User talk:Rogala/archive 1

SAQ

I noticed your detailed comments at User talk:Tom Reedy regarding Shakespeare authorship question and I would like to add a few thoughts of my own, but if you don't mind, I will comment here rather than take up time and space on a third party's talk page. I will see any reply that you care to make here.

Whatever the merits of your suggestion, as you suspect, a major reorganization after a couple of years of hard work involving several editors is not likely to be enthusiastically embraced. Of course article development never stops, and there is no reason why such a reorganization should not be considered now, however, bear in mind that it could also be considered in a month, or six months, or even later, so there is no need for am implementation to occur now.

One possibility if you wanted to try your ideas would be for you to make a user space draft and work on it to show how your version would look. For example, you could click a red link like User:Rogala/Sandbox or perhaps User:Rogala/Shakespeare authorship question and copy in the wikitext and edit it. There is a not very helpful outline of the procedure at WP:Userspace draft (it looks to me as if you would be better off just clicking a red link as I suggested). If you copy text from an article, you must include an edit summary with a link to the article (that is to make it clear that you did not write that text; instead the link provides attribution to the editors who produced the material). For example, an edit summary might be copy text from [[Shakespeare authorship question]] for draft which would display in the edit summary on the history of the draft page as "copy text from Shakespeare authorship question for draft".

Once satisfied with a draft, you would ask for comments at the talk page of the article. While what I have described is the "correct" procedure, it has the problem that you would need to do quite a lot of work without knowing whether any of it would be used. It is entirely possible that other editors might consider that the existing article is fine and the draft is not needed. Despite this drawback, a draft is probably the only way of presenting a totally new idea because while a reorganization can be described, it is not until one can actually see it that any benefits or problems can be properly identified. Also, you should be aware that user space drafts are not kept indefinitely. If a significant period (generally at least several months and often longer) elapses after you finish editing a draft, the draft may be nominated for deletion.

Regarding your thoughts about combining History of the Shakespeare authorship question into the main article: it is splitting (not combining) that is normally followed at Wikipedia. People like to split complex articles by providing an overview in the main article with more details in another article. The "more details" article may currently be weak—the concept is that it is likely that over a period (perhaps several years), the weak "more details" article would be developed and expanded. Such expansion would not be desirable in the main article because it would bloat that page too much. What I have described applies to all articles—the SAQ article is simply following standard procedures.

Some of your ideas are interesting but may not account for other factors. For example, one idea is to "list without undue commentary all the major alternate candidates", but that is what List of Shakespeare authorship candidates provides (and there is a link to that list at Shakespeare authorship question#Alternative candidates). Another idea is to "list some of the more noteworthy critics of the SAQ phenomenon with quotes"—while that sounds appealing, it has severe practical difficulties and is contrary to principles followed in all articles. One difficulty is that such a list of quotes would be regarded by editors as "cherry picked original research". For example, an editor favoring a particular candidate may look for the "best" and longest quote supporting that candidate, and may put the "worst" and shortest quote for other candidates—there would be no way to determine what quotes were appropriate because the selection would be based entirely on editor preference. To avoid that, all articles must follow the principles outlined at WP:5P. The quotes that are currently used in the article (mainly in the footnotes) are justified by the fact that they are made by acknowledged experts in the field, and if that were doubted, the reliable sources noticeboard could be asked for an opinion on whether a particular source really was reliable (note that "reliable" has a particular meaning at Wikipedia, see reliable sources).

Perhaps the most contentious of your suggestions is that a subsection of the article should be managed by a particular group of editors, for example, the section describing the proposal that Bacon wrote the works would only be edited by people who support the Bacon candidacy. I can understand the appeal of that suggestion—it sounds "fair" in that each candidate could be presented in the best light by the supporters of that candidate. However, there are literally thousands of articles on Wikipedia where the same issue arises. Examples include articles on evolution and creationism, or on Israel and Palestine. While I could write at length about the reasoning involved, it would be kinder to simply say that the idea is not going to happen. That is nothing to do with the particular SAQ topic, it is a principle that applies to all articles and which has been thrashed out in innumerable discussions.

I gather that you want to remove the sections presenting the case for and against Shakespeare's authorship. That puzzles me because I'm sure that a general reader would want that information more than anything else. An encyclopedic article needs to present an overview of a situation, and there are plenty of websites that can provide the best case for a particular candidate. Wikipedia's role is different (imagine how Evolution would look if it were not based on reliable sources—there is no page here which presents Creationism in its best light).

I had better stop here, but I will mention that I do not think you have clearly explained whether anything is wrong with the current article—are your suggestions an effort to overcome a problem, or are they ideas for improvements? If there is a problem, you should identify it and explain. Also, given that there are many ways the article could be organized, what particular benefit would follow from your proposal? Johnuniq (talk) 01:09, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, thank you VERY much for your well written and polite response. It is appreciated.

I believe that the editing efforts of the past few months on the SAQ have been focused on untying and retying the "Gordian Knot"...mostly in ways to suit opposing POVs. I propose cutting it instead.

