT's theory about using the term "fringe" to describe the SAQ. He makes such statements as "WP:FRINGE is pernicious. I'm pretty sure that if it didn't exist SAQ wouldn't use "fringe theory" and "In truth, if they (academics) discuss the SAQ at all they look at the substantive issues—they don't waste time worrying about whether or not to call it a fringe theory, and nor should we. Neither of these is true. The term "fringe theory" is well understood outside Wikipedia (I disagree with Paul about this) as an idea or set of ideas that demonstratively contradicts the general understanding of the topic, and that is usually held by only a small group of people. The term exactly describes the SAQ. The idea that Barack Obama was born in Kenya is a fringe theory that has been well-covered in the mainstream media, just as the SAQ has. Such coverage makes neither idea any less of a fringe theory, no matter how many people espouse it, how famous they are, or how many petitions are circulated to have them accepted by the experts. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:07, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, misinterpreted your comment. But I do think everyone's life would be easier if we could agree on a less provocative wording like in the main Shakespeare article, "Only a small minority of academics believe there is reason to question the traditional attribution". Poujeaux (talk) 17:19, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You then run into all kinds of semantic problems. How small is "small", and what is an "academic"? The NYTimes surveys English professors who teach Shakespeare, not those who research and publish in peer-reviewed journals. When one noted Shakespearean says he knows no member of the ASA that questions the authorship (since modified to one, although I know of one other at least), how can that be interpreted as a "small minority"? And why should any encyclopedia worthy of the name modify a description that is supported by reliable sources in order to mollify the feelings of a particular group? We are not—as I pointed out—using the most extreme language out there, nor are we trying to expunge all information about the various SAQ theories, contrary to what has been asserted, and in fact the SAQ article is quite progressive compared to some academic opinion. You should read this thread at the SHAKSPER listserv to get an idea of what we—and by that I mean good faith editors of the WP SAQ article—are going up against by spending any time at all on this subject. One thing we all agree on: it is a time sink all out of proportion to its importance. If WP policies were adhered to we wouldn't be spending our time here on this arbitration. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:56, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes the term "fringe theory" exists outside Wikipedia; there's even a TV series called Fringe about fringe theories in science, but it's not a universally accepted technical term with a defined meaning in scholarship. It's an informal term. Scientists and historians do not officially declare theories to be "fringe". Paul B (talk) 17:24, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I appreciate that some scholars have used "Lunatic Fringe", Tom, and you could make a case for saying "some scholars have been derisive of..." or "...have scoffed at..."—if that's what we really want to do. My point is that we wouldn't be using "fringe theory/belief" at all if it didn't appear in WP:FRINGE. I suggest that if editors had never heard of WP:FRINGE then "fringe belief" would not be in the article. So that term has appeared in the article not as a result of reading sources but as a result of reading WP guidelines. It's there because it has a much greater significance for editors than it does for RS or readers. MoreThings (talk) 14:58, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

So all those people who have called the SAQ a fringe theory travelled to the future in a time machine, read WP:FRINGE, and then returned to their own time and called it a fringe theory? I can't quite put my finger on it, but there's something wrong with that scenario, but the word "ridiculous" keeps popping up. The term "fringe belief" or "fringe theory" perfectly describes the position of the SAQ in academic discourse. The reasons we chose not to use the term "lunatic fringe" (in either the article or the notes) or allude to the many suggestions that anti-Stratfordians suffer from some form of mental dysfunction are (1) Fringe policy states "restraint should be used with such qualifiers to avoid giving the appearance of an overly harsh or overly critical assessment. This is particularly true within articles dedicated specifically to fringe ideas", and (2) simple courtesy and decency. I know some very intelligent Oxfordians who are good people and not at all like some of the editors involved in this case. The beliefs they have may be illogical, wrong-headed and impervious to reason, but I doubt that any of us would 'scape whipping on those terms. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:36, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


 * That's not what I said, Tom. I said that editors, not sources, have been influenced by WP:FRINGE. I'm suggesting that if they hadn't read WP:FRINGE it's unlikely that editors would have selected fringe belief from the millions of words written on the subject. Their choice owed more to their reading of the guideline than to their reading of the sources.


 * I disagree that "fringe theory perfectly describes the position of the SAQ in academic discourse" because it doesn't perfectly describe anything. It's too imprecise. You give your own definition of fringe theory below. SAQ refers the reader to a book called "Why people believe weird things..." for its definition. WP:FRINGE offers yet more alternatives. Neither fringe theory nor fringe belief appear in the OED. This lack of a clear definition is why the term is a poor choice to describe academia's position on the SAQ.


