Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Shakespeare authorship question/Archive

Uninvited parties
I have an issue that I was directed to raise here. I had asked if it is it ever too late to invite others into the mediation process? I asked because looking at the list of participants, I feel rather isolated, being the lone representative of keeping the content in question. Several other editors have agreed with keeping the disputed material, but I see they were not invited to join the mediation. I raised the issue with user:AGK and received this response: [], where it was noted that "if there are editors who are involved in the dispute but are not listed then you should open a thread about this on the mediation talk page because they certainly should be listed as parties."

In terms of the editors who have participated in these discussions, but were not invited to participate in this mediation, here is a list:
 * User:SamuelTheGhost (Examples of participation in discussion of Shakespeare's plays): [],  [] &  []
 * User:Scartol  (Examples of participation in discussion of Shakespeare's plays) : [] and []
 * User:Bertaut (Examples of participation in discussion of Chronology of Shakespeare's plays) : [] and []
 * User:Ssilvers (Example of participation in discussion of Chronology of Shakespeare's plays) : []

So what is the mechanism to invite these editors to participate? Thanks, and I'm looking forward to having this discussion and working out a solution. Smatprt (talk) 18:41, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * How many edits each have they made over the last 6 months to the relevant pages? I ask this because I made over 800, and have seen most of these over that time twice or three times.Nishidani (talk) 18:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Not sure why your point would matter? 2 of the editors above responded to the RFC. Are they any less valued simply because they disagreed with you? And Bertaut is a long-time editor to numerous Shakespeare pages, including several listed on the mediation request - why would his input not be solicited? Besides, if we adopted your stance, then why were Verbal, ScienceApologist and Xover invited to participate when they have not made edits to the relevant articles? I realize that they agree with you so it's nice for you to have them involved, but isn't what you propose a bit one-sided? And really, what is the harm in having a full discussion with as many interested parties as possible? Wouldn't that yield the best result and the best chance of a resolutionSmatprt (talk) 20:28, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm loathe to express any opinion too vehemently under the circumstances, but since I happen to have crossed paths with Scartol previously, I feel somewhat confident in suggesting his participation in the debate—which you linked above—was simply a response to Tom's notice at the Requests for Comments noticeboard; much like I commented on the RFC he'd just posted, and which led him to our discussion, without having any particular interest in the works of Balzac and whether or not the articles on his works should be named in French or English. I suspect Samuel's participation was on the same terms. Bertaud I'm less sure of: I haven't noticed him participating in these debates, but then apparently he did at one point as you linked to above. It may be that it would be appropriate to ask him whether he would like to be involved. Ssilver's participation I have no particular opinion of; I recall the username, but don't really recall in what context. In general, having once commented in a discussion is not grounds for being dragged into this. The matter at hand is the dispute, not really the topic engendering it! But I'm a little concerned—as I've mentioned elsewhere—at the implication that this is a trial and that the mediation cabal will “rule” on what content may be included where. The point of this exercise is to assist editors with solving a dispute they have been unable to resolve themselves. You are not at an inherent disadvantage in this process by being alone in representing a particular side of the debate; in fact, the mediators may request that the other side nominate a single spokesman to represent their point of view to avoid overwhelming by sheer volume. By that note, the people most obviously involved in the dispute would be, , etc. who have been involved in this dispute at least since the FAC for William Shakespeare (i.e. for as long as I've been involved with the project). Which is actually a point in itself: this issue has been going on for so long, and been so contentious, that sheer attrition is a significant problem. People tire of the interminable debates on this issue and cease their participation. Moonraker being case in point; he's excused himself from these proceedings citing exhaustion and frustration. --Xover (talk) 21:48, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "the mediators may request that the other side nominate a single spokesman to represent their point of view"
 * Oh. Kerrist! That sounds threatening. But since I have a certain notoriety for being a tolutiloquent blowhard gusting along with WP:TLDR stuff, I guess I'm safe from being picked on.Nishidani (talk) 21:57, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * So, Xover, are you saying that some editors are welcome to the discussion and some are not? Scartol and Samuel, as you noted, responded to an RFC. They got frustrated with the response they received from you, Tom and Nishidani, and left the page. (Scartol, for example, wrote "You really should have listed this under "Requests for Argument" or "Demands for Consensus Along the Lines of What We've Already Agreed Upon Among Ourselves", because that's the sense I get of what you're looking for here. I will now stop paying attention to this discussion. "  As previously uninvolved editors with no ax to grind, it seems that theirs is the exact kind of input we should be seeking. Are you saying they should be banned from this discussion? Smatprt (talk) 22:14, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No, quite the contrary: I wish they had elected to continue their participation in the discussion, and I wish many more editors had responded to the Request for Comments. However the point of the mediation is not to increase debate and “settle” a particular content issue; it is to help all of us involved in the