How ? ...by cutting those sections (2 and 3) which are a) most prone to chronic NPOV problems, b) most likely to lead editors in "engaging in the dispute" rather than "describing it" (both intentionally and unintentionally) and c) actually the least valuable from a historical perspective for the putative reader.

Your points in approximate order:

1) Reorganization after all these years - Yes, I fully expect to be flamed unmercifully by both sides of this contentious issue. At least I will be equally despised by both sides for suggesting it. Consider me a potentially useful "scapegoat" in that respect.

2) Drafts - As for making a draft, I think the material is already there and that other editors who have worked on this for years could do a better job than me. I actually have other articles on which I would prefer to be working and MANY other non Wikipedia interests. I am not trying to do a "drive by" but I am not expecting to be here every day either. Let's just say "maybe" I will invest the time to flesh this out further in the manner you suggest...it depends on the initial reception to my "modest proposal". Once I post all this proposal on the SAQ discussion page or FAC, I will likely be flamed so viciously, I might just walk away...we'll see. Question: Would you like to work with me on such a draft ??

3) Major reorganization - Why is this a major re-organization ? It keeps the lead and 6 out of 8 sections, including all the references in those sections. It only eliminates material (Sections 2 and 3) which I propose should not be in an article titled SAQ for both NPOV and overall stylistic reasons. That material would be replaced by material and sources which already do exist in the "History of the SAQ" article and which are well sourced.

4) What's "wrong" with the article now - I think the "History of the SAQ" article is mostly excellent, and that some sections of the SAQ article are pretty excellent too...although very TORTUOUS in terms of the wordsmithing. These should be combined as THIS is the meat of what an article of ENCYCLOPEDIC value/interest on what the SAQ was (and still is) all about.

I understand the history of how "the path" for including the material in section 2 and 3 was started down. I am advocating for a reasoned re-evaluation of the BEST answer to this question: What really SHOULD be included in an article entitled SAQ and how should it relate to the WS article and the articles on individual "alternate candidate" authorship theories ? It is natural for human editors to want to "win" and to define "winning" as having their points included in the order they prefer. I am asking that we try to all reconsider what "winning" means in terms of ongoing scholarship and organize this info in the most readable manner.

Also, sections 2 and 3 are TEDIOUS to read due to the endless combative wordsmithing. Can anyone deny that ? Is there any editor who can honestly say "I love how those sections read."

I fully expect that everyone (and their brother) will dislike my idea as they have already "invested so much of themselves" in wordsmithing section 2 and 3. If that is the case, so be it. If some people DO like the idea however, I will be pleasantly surprised and stick around to try to be of use.

5) Splitting vs. combining - I don't disagree with what you wrote about the need to split off articles as a matter of course as they base article grows more complex (it's right in line with the WP:SS guidelines)...that is actually why I applaud what was done for individual alternate candidate theories, very correct, IMO.

The SAQ article has become unwieldy in size due to section 2 and 3 being included. There is more material in the "History of the SAQ" that is "accurate, fair and neutral" than in the "cases for and against" sections. The Historical material is clearly more appropriate to be included in an encyclopedia article entitled the SAQ.

It's about flow. IMO, people using an encyclopedia would go to an article entitled William Shakespeare to learn about WS. They would then see a sub article (somewhere in there) for the SAQ and go to the SAQ article to learn what the topic is all about in general, the history of the topic in some detail, and only THEN look to see where they can go for more information about individual authorship theories (the sub articles about different theories...fringe though they are). Including sections 2 and 3 in the SAQ puts "the cart before the horse" and bogs down an otherwise excellent SAQ article.

6) Quotes - These can indeed be tough I agree, and some consensus will need to be reached on the number of quotes provided. As to the BENEFITS of quotes in controversial articles, please see this quote from WP:QUOTE:

"In some instances, quotations are preferred to text. For example: When dealing with a controversial subject. As per the WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV policy, biased statements of opinion can only be presented with attribution. Quotations are the simplest form of attribution. Editor of controversial subject should quote the actual spoken or written words to refer to the most controversial ideas. Controversial ideas must never appear to be "from Wikipedia"."

Many items in Section 2 and 3 of the current SAQ violate the spirit last sentence. There are serious faults on both sides...hence my suggestion of elimination.

7) You wrote: "Perhaps the most contentious of your suggestions is that a subsection of the article should be managed by a particular group of editors, for example, the section describing the proposal that Bacon wrote the works would only be edited by people who support the Bacon candidacy."

I didn't write that and it is not what I am advocating...quite the opposite. I wrote:

"The historical case for each individual authorship candidate would then simply be presented on the pages already set up to do that without advocating the position for that candidate and mentioning in each case that this is ALSO a “fringe theory” related to the HISTORICAL SAQ."

AND

"I therefore recommend and hereby advocate that the “Shakespeare Authorship Question” article should not delve into dissecting the case for any alternate candidates at all (leave that to individual “xxxx theory of authorship” pages for these candidates)".

The phrase "...delve into dissecting" doesn't mean "engage in advocacy"...it means DESCRIBE the points in question.

The "xxxx authorship theory articles" (not the arguments for them or against them) are highly appropriate subs under the SAQ as long as they are managed collaboratively not just by proponents of these theories (or they would all be POV nightmares too and in violation of the POV forking guidelines alluded to by Tom Reedy).

Here is a direct quote from WP:NPOV I love: "Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them."

I would say that the whole story behind the THEORY of authorship (from a historical perspective) can be easily described in an NPOV manner.

8) Your final question - You wrote: "I gather that you want to remove the sections presenting the case for and against Shakespeare's authorship. That puzzles me because I'm sure that a general reader would want that information more than anything else. An encyclopedic article needs to present an overview of a situation, and there are plenty of websites that can provide the best case for a particular candidate. Wikipedia's role is different (imagine how Evolution would look if it were not based on reliable sources—there is no page here which presents Creationism in its best light)."

You wrote: "I am sure". I'm not "sure" about much these days. The question again is: How does this information flow for the average reader ?

A) The starting point is the biography of William Shakespeare. His traditional biography must be presented first, as without this, there can be no such thing as an SAQ. Fine. Wikipedia has a solid WS bio...with FA status.

B) The historical fact that there has been (and still is) a SAQ must be presented under the "fringe theory" proviso. The presentation must logically include a lead, the overview with some definitions and a LOT about the HISTORY of the SAQ. Must it LOGICALLY also include verbiage which presents supposed generalities about the "case" for and against William Shakespeare ? I say no. Some will disagree with me and some others will (I hope) appreciate my point.

C) Lastly in the logical sequence of infomation comes the "xxxx theory of authorship pages" for the individual alternate candidates...not advocating for them, but describing their unique theories of authorship, and written collaboratively. Some of the points from section 2 and 3 MIGHT belong here....but only a very few of them, lest it becomes advocacy rather than description.

That is what I predict general readers to want. Am I "sure"....nope, but I am officially putting it out there, and seeing what the response will be from the community.

Hope I gave you some answers as to from where I am coming...Rogala (talk) 06:23, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, sorry about my misunderstanding ("should be managed by a particular group of editors") that you explain in your point 7. Unfortunately I don't have time now to work out how I jumped to that bad conclusion, or to reply in any meaningful way. I'm just letting you know that I have to attend to a couple of minor matters here, then disappear for a while. I will try to digest your thoughts over the weekend, but I have to say that I'm not really enthusiastic about helping with a draft in more than a mechanical manner (that is, if you didn't want to take the time to work out some of the wiki procedures I could help with that).

I am pretty confident that my impressions of what would generally be regarded as acceptable usage of quotes is correct. I haven't seen the matter discussed in relation to Shakespeare, but in some contentious areas (such as bios of politicians), while it is true that a quote is sometimes much better than an inaccurate paraphrase, such a quote is only acceptable when secondary sources have examined the issue—it is not satisfactory for an editor to choose quotes in order to tell a story (that is original research by synthesis). I hope to reply with more in a day or two. Johnuniq (talk) 09:30, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

No big deal on #7...Regarding the draft: until I put this proposal "out there", there is no point in doing a draft, as I need to gauge initial response to see if ANYONE likes my WP:BOLD approach to this issue...Regarding quotes: I definitely see how they could lead to mischief as you suggest regarding the bias of individual editors in linking them together. I love your reference to synthesis !! Well noted, sir !! I sense the SAME thing is somehow happening in the construction of whole paragraphs where virtually every sentence is referenced to a RS. One can use this technique to seem to have a NPOV, when one is really using synthesis...perhaps this is the hidden fault and unintentional source of the animus on both sides of the issues related to sections 2 and 3 of the SAQ article ? Rogala (talk) 09:58, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Dear Johnuniq,

I posted the following on Mr. Reedy's talk page as a response to some of his explicit and implied points. I also wanted to share it with you, as I think Mr. Reedy made some very good points, and I would also like your feedback.Rogala (talk) 18:39, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I am trying to "crisp up" my language to avoid any potential confusion with editors on the SAQ.

1) I plan to use the term "SAQ phenomenon" henceforth, as I have, after careful thought, decided that this is a less ambiguous term than "SAQ movement" since "movement" may imply, to some readers at least, a more centrally coordinated social, political or artistic agenda than can be applied (with consensus) to the historical SAQ. In your OPINION, will the the phrase "SAQ phenomenon" be unambiguous to the editors on the SAQ talk page ? (Without your necessarily commenting on the validity of the premise...although please comment further if you have the time.)

2) I have been thinking more deeply about your comments regarding the origins, history and evolution (into the present day) of the "SAQ phenomenon" which started in the mid 19th century. As I stated above, it is my OPINION that this is the topic on which an article entitled the SAQ should focus. I think your comments, though brief, are very insightful. I re-read some sections of Mr. Shapiro's book this AM in light of your comments and I agree that the wording of my premise, as stated above in #4, needs clarification. I am considering "populist sleuths vs. elite academics". Does that wording remove any confusion, in your own mind, versus the phrase "amateur vs. professional" as far as identifying the "opposite sides" to whom I am referring ?? (Again...without your necessarily commenting on the validity of the premise...although that too would be appreciated.)

Thank you in advance for any feedback.Rogala (talk) 18:19, 31 March 2011 (UTC)