 * And it doesn't matter that Lunatic Fringe doesn't appear in the article. Wherever fringe theory goes, the Lunatic Fringe is discerned in the background. That's one of the reasons why its use has caused so much hassle. The article may say fringe belief but it evokes the Lunatic Fringe. For many readers, fringe belief means Macca died in 1966. MoreThings (talk) 19:58, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Ah, I take you point, although since the term is used in the Shakespeare guides I don't know that it's valid. How would you describe the position of the SAQ among academic Shakespeareans? A "small minority" certainly is not an accurate description. "Conspiracy theory" is also used a lot. And what is this "Why people believe weird things..." source the SAQ uses? Typo or joke (in this area it's sometimes hard to tell when someone's joking; see Prince Tudor theory).Tom Reedy (talk) 20:49, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The book is Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time, a well known xploration of belief in alien abduction etc. It is nowhere referred to on the SAQ page, but it is cited in the stubby Fringe theory article, which is linked. Paul B (talk) 20:56, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Re how I would describe it, I suggested to Xover "The overwhelming consensus among the most highly regarded Shakespeare scholars is that William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon wrote the works attributed to him". Of course, that could be shot down because of "overwhelming" and "most highly regarded". The key thing is that you find a form of words that has consensus. I see that smatprt has "dismissed by the great majority of academic scholars", so perhaps you're not as far apart as one might imagine. Fringe seems to be a sticking point, and I can understand why. MoreThings (talk) 12:26, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The main objection to the term "fringe" stems from their desire to be accepted into the mainstream scholarly discourse, not from the reality, which is that the topic is fringe, as copious WP:RS references make clear, regardless of your personal feelings. Whether you think it's fringe or I think it's fringe is immaterial; the fact of the matter is that it is a fringe theory among academics, which is exactly what is claimed in the article lede. Anti-Stratfordian strategy is based on promotion to change the public perception, not scholarship, as the text and website of the Declaration of Reasonable Doubt make clear. The drive to have it declared a minority theory instead of a fringe theory includes its presence here on Wikipedia, and in fact this very discussion.
 * And the OED includes a definition of "fringe" that describes how it is used here: 2 b. fig. occas. in sense of an appendage or sequel; also (slang or colloq.), irrelevant matter. In wider use: an outer edge or margin of any kind, material or immaterial; an outer limit of a country, area, or population. Also attrib. = existing on the edge or margin of an area or region. Cf. also Celtic adj. 2.
 * 1960   G. Murray in Spectator 28 Oct. 639,   I have‥adopted the term ‘fringe’ to indicate those medical practices which are not available to the patient in the NHS as a matter of course.
 * 1962   Guardian 4 July 7/1   The posturings of a bunch of fringe-lunatics.
 * Tom Reedy (talk) 14:56, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Simply asserting "the fact of the matter is..." doesn't really take us much further, and, conspiracies notwithstanding, I'm a bit so-what? about editors' motives. If the article is to say "all but a few...consider it a fringe belief" then supporting RS need to be produced and editors need to be convinced. To that extent your opinion, like mine and that of every other editor, is important. It's the consensus of editorial opinion that decides what goes into the article. Anyhoo, we seem to be a long way from discussing the arbcom case, now. The SAQ debate has run on for donkey's years and will no doubt run on for donkey's more. We ain't gonna sort it here. MoreThings (talk) 23:43, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Nobody is "simply asserting" anything, either here or in the article. You seem to think that no supporting RS has been produced, when six academic sources have been provided, all saying the same thing, more or less. Most editors of the article are convinced, and those that remain unconvinced are unconvincable simply because they refuse to be, not because reliable sources haven't been provided. A person holding a belief that is not based on logic will not be argued out of that belief by logic. Insisting that they be convinced in order to move ahead is futile, both at Wikipedia and in the world outside of Wikipedia. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:14, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't accept that those citations are sufficient to support fringe belief--an alternative forumulation, yes, fringe, no. I thought your debate with Nina about this was useful, perhaps it will pick up again after all this is over. MoreThings (talk) 12:13, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I think your dispute is with Wikipedia, not me, specifically WP:RS and WP:FRINGE. I can only refer you further to this discussion on the "fringe theory" talk page (in fact, almost that entire page) and this discussion on the fringe theory noticeboard, where Smatprt argued that the SAQ was a fringe theory. The "discussion" with Nina, if you want to call it that, was carried out over several pages and several weeks, and if anything is a classic example on her part of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT than anything else. Tom Reedy (talk) 12:59, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * In my view WP:FRINGE has nothing to say about whether or not SAQ should be using the term fringe belief. Would you agree with that? In my view the debate is exclusively about whether or not the RS support the assertion that "All but a few scholars consider...". MoreThings (talk) 14:05, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes but that was exhaustively discussed, and we've had no reply to the repeated question as to why great majority should be written when the sources in support are far stronger, and indeed anti-Stratfordians themselves concur on this with what the academic mainstream write. Check the notes to the passage you cite from Smatprt's version and you read precisely on this the following.
 * "The traditional theory that Shakespeare was Shakespeare has the passive to active acceptance of the vast majority of English professors and scholars, but it also has had its skeptics, including major authors, independent scholars, lawyers, Supreme Court justices, academics and even prominent Shakespearean actors. (William Niederkorn, an anti-Stratfordian, non-Shakespearean scholar)"
 * "The Stratfordians can, however, legitimately claim that almost all the great Elizabethan scholars who have interested themselves in the controversy have been on their side (N.H.Gibson)"
 * When both sceptic and mainstream sources affirm that Shakespearean experts are virtually unanimous in dismissing the theory, one writes to that effect. Watering such unequivocal judgements down to 'great majority' has no other function than to conjure up, by tacit implication, the null case of a 'small minority' of Shakespearean academics putatively disposed to accept the theory. This engineering of language works to influence the judgement of the SAQ theories as, not fringe (outside serious discourse), but minority views (within the academy). Do this, and the whole structure and equilibrium of the article changes, as the relevant protocols of WP:Fringe no longer apply, and WP:RS interpretations loosen up to allow a whole waggon train of material to be driven back into the article. Such tweaks have only once function, to create the misprision that fringe sources are to have a parity with mainstream academic sources, because the former are deemed to be what they are not, the views of a significant dissenting minority in academe. Nishidani (talk) 13:49, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree that great majority is not strong enough. I'd happily argue in favour of making that stronger but I can’t support the use of fringe. At least when we're arguing about quantifiers it's clear to everyone what exactly what it is we're arguing about. Fringe just clouds the water.


 * I'm genuinely confused as to why everyone is so attached to WP:FRINGE. It doesn’t say anything that’s not in the core policies. It explains them a bit, but it doesn’t add anything to them, and it doesn’t modify them. It can’t—it’s a guideline, not a policy. This is what I see when I read the first paragraph of WP:FRINGE.


 * Wikipedia summarizes significant opinions, with representation in proportion to their prominence. A Wikipedia article about a fringe theory anything under the sun should not make it appear more notable than it is. Claims must be based upon independent reliable sources.An idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea any article under the sun and reliable sources must be cited that affirm the relationship of the marginal idea to the mainstream idea in a serious to support any material that may be challenged.


 * And so on throughout the article. I would support having a guideline that makes it clear that articles within a topic area should describe how they are situated within that broader framework, but that guideline would encompass all kinds of articles, not just so-called fringe ones. Creating a dichotomy between fringe and non-fringe is in my opinion very unhelpful.


 * Most of WP:FRINGE is, as the Queen would say, stating the bleedin’ obvious. Take this clause from its fourth sentence An idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea; well SAQ is definitely not an article about a mainstream idea, so is to okay for SAQ to give undue weight to an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field?  Is it okay for any article to do such a thing?


 * Sorry about the rant. I was as mild as milk before I was exposed to SAQ :) MoreThings (talk) 23:25, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "An idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field"
 * Adverbs are used to qualify a statement to lend it precision. The evidence endlessly laid out for editors, readers and arbitrators overwhelmingly shows that the alternative candidate theory has no support tout court in serious Shakespearean scholarship. It's shouting from the bleachers, from people who refuse to train and actually play the game, according to the rules, about which they are so passionate. What you say is not a 'rant'. It is a reasoned opinion which ignores both the precise weight of words in policy, and the overpowering evidence for the state of scholarship. The latter is understandable. The evidence for this is all in the archives, which are unreadable, or in any decent library of Shakespeareana, which, as I observed with a tinge of melancholy last week while walking through a substantial national collection, is ignored as 99% of readers occupied the seats to exploit a free internet connection and google. Nishidani (talk) 01:32, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Ah, well. At least we're agreed that WP:FRINGE and fringe belief are equidistant from precise writing. MoreThings (talk) 12:13, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

There is a comment on that section (the "helpers" issue, not the wit) here. Bishonen | talk 23:42, 25 January 2011 (UTC).
 * It's not really anything to do with "helpers". Three editors with no particular axe to grind told you in pretty strong terms that they disagreed with what you were doing. You could have taken that on board but instead you decided that we were there to take sides with Nina against you. I would have made exactly the same post if you or any other admin had behaved towards Tom the way you behaved towards Nina. It wasn't about Nina or "helpers" or taking sides. It was about impartiality. MoreThings (talk) 00:33, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

(drive-by post, apologies in advance if it comes across as anything less than polite!) MoreThings, I really wish you'd have presented the argument above, re use of “fringe” in the article, on the talk page before we ended up here! That's a good well-reasoned argument, resting on valid foundations and framed in a constructive way, that it would have been possible to discuss in a collegiate way (that's contrasted with other exchanges on the article's talk age, not with your own previous comments, and so not in any way intended as a criticism; in fact it's intended as a straight-forward compliment!). I suspect I would have disagreed anyway—cf. Tom's link to what the WP:RS have to say about it—but this I would have been happy to discuss and to look for a compromise (Tom and Nish deliberately left out “lunatic fringe” because it was too harsh for an encyclopedia article; you could argue that they should have included it by the same reasoning as your argument above). I think you also need to be aware that we're used to any attempt to meet the other side half way being seized on as an opportunity to challenge whether Authorship is subject to the policy on the Wikipedia term of art “fringe theory” (which, while you may dislike it, is still a content guideline on enwiki). Thus any attempt to challenge “fringe” in the article is very likely to be conflated (either by the challenger, or the “defender”, or both) with a challenge to the applicability of WP:FRINGE; and everyone will react accordingly (this is what happens in an environment where capacity for trust has been exhausted). It also strikes me that “anyone can challenge” is not a carte blanche to “challenge everything (that I don't like), every time, repeatedly”; there has to be some limit to the “nuisance” challenges (if you'll pardon the prejudicial choice of word) if we're ever to make progress on the article(s). --Xover (talk) 08:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Xover. Working on contentious articles like SAQ must be like running through treacle. WP is something to do for fun...and so I haven't posted at SAQ. When I found myself pulled into this case I thought I may as well pipe up, hence my post above.


 * FWIW, I'd like to see the lead start with a really strong description of the scholarly consensus. A lot depends on what would be acceptable to the antis--perhaps they could be asked to come up with something. I'm thinking of something like "The overwhelming consensus among the most highly regarded Shakespeare scholars is that William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon wrote the works attributed to him". I don't know if that would be acceptable to Nina & Co., but something along those lines would be good. Also in the lead should be mentions of the SAC, The Declaration, the NYT survey, and name checks for Twain, the Supreme Court Justices, et al. After finishing the lead a reader should understand that the overwhelming consensus among Shakespeare scholars is that Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare but there are a lot of other people—not lunatics—who don't believe he did. In fact there is a cottage industry devoted to the argument that he didn't. In other words, the lead should include the kinds of things you would say to somebody to bring them quickly up to speed on the whole issue.


 * But it's easy to sit here thinking up solutions to what is clearly a very thorny problem, and I realise that life for you guys in the trenches is a good deal trickier. Good luck with it! MoreThings (talk) 12:57, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm surprised Xover thinks that More Things' statement was well argued. He repeats Nina's absurd claim that the actual word fringe must be used "Unless you're going to argue that the RS said one thing but really meant "fringe belief" then you have to provide RS saying "fringe belief". No you don't. The guideline has never worked that way, nor does its wording support that frankly impossible reading of it. Participants in the fringe theory discussion board have never read it that way. More Things also asserts that "Because of WP:FRINGE editors start scanning RS looking for anything that will support the use of "fringe", thereby skewing the whole article". This is not in my experience true at all. Theories about aliens building the pyramids are treated as fringe because that it what they are, not because editors look for sources to place a theory in a specific category. All that WP:FRINGE requires is evidence that a theory is rejected in the mainstream of science, scholarship etc. One of the main purposes of the guideline is to maintain the encyclodedic nature of the project, so that "fringe" ideas (or whatever term one prefers) are not imported into main article space in a way that gives them credence. It's perfectly reasonable to refer to the rumour of McCartney's death in his biography, or even to have a whole article on the Paul is Dead phenomenon (which we do). It is not reasonable to include within the McCartney article "evidence" that he really is dead, and to add to articles on various Beatles albums the "evidence" of his demise contained within their cover art and lyrics. nor would it be appropriate for the Paul is Dead article to be a battleground of arguments about whether or not he is still alive. That is the equivalent of what Anti-Stratfordian editors seek to do, and that is what WP:Fringe is designed to avoid. Paul B (talk) 09:53, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one, Paul. In my eyes WP:CHALLENGE is fundamental to the way WP works. If an article makes a claim then there must exist RS to support that claim. If SAQ asserts "all but a few...fringe belief" then it needs RS to support that assertion. We can't write in an article that such-and-such is a "fringe theory" just because a handful of WP editors and a WP guideline say that it is; that would be OR in its purest form. MoreThings (talk) 12:57, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Surely the footnote provides sufficient verification that SAQ is a fringe belief (a significant minority belief in certain circles, but WP:FRINGE in the relevant discipline). Johnuniq (talk) 21:55, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

General thoughts from the secondary drafting Arbitrator
Hey folks, I figured it would be good to touch base.. while Brad and I have had preliminary discussions about the type of things we'd expect to see in a proposed decision, we have nothing concrete yet.. (although we plan on working on it when we can).

I just wanted to give my .02 on how I feel the case is going so far, and see if this resonates with everyone.

In most Arbitration cases, what we're looking for is straight to the facts. "User X is disruptive in consensus discussion" (links to diffs of the disruption). "User Y edit-wars to keep their preferred version active without discussing it on the talk page" (links to the reverts, and attempts to engage them to discuss.)

Here, we're getting.. well, I guess a good analogy would be the 35,000 feet view. We see evidence pointing at groups or blocs of editors instead of single editors. It makes focusing our proposed decision.. well.. I was going to say more difficult, but I should say it's a different way to approach it instead.

I get the heebie jeebies when I'm asked to rule on content. The sides obviously have done all the background work, gathered the sources and presented the arguments. It's something our editors spend a significant amount of time working on. For some editors, it's their job, or primary hobby. It's difficult for me, personally to try to step into a dispute where not only do I not have an opinion on the content being discussed, I've never really dug into the content area in the first place.. I have to say, the only time I saw a reference to the "Shakespeare authorship question" prior to this was a throwaway comment in Eric Flint's alternate-history "1632" series.

We're reviewing this area from a conduct viewpoint, and may have further questions for the parties, but I wanted to see where everyone thinks we are at (from a process viewpoint, I'm not going to discuss potential evidence, or findings, or remedies..)

SirFozzie (talk) 23:03, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * My view is that it will be the Workshop edits that will determine how people believe the issue is to be addressed - I am seeing a lot of similarities with Climate Change where the evidence sections generally became the "complaints" venue (with examples) and the Workshop was where the focus on the issues was demonstrated. This may be, in fact, a useful working model for when there are two or more loosely defined confederations of editors with differing stances on a subject. It simply appears to be a case that, excepting NPA's and BLP violation type issues, where there is a conflict on representation of NPOV that specific diffs are unable to portray the mindset sufficiently. Just my observation. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:27, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, we're trying (hard) as Arbs not to stretch this out like the Climate Change case was, and currently, the Workshop.. is not really being used.. so all we have to go by is our own review and parsing the evidence put here. SirFozzie (talk) 23:36, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that we have until the end of this week to present evidence. Does that hold true for workshop proposals also? Or are those posited once the evidence is ruled upon (however that is done)? Tom Reedy (talk) 04:51, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It would be best if proposals are presented by the end of the week as well, or at least by the end of the weekend. The deadline is not a rigid one (we don't say "if you post the day afterward, we won't read it" or anything like that), just that that's when we really roll up our sleeves and start digging in. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Just a (very) quick drive-by comment before I rush out the door: I don't think anyone involved here are, or particularly wish to be, well versed in what the heck this “ArbCom case” thing is. If we're “doing it wrong” it would probably be in everyone's (ArbCom included) interest to give us guidance on what we're supposed to be doing. And incidentally to that point, I'm deliberately avoiding focussing too much on individual editor's conduct; both because an editor under attack is likely to get defensive—which tends to defeat any chance of being constructive—and undermines trust and makes working together in the future much harder; and because for whack-a-mole we could have stayed at AN/I, but since this has been going on for years with no improvement, I think we need to address the overall issue rather than focus too much on the he-said/she-said of individual editors. As I think Tom has commented, nobody's hands here are completely clean (mine included, I'm sure), so focusing on those, while a great opportunity to slap Solomonic “remedies” on everyone involved equally, is unlikely to make much difference in the long term. I'm not expending the effort here in order to get “those people over there, the meanies” banned; I'm here because I want to be able to continue building the encyclopedia without having to drop everything and head off to AN/I, RFC/U, NPOVN, RSN, or SPI/CU for the latest little skirmish every couple of days. --Xover (talk) 07:39, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I think there is the specific issue of Nina Green's conduct on the main SAQ page, or more particularly the discussion page. Her behaviour makes collegial discussion and editing impossible. She has made very useful contributions to the Edward de Vere page, and most of those have been accepted and supported by the "Stratfordian establishment", but the page still needs to be edited to GA status. Her past history strongly suggests that she will carpet bomb any discussion to that end. In this respect there is a specific behaviour issue that needs to be addressed. However, I see no point whatever in trawling though ancient history to find evidence that User:X once said something rude about me in 2006 and User:Y, who knows User:X, also said something snarky on the talk page of User:Z two years later. This kind of raking over ancient history is, IMO, unhelpful point-scoring that just erodes the basis for useful communication in future. If we are to get anything from this, I think we need a clear set of rules about what is appropriate and what is not appropriate to include on Shakespeare related pages, even if it is a subject-specific restatement of existing policy and guidelines. But we have to have something that has the weight of the community behind it, or we continue to have endless arguments and attempts to add scholarship from 1869 to articles to pursue an agenda. User:Smatprt has already been (temporarily) topic-banned, so there is no point in going over those diffs again. user:BenJonson is only very sporadically active, so there is no point in using a wrecking ball to crack a nut. Other editors are less of an immediate issue, but the real problem is the fact that longstanding siege conditions exist and useful editors are being driven away. Paul B (talk) 12:35, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with Paul Barlow that there is a problem with Nina Green's conduct on the SAQ talk page. There are also other disruptive editors on the subject, and new ones seem to appear rather often.  I don't think that there are any problems that the usual discretionary sanctions involving bans, blocks and revert limits couldn't solve.  If there were to be such problems, then maybe there should be some mechanism for an outside editor to come in and determine what the consensus actually is.  This isn't a very desperate case, and I feel that the problem would be immediately solved under such sanctions and the article set firmly on the path to FA status. BE——Critical __Talk 22:53, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The main problem is the repetitiveness of it and the time it takes to deal with it. With each disruptive editor you must run the whole gamut of dispute resolution before anything substantive can get done, and then start the whole process over with whomever takes the place of the last one. It has taken more than a year to deal with two back-to-back disruptive editors, and it's still not over. Perhaps if there were some kind of fast-track blocking mechanism overseen by, say, three experienced admins, that might work to keep the disruption down to a minimum. In the time it has taken to deal with this (latest) case, the article could have been FA by now and King Lear well along to FA status. Tom Reedy (talk) 23:10, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

If it's any help, I think this is more like Jesus myth theory than Climate change. There is a genuine concern among those who prefer to examine the alternatives, that the only way you get to be the voice of the mainstream in the "was there a guy called Jesus who founded Christianity?" debate is if you follow the mainstream church view, and you only do that if you have some kind of vested interest in the guy. One of the repeated flashpoints in the Shakespeare articles is that the mainstream view are all professors of English at Oxford, and the only way you get to be one of those is by agreeing that the guy from Stratford wrote all the plays, and if anyone else attempts to analyse the evidence and comes to a different conclusion, they are rejected as a mainstream source because they are not a professor of English at Oxford. This is where 'scientific fringe' differs from other 'fringe', because there is usually a cognitive and methodological difference between a fringe science theory and a theory that is on the cutting edge of science, and awaiting a Kuhnian paradigm shift before it becomes textbook. In cases such as 'did Jesus exist' or 'did Shakespeare write the plays', appeals are made to things like the weight of history, occam's razor, implausibility etc, which are not the equivalent to appeals to a scientific methodology. I would be wary of labelling SAQ as fringe, or stretching our fringe science principles too far, as it is not a 'scientific' dispute.Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:50, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The analogy with Jesus myth therory is valid, but not, I think for the reasons that Ellen gives. It is not the church view that is being followed, but the academic view. Jesus myth proponents may well believe that academia is in some sense controlled by the power of the church, but taking that course leads us into something very close to conspiracy theory. We, acording to policy, have to follow what is accepted in academia, which is that Jesus existed. This is no more a "Christian" claim than the view that Gautama Buddha existed is a "Buddhist" claim, or that Mohammed existed is a "Muslim" claim. Academics generally accept that all these people existed. Jesus mythers feel aggrieved that their view is not more widely accepted and they conflate that with "Christian" influence, when in fact the historical jesus of academia has very little to do with the divine incarnation of Christian faith. The view that Shakespeare of Stratford wrote Shakespeare's works is not something in which scholars in general have an investment. If there were good evidence to the contrary that would be quickly accepted in mainstream academia, just as many many reascriptions of works of literature and art have been over the years. Experts on Shakespeare are specialists in the literature and history of the period, not "believers" in a particular individual. The only people who have any investment in the historical Shakespeare are shopkeepers in Stratford. The anti-Shakespare argument is an elaborate conspiracy theory that is simply not taken seriously because the type of evidence adduced by its supporters does not correspond to normal academic methods of authorship ascription. There a clear "cognitive and methodological difference" here which is not very different from those "between a fringe science theory and a theory that is on the cutting edge of science". Methods in science and the humanities do differ to a significant extent, yes. But they have many things in common, just as the "fringe" aspects of both have many things in common, including the claim that some sort of establishment is blocking access to the truth. Our fringe theory guidelines do not specifically or even mainly apply to science. Go to the fringe theory discussion board and see what a range of issues are debated there. Paul B (talk) 11:32, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


 * It's certainly not science, and while I think you're absolutely right, Wikipedia takes a different stance... which is to follow the institutionalized mainstream (as in an academic discipline or scientific field). I do understand the prejudice inside science and scholarship fields, so I have no doubt you have a point.  But can you think of any way to make that Wikipedia policy which wouldn't open the floodgates? BE——Critical __Talk 01:36, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Picking up the climate change thread, I don't know how much it might help us to compare this debate with that one, but I see one obvious parallel between the two. In both cases, very few sensible people try to deal in absolute certainty, because so much critical evidence is lacking. Almost none of the scientists who believe climate change is probably man-made will state categorically that it is man-made: the respectable thing is to use a variety of methods to estimate probability, and the real debate is about whether those methods are valid. That takes science into analysing what detail we have, but there's no getting away from the fact that the timescales involved make certainty impossible. With the Shakespeare authorship question, it's also about a huge number of points of detail, and what is lacking is any unequivocal evidence that Shakespeare wrote his own work or that someone else did. What we have is all circumstantial. It surprises me that anyone can form a definitive view on the matter, but there are people who do, and the better ones know a lot (as some of the SAQ editors do) about the evidence and how it has been assessed. In my view, it would be a mistake to treat those advocating one author (even those advocating William Shakespeare) differently from those advocating another. If there were any formalized bias in the treatment of Oxfordians or Baconians, it would make sense to have the same bias against Stratfordians. What we surely must avoid is that any of these factions should have a sense of ownership of the article. Moonraker2 (talk) 03:13, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the SAQ is yet another Internet phenomenon and consequently there are lots of websites that are similar in style, but which often contradict each other—accordingly, a "source" can be found for vastly different opinions. Wikipedia does not try to provide "equal time" where each side gets to promote its own view. Instead, articles should provide due information on significant views, with the overall position being directed by secondary sources that report on the conclusions of academics in the relevant discipline. Johnuniq (talk) 03:41, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


 * "This is where 'scientific fringe' differs from other 'fringe', because there is usually a cognitive and methodological difference between a fringe science theory and a theory that is on the cutting edge of science"


 * There is an extreme methodological difference between academic literary historians and anti-Stratfordians, as I would hope is made clear in the article. If that is not obvious, then the article is a failure.


 * "what is lacking is any unequivocal evidence that Shakespeare wrote his own work or that someone else did. What we have is all circumstantial."


 * That is just flat not true. Have you actually read the article? The case for Shakespeare relies on the historical record in the form of title pages and government records, direct testimony from his contemporaries, stylistic studies, and the fact that there is not one iota of evidence for any other person writing the Shakespeare works, except for collaborators and a few misattributions made by printers once Shakespeare became a popular playwright. Oddly enough, these are the exact same criteria used to attribute authorship for every other writer of the time. The cases for all other candidates rely on the premise that historical records are fraudulent and all other criteria used to attribute authorship are meaningless. To try to claim that the SAQ is not a fringe theory based on a demonstrable falsehood is what anti-Stratfordians do. To say that all candidates should be treated equally as if the evidence were identical is to ignore scholarly standards, which presumably Wikipedia policy is based upon. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:46, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry Tom, but what Moonraker2 has said is not untrue. He's absolutely correct. Title pages prove nothing, as you well know. Not only can they be wrong, but having the name William Shakespeare on a title page is not proof that Shakespeare of Stratford is the author. It's circumstantial, as Moonraker2 noted. And there is no direct testimony from contemporaries that names Shakespeare of Stratford as the author. An actor, yes. But not an author, and certainly no the author of the canon. Basically, what you have tried to do with the article is say that any mention of "Shakespeare" equates to direct evidence that "Shakespeare of Stratford" is being referred to, which is simply not the case.
 * The other point being addressed is this mention of the "difference" between views approaches to research. In your article, you plainly state that only Stratfordians use the public record - title pages, Stationer's record, etc. - and that is flat not true. Anti-Strats use the public record as well - from title pages to the Stationer's Record, to government records to private letters and other documents. Anti-Strats have even used stylistic studies - just none that you agree with, so you don't include them in the article. You know this to be true and yet you state boldly in your article the exact opposite. Its these kind of statements that have created so much fury over your article and why, as it stands now it is not neutral and only contains cherry-picked references and sources. Smatprt (talk) 04:12, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Please furnish us with title pages and government records naming Oxford as the playwright of Shakespeare's works, as well as testimony from his contemporaries (you must have forgotten the prefatory matter of the First Folio, which unequivocally names Shakespeare as the author of the works). You had an entire eight months to show how anti-Stratfordians use the same sources and methods as literary scholars do, yet somehow you left it out of the final product. The only way anti-Strats use the documentary evidence is as proof of a conspiracy to hide the true author and to overlay it with their crackpot interpretations of the sheerest nonsense. You might also want to acquaint yourself with the definition of direct and circumstantial evidence. If the evidence for Shakespeare is circumstantial, then so is the evidence for Elizabeth Tudor as the Queen of England. After all, we only have the historical record for that. Tom Reedy (talk) 04:31, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia mandates cherry picking of sources. Are you saying that the cherry picking he's doing is not the kind mandated by WP:RS? BE——Critical __Talk 04:31, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am. I believe he is only using sources that he personally agrees with. The history section that has seen recent edit warrign is a good example. Also - the bardolatry-influence theory that Shapiro champions, and with which Tom personally agrees, is another example.Smatprt (talk)
 * But believe me, Tom, reference to "crackpot" interpretations just gave me pause as to whether you are able to be NPOV in this article. It's certainly nothing that should be said at WP. BE——Critical __Talk 04:34, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a myth that an editor with a pronounced opinion cannot edit neutrally. Any good academic with a journeyman's command of English can spot and correct most of his or her bias, and they make it a point to solicit other opinions, which is why authentic academic journals call it "peer review". A good way to test my statement would be to read the SAQ article and point out any POV material. It's been at PR and several non-involved (and a few semi-involved) editors have commented on its even treatment and lack of POV pushing. The main reason anti-Strats say it's unbalanced is because it treats the subject according to WP policies and guidelines, which do not require that every wild fringe assertion based on wishful thinking and unscholarly guesses that disregard the disciplines of historical inquiry be treated with the same respect as the results of 400 years of refined scholarship. Reading the talk pages, where respected scholars are regularly accused of hiding the truth—the same way Smatprt accuses me of doing so above—should have given you at least a hint of the true nature of anti-Stratfordism "circumstantial evidence". Tom Reedy (talk) 04:58, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes I understand this. I was referring to the use of the word "crackpot" which is insulting.  Frankly, it's used by elder scholars or scientists who are insecure in their position.  It's an emotional word, and a red-flag for POV pushing usually from a standpoint which wants to demean a fringe view.  No, I don't think you are POV pushing, it was just a red flag word and uncivil, and I couldn't help but mention it. BE——Critical __Talk 21:36, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Not to dwell too much on this, but have you actually read any Oxfordian literature? Tom Reedy (talk) 22:55, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No more than I've read other [word we're not using] theories, but that's not the point. BE——Critical __Talk 01:40, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Point taken, and comment refactored above. Tom Reedy (talk) 14:33, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Elen of the Roads, you wrote:
 * "One of the repeated flashpoints in the Shakespeare articles is that the mainstream view are all professors of English at Oxford, and the only way you get to be one of those is by agreeing that the guy from Stratford wrote all the plays, and if anyone else attempts to analyse the evidence and comes to a different conclusion, they are rejected as a mainstream source because they are not a professor of English at Oxford.This is where 'scientific fringe' differs from other 'fringe', because there is usually a cognitive and methodological difference between a fringe science theory and a theory that is on the cutting edge of science, and awaiting a Kuhnian paradigm shift before it becomes textbook."

Not quite so. This is not a matter of what some closed snobbish coterie thinks, or of a 'club' which makes and breaks careers according to whether prospective members pay lip service to its principles. Indeed the English example is unfortunate, since historians often regard the whole SAQ issue as an American obsession(systemic bias), since its main enthusiasts, lobbies, and writers are associated with that single country. The point was documented in my draft, but excised by Tom in his revision as peripheral to the key issues.

Any discipline has an internal struggle between an elite, with one or two dominant heuristic frames, and a congeries of rising scholars whose work modifies, refines or challenges the existing paradigms. An example was the shift in Greek studies from the Indo-European model to one more open to Semitic influences which took place in the 1960s (Walter Burkert, Martin West etc.) While it is true that
 * "'Virtually no professional student of literature takes any of this seriously"

Jack Lynch notes recently, this is
 * "not because of some conspiracy among hideebound academics determined to maintain a united front. Up-and-coming young critics adore taking potshots at their seniors and would like nothing more than to make their reputation with a revolutionary new thesis, but the evidence just doesn't support the case for anyone other than William Shakespeare of Stratford.' J Lynch, Becoming Shakespeare (2007:5)"

I can think immediately of two outstanding examples of this interest by young scholars in the theory that the Earl of Oxford wrote Shakespeare, which was then tested, with the result that these sceptics were won over to the mainstream view, Ward Elliott and Steven May. Both started out from a strong curiosity, or a strong belief in the the possibilities of the sceptics' speculations, often due to circumstances of personal backgreound. Elliott is an academic contrarian, who has made a career of challenging standard models. This is what the Claremont McKenna college page has of Elliott:
 * "'He is one of CMC’s notable stable of contrarian discoverers. He has shown that a number of widely-believed “passionate truths” of the late 20th Century have turned out to be more passionate than true. He was one of the first political scientists to demonstrate that reapportionment and the McGovern Reforms did not revitalize government, as predicted, but increased factionalism and gridlock. He was the first political scientist to challenge the once-conventional view that high-science, therapeutic “California” correctional techniques “cured” criminals better than low-science, punitive “Arkansas” ones. He was among the first to challenge the widely-accepted argument that Rapid Rail would solve Southern California’s transportation and smog problems. He was the first person to apply congestion-charge and emissions-charge theories to Southern California, the first to devise practical ways of phasing them in, and the principal drafter of the economic-incentives language of the 1990 Federal Clean Air Act Amendments. He is the inventor of the HOT Lane concept.'"