dispute to work productively together so that we in turn may solve the content issue ourselves. The editors you mention aren't (as I describe above) actually involved in the dispute, they merely made a comment on the issue that is the cause of the dispute. This is why I keep expressing my concern at the various parties' expectations from this process: the mediation cabal will not settle whether Authorship should be mentioned on any given article, they will merely attempt to help us work together well enough that we manage to work it out ourselves. If one's expectation is to present evidence proving why one is right and one's opponent wrong, and have the "adjudicator" rule on the merits (in which case having more witnesses and advocates would be an advantage), then mediation is very likely to fail to meet those expectations and, as best I can tell, the appropriate venue is ArbCom. One thing though, which you can take to heart, is that a mediator in this request, once one has accepted our request, will work very hard to make sure no party is simply drowned out by the other and that all are heard. Again, the goal here is to help and facilitate cooperation and mutually acceptable solutions; disenfranchisement and marginalization (which, I gather, are among your concerns) are not conductive to those goals. We need to differentiate between the dispute—of which I would say you and Tom and Nishidani are the main parties—and the cause of the dispute, which is a discussion many people have participated in over the years. The mediation is to help us with the former, not the latter, and getting more editors involved is only likely to further inflame the dispute than ameliorate it. You'll note I don't principally include myself as involved in the dispute (even if I am clearly involved in the debate). This is because, despite our fundamental differences on this topic, I, at least, believe that you and I have managed to mostly work constructively together; even on specific points where we're quite vehemently in disagreement. This is the distinction between the dispute to be mediated and the cause of the dispute, and my reasoning for suggesting the editors you list above—modulo my following reservations—are not actually involved in the dispute. --Xover (talk) 22:56, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, rest assured that I understand the difference between mediation and arbitration. And I am under no delusions that any mandatory solution will be handed down. But I do think that having a few nonalligned editors (excepting they have tried to add useful comments or suggested compromises) participating in the discussion would be helpful. Not to "extend" debate, but to bring a fresh perspective for everyone to consider. I don't really see the harm. And it would certainly balance what appears to be a stacked deck. Otherwise, why would Verbal and ScienceApologist been listed in the first place? Smatprt (talk) 00:08, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think Tom included Verbal and ScienceApologist just for completeness. But a fair question; I'm not really sure why they should be included. In any case, the issue is moot now that you've unilaterally gone ahead and notified your chosen editors: they will participate or not as they are inclined and see fit. Are the decks now stacked to suit you? --Xover (talk) 06:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Xover's arguments have convinced me that I must participate. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 14:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Xover - If I have upset you, it was not my intent. "Unilaterally" and "your chosen editors" seem rather out of character for you in terms of choice of words. I thought it was generally accepted that when you discuss another editor, they should be informed. And to be clear, they are not "my chosen editors" - they are the editors who contributed to the discussion at hand, yet were left off the initial list (unlike Verbal and ScienceApologist, who have not contributed to the discussion, but were included). As I recall, the editors I asked about all think the SAQ is either "silly" or "bunk", but in spite of that, they don't agree with the rampant deletionism that is going on. It's all about appropriate content, which makes this forum a good place to start, yes? Smatprt (talk) 19:51, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * My apologies. I suspect my irritation shone through in my choice of words. Mea culpa, I should have been more careful. I must admit to being irked that you went ahead and in effect issued an invitation to participate while we were still discussing whether that was a good idea. The general idea is that one notifies editors mentioned when the context is such that it can be construed they should be presented an opportunity to defend or explain themselves (i.e. the various Noticeboards). Apart from those instances the only guiding principle is common courtesy; which, I don't feel, was at issue here as no editors were mentioned in a context of criticism (or other negative light). In any case, I believe the issue is moot; by having been invited they have effectively been brought into the dispute—if they care to participate—like participation in previous discussions, including the RFC, did not. To argue otherwise would, I feel, not be constructive. Any further guidance on the matter will probably have to be from the mediator(s). Again, I apologize for my hastily and poorly chosen words above. Please try to consider them purely descriptive rather than as with the negative connotations they otherwise may engender. --Xover (talk) 20:53, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I have no objection whatsoever to other editors being added to this mediation, and in fact I invited Scartol myself. However, if "Everybody who is involved in the disagreement over the article content should be listed as a party", as AGK wrote, then the list of participants would be much longer and too unwieldy to get anything done. The only danger I see with more parties is that the discussion will get off track and devolve into long, drawn-out irrelevancies the way every other RFC about this has done (when it wasn't ignored out of sheer topic fatigue), because this mediation is not so much about the topic itself but interpretation of policy. If that in fact happens, I suppose we'll just escalate to the next level of dispute resolution.