Now Elliott's father, William Yandell Elliott, was a distinguished scholar and fully-paid up Oxfordian. His son was raised in the theory. A distinguished professor of government, he tried to test his family belief by developing and fine-tuning (with Robert Valenza) a very sophisticated computerized stylometric program which, over 20 years has effectively proven that most of the Shakespearean corpus bears the distinctive thumbprint of one unique style, which (b) is not compatible with any of the literary remains of any of the Elizabethan alternative candidates. Ward became a mainstreamer. Steven May, the leading authority on the poetry of Edward de Vere, said that he would, as a young academic, have liked nothing more, in view of his career prospects, to have come up with evidence that confirmed that hypothesis. His early articles have a high appreciation of de Vere's poetry, when most scholars were dismissive. Twenty years on, he is totally sceptical of the Oxfordian claims, and confirms his belief, grounded on a career-interest in de Vere and the poetry of his period, that the mainstream has it right. These and quite a lot of other sceptics (Orson Welles, so beloved by Oxfordians who forget his later conversion to the mainstream view)have been won over to the mainstream view after intensive academic study of the problems. What we do not have is examples of major Shakespearedan scholars being won over to the conspiracy fold. The problem is not with the academic world and its accumulated affirmation of Shakespeare as Shakespeare. The key problem here is that 99.999% of the alternative candidate literature, some of it very recondite, is written by lawyers, amateur historians, journalists, whoever, none of whom seem to think that, if they are convinced of a theory, they should actually gain the formal qualifications in Renaissance history, Elizabethan-Jacobean history, chancellory scripts, archival documentary analysis, period literature, Latin, Greek, German, French, Italian and period English, do a Phd, and then argue their view in terms of logic, evaluation of primary and secondary sources, as do all scholars in the humanities. They argue for the fringe view using fringe methods which no academic system approves of. Inferences from silence trump evidence, conjectures without supportive proof elbow out probative analysis based on textual likelihoods. Even Ptolemaians used mathematics. These guys refuse to master the craft. That is why the mainstream ignores the stuff.Nishidani (talk) 03:24, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I am puzzled by "chancellory scripts", Nishidani. The main hand of the age was Secretary. Were you thinking of the Italic, sometimes called Chancery? That is rather easy to read. Moonraker2 (talk) 06:26, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I was thinking in Italian, my everyday language: cancelleresca corsiva. Chancellery, of course. A dreadful mispelling.Nishidani (talk) 09:00, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Er, that's Chancery. Moonraker2 (talk) 09:26, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

One thing that would really change the attitude
What would really impress me is if Oxfordians would contribute to other pieces of the world of Shakespeare on Wikipedia than the authorship question. When Oxfordians deal with nothing (or almost nothing) other than controversial Oxfordian material that inevitably leads to fighting and heated discussion and debate, editors working on other Shakespeare material will increasingly associate all Oxfordians with negative feelings. That's just human nature. I personally would be very delighted and impressed if Oxfordians on Wikipedia contributed in meaningful ways to completely non-Oxfordian causes within Shakespeare studies. I think they would fit in quite easily for the most part (or at lease more easily) if they took part in Shakespeare project collaborations in some way other than merely to get a plug in for their man. Almost all of the Oxfordians who edit, however, are completely and solely devoted only to the SAQ. The exceptions to this are few and far between (Smatprt, for example, has had his moments of contribution, though more, in this case, I think, is always better :).

I hope that the Oxfordians reading this will recognize that it is hearfelt. I honestly think that there would be a serious attitude change if Oxfordians were to do this. If we could work together on something we don't disagree on, that would help us respect each other enough to maybe, just maybe, pull through the harder things. I have seen it happen before.

I also recognize that Oxfordians probably have something they really wish "Stratfordians" would do. I invite suggestions as to what that might be. Wrad (talk) 04:37, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I can't reply to Wrad's question as an Oxfordian because I am not one, but I do say that we can't endorse the line that Stratfordians are respectable mainstream editors while Oxfordians are automatically under suspicion because they share certain negative characteristics. That leads to the notion that they can properly be given a hard time because it is in Wikipedia's interest to drive them away. All editors should be expected to live up to the same standards. In some quarters there is a blanket hostility towards Oxfordians, and this does not appear to trouble the admins who are about the pages. It seems to me to be the biggest factor in creating the bad feeling which swirls around, and so long as it goes on, I do not see how peace can be expected to break out. Moonraker2 (talk) 06:21, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "...the line that Stratfordians are respectable mainstream editors while Oxfordians are automatically under suspicion because they share certain negative characteristics." I think very few people endorse that line. I would add that it is much more difficult to be hostile towards someone you have worked with toward a common goal and seen as human. Do you think it would help if the two groups worked together more often on something more neutral? Wrad (talk) 06:34, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course, although I don't know how that could be brought about.
 * I agree that very few people endorse the position I mentioned, but in my view those who do are making things happen. Moonraker2 (talk) 06:45, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I am an example of the attitude I am describing. I was initially supportive of Oxfordians, in the same way you are, Moonraker2: . After long experience running into them again and again in heated SAQ debates, I got really tired of it. It's a general policy of mine now not to touch the issue with a ten-foot pole. When this is the only, or even mostly, the context in which you run into them, you tend not to like them. Just sayin'. I've noticed as a general rule that most people (This goes for both sides) who hang around the SAQ page are more likely to break into inappropriate outbursts and heated discussion on unrelated issues elsewhere in Shakespeare wikispace. The feelings are just so deep-seated. It's strange when you're talking about some simple thing and it breaks into this huge fight. The mistrust is just so deep that, though you hope there won't be a fight, it seems inevitable. It's all because each "side" already "knows" what "they" will do. Wrad (talk) 07:05, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Regarding evidence by jdkag
In some new evidence, jdkag recommends this book. However, that book appears to support the existing SAQ article because the book is described as follows:
 * The Shakespeare Authorship question - the question of who wrote Shakespeare's plays and who the man we know as Shakespeare was - is a subject which fascinates millions of people the world over and can be seen as a major cultural phenomenon. However, much discussion of the question exists on the very margins of academia, deemed by most Shakespearean academics as unimportant or, indeed, of interest only to conspiracy theorists. Yet, many academics find the Authorship question interesting and worthy of analysis in theoretical and philosophical terms.
 * This collection brings together leading literary and cultural critics to explore the Authorship question as a social, cultural and even theological phenomenon and consider it in all its rich diversity and significance.

I have not read the book, but the above description seems to confirm the "fringe" conclusion in the article. The article talk page should be used to discuss whether there is a significant point, from any reliable source, that should be added to the article. Johnuniq (talk) 01:33, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The blurb is curious. It confirms the fringe status of the subject and yet affirms, oddly, that millions the world over are prepossessed by it. I know it has a minor life in certain parts of New York opinion, thanks to William Niederkorn's militancy on the NYTimes, and elsewhere in the US. It's news to me that the world is transfixed by the issue. I've raised this dozens of time with well-educated Europeans and no one seems to have more, at best, than a vague acquaintence with it, as a rumour. Even some arbitrators say they are not familiar with it. The sources say this is a US media phenomenon of late, and then most recently thrives on the net. But a global phenomenon? What we certainly do know, from sources, is that (a) the failure to get academia interested in the fringe ideas has led to a concerted push to give it high media exposure, on TV and the internet, and, high hopes are placed in (b)  Emmerich's film, forthcoming, which embodies huge expectations by de Vereans (eg) that the public will rally against the academy's complacency ( If anything will eventually overwhelm the Stratfordian position on the authorship, it's (sic) acceptance by the general public of the Prince Tudor theory when Roland Emmerich's film Anonymous is released next year. ), and force the issue to a head in late September. I.e. scholarship regards this stuff as daft, so our last court of appeal, if not wikipedia, is Hollywood and the informed consensus of the DVD-viewing public. Expect some carpet-bombing then, after that date, those of us who are accused of sweeping the evidence under the rug. I hope the article can gain some stability before that date. Nishidani (talk) 02:14, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Millions? A major cultural phenomenon?
 * In the 45+ months since the Declaration of Reasonable Doubt About the Identity of William Shakespeare petition has been posted online and assiduously promoted, it has garnered a total of 1,931 signatures from all over the world, about 42 a month. Let's say each signature represents 1,000 of the great silent majority who are afraid to sign the petition because of fear they'll lose their jobs or the Shakespeare Trust will show up on their doorsteps with a writ of rendition or worse. That gives us 1,931,000 anti-Stratfordians, say 2 million to round off. Remember that Internet penetration in the U.S., U.K., Canada, Australia, and Europe averages 80 percent, so let's bump that number up another 25 percent to make up for those who haven't been able to read it on the Internet, which raises it to 2.5 million. That's less than eight-tenths of one percent of the U.S. population, never mind the world.
 * Now they have another 63 months to go to achieve their goal of gathering enough signatures to force the academy to take the SAQ seriously. If they continue at the same rate, that would give them another 2,640 or so. for a total of 4,640 signatures. Might as well round up to 5,000. Again, at the same ratio of 1,000 to 1, that would be 5 million anti-Stratfordians, or 1.6 percent of the present U.S. population. The most conservative polling estimates show that 40 percent of the U.S. population believes in Creationism as described in the Bible, and 30 percent believe that aliens have contacted humans. Looks like the SAQ has some catching up to do. Tom Reedy (talk) 04:26, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

"I see two sides to the Wiki controversy on SAQ: on one side, those who passionately defend Stratford, and on the other side, SAQ proponents who think that there are valid and interesting reasons for questioning the Stratfordian attribution" I.e. I.e. those who wrote the article are passionate advocates, those who object to it are dispassionate thinkers. The former are on the defensive, the latter patiently abide until the realm of reason can be restored to an intemperate article. That is what you appear to be saying. The fact that the former write from the highest quality RS sources, and the latter can cite no one book from a Shakespearean specialist backing their claims (Price has no background in the field, as is evident from every page of her book) is of course wholly irrelevant.Nishidani (talk) 12:15, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Evidence timetable
The arbitrators have received an e-mail from one of the parties requesting a few more days to present evidence. The e-mail contains evidence of a legitimate real-world emergency that affected this party. As such, we will extend the evidence deadline until the end of the day on Wednesday. I still anticipate that we will have a proposed decision posted by the target date of next Sunday, February 13.

To all concerned, from this point forward, please present (if anything) only new and non-repetitious evidence and proposals. Bickering and nasty behavior on the case pages is never helpful to the arbitrators, and will not be permitted. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:23, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Huh? I thought it had been closed last Wednesday. The Signpost certainly reported it as such.
 * And how about jokes? Tom Reedy (talk) 03:00, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * As indicated, we've extended the time because of a real-world issue affecting one of the participants. This does not mean that we need more evidence from anyone else if it is merely repetitious or cumulative. Any new and striking insights, or views from those previously unavailable, would be fine.
 * As for jokes, there are mixed views on and off Wikipedia about the quality of my sense of humor, so I won't be the judge of that. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:12, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, well! As a former journalist, I should know better than to trust the liberal media. Tom Reedy (talk) 13:17, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Regarding Smatprt's evidence.
I think one of the key diffs, in his list of diffs, is this. One cannot expect Arbcom to judge the merits of the content disputed here, of course. But the examples of a persistent inability on Smatprt's part to actually desist from pushing a poorly framed edit, despite detailed explanations by other editors of why his suggested edit is wrong, are legion, and several examples of this practice can be observed if one closely examines the context in which his revived complaint about certain terms I used in exasperation in the early part of last year. Nishidani (talk) 20:26, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Those edits have to do with content issues and should be regarded as content disputes, as has been noted by numerous editors and administrators (both involved and uninvolved).Smatprt (talk) 21:14, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * They are about content, of course, and specifically about what I believe is, arguably, your apparent inability to understand what other editors are telling you, which means that the content disputes can also be read as indexes of behavioural problems. One can, bref, be paragon of good manners while refusing to budge in the face of clear and consistent discussions that show you are wrong. I've not the slightest doubt that you have drawn stronger lessons than I from WP:AGF and WP:CONSENSUS, but it's useless trying to rush up diffs at this very late hour, but I think the evidence I summed up on my page about my comments, and your late diffs which refer to the same, if examined closely for context, show how exasperating your apparent inability to take into account the full force of what reliable sources say, and what your interlocutors in the by now distant past had to tell you about them, can prove to be. I say that not in extenuation of my own remarks (though you forum-shopped for your complaints in May, when we were split up, by your own decision, to work on separate pages, i.e., you began to complain when Tom and I were no longer obliged to edit with you) but rather to reaffirm my belief that you had been very very difficult to work with productively. You said in October I had been persecuting you for a year, in full knowledge that I had only been editing that page from mid February, and from late April had almost no interactions with you, i.e., you construed 2 months into I year. My impression is therefore that you have talked of being persecuted for several years, while telescoping your woes with the unlamented User:Barryispuzzled in 2008, with your skirmishes for a very brief period with Tom and myself. But this is all undiffed prose, it's far too late to debate this by diffs. Whatever the decision is, I will accept it without complaint.Nishidani (talk) 21:33, 9 February 2011 (UTC)