I included Verbal and ScienceApologist because they have experience with topics of this nature—not this particular topic—and also because they know their way around policy better than I do. Why we would want the opinion of "uninvolved editors" (usually just another way of saying "an editor who knows absolutely nothing about the subject") in a mediation is beyond me. And Smatprt I would appreciate if you would stop slinging around words such as "deletionism". No material or articles are being deleted from Wikipedia. The dispute is about where the material goes and our differing interpretations of policy on that. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:19, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * An uninvolved editor (without the POVs we each bring to the table) is helpful when, as you note, it's really about an interpretation of policy.Smatprt (talk) 05:43, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Tom, I apologize that you take offense at the word "deletionism", but you must admit, we see this from different angles and frame it accordingly. You call a one or two-line reference to the SAQ, in a handful of articles, a violation of WP:ONEWAY and WP:UNDUE. I call your deletions of every single one of them a form of "deletionism" caused by a lack of WP:NPOV. It's all relative. Can we just sit back and wait for a mediator now? [reply not really needed :) ]  Smatprt (talk) 05:43, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You might want to read the "deletionism" article. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:40, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Already read it. Thanks. While primarily concerned with entire articles, the principals there obviously apply to article content as well. In that Scartol described himself as an inclusionist [], I assume you have also read Inclusionism and | Deletionism and inclusionism in WikipediaSmatprt (talk) 20:24, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * That extension of a principle seems a bit ridiculous, as it would open the door for lots of barely relevant material to be included in every article on Wikipedia. But that's what we're here to hammer out, so I'll retire until we get a facilitator or whatever he or she is called. And I'm not offended by the use of the term "deletionism"; my feelings have nothing to do with it. I just prefer—as I have told you before—precise terminology, and the use of the word "deletionism" denotes an entirely different meaning than what this mediation is about. Tom Reedy (talk) 05:00, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I see my name above. I am very sorry, everyone, but I do not have the time to get involved with this mediation. I can reiterate that, in general, I do not agree with those who have argued that the authorship question is a "fringe theory". It is a serious historiological issue (especially re: Oxford), and I think it ought to be mentioned (with appropriate references, of course) when there is a substantive discussion in an article about Shakespeare's life and/or times as they relate to his works. I don't think a brief discussion of the question would violate our guidelines on WP:UNDUE, WP:ONEWAY or any other guideline. I will not watchlist this page, but feel free to note my opinion if it is helpful in the mediation. Obviously, Shakespeare is an important area in Wikipedia, where literature and drama are sadly underserved! (I contribute primarily on operettas and early musical theatre). You are all interested in the topic and doing admirable work. I believe that Smatprt has much to contribute to this area as an experienced performer and producer of Shakespeare's plays and other works of English-language theatre. Instead of fighting amongst yourselves, why not compromise on a brief discussion of this topic in articles that mention Shakespeare's life in relation to his works, and also agree to revisit the issue if the scholarship on the authorship question substantially progresses one way or another. Then you can all get back to work on improving the Shakespeare-related articles on Wikipedia and pushing them to GA and FA level. Best regards to all!. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:00, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I myself will be able to contribute. I find that the need to devote months of one's life, on this and many other articles where editors refuse to simply employ mainstream scholarship, defending the obvious, (or even defending one's bona fides) and this issue is wearisome in the extreme. In a nutshell, any number of editors, theatre directors, or nice people generally are quite entitled to believe, in the words of the previous editor, that the Shakespeare Authorship Question is 'a serious historiological issue'. But it is not so regarded by Shakespearean scholars of any note or distinction, and certainly neither by historians of Elizabethan society and culture or specialists in Elizabethan history. It is the mainstream itself which has, from Quiller-Couch to Schoenbaum to Nelson, consistently characterized these theories as fringe, not editors like Tom or myself. It is of course 'historiological', if Ssilvers is not alluding to Heidegger or the general German hermeutic sense (there being a portmanteau combining historisch and psychologisch) in the acceptance of that rare word in English, namely 'having a knowledge of old stories', the sense it had in Shakespeare's day by the few who ever used this Jacobean neologism. Essentially this is a conflict between one editor who subscribes to a fringe theory, who wishes it to have wide, if minoritarian, representation throughout Shakespeare articles, and several editors who simply follow WP:RS, and the overwhelming consensus of modern scholarship, according to which the 'theory' has no grounding in the factual record, and is nothing more than a cultish conspiracy theory which, by its nature, can neither be confirmed or verified, since there is no contemporary evidence for it, only hermeneutic suspicions by a peculiar congeries of amateur writers centuries later. It has, on wiki, several pages, which give it ample exposure. It has no place on Shakespearean articles, just as it has no place in modern scholarship, except those books dedicated to recounting the strange episode of its rise and fall at the fringes of Shakespearean studies. That is the gist of my objection. Regards to all.Nishidani (talk) 12:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Stipulation
Given the above comment by Ssilvers, can we stipulate that the Shakespeare authorship question is a fringe theory, and therefore falls under the Wikipedia guidelines, or are we going to have to go plow over that field again? Tom Reedy (talk) 14:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC)