Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Shakespeare authorship question

Mediation

I have spent some time looking over the dispute and acquiring a background knowledge to the case at hand and I think I have a solid basic understanding of the issues involved. Personally I think that (although perhaps stating the obvious) all that is needed following the spirit of the various policies involved. I would like to understand each persons point of view on this dispute.

Below please post a brief (less than 200 words) description of your view of the dispute and what you would like to see happen in terms of the associated articles. Please do not attack other editors and focus on the content. Seddon ^talk|^WikimediaUK 11:19, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Tom Reedy

My understanding is that Wikipedia is a collaborative project to build a neutral encyclopedia "representing fairly, proportionately, and . . . without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources" [1], not a place to advocate or promote fringe theories such as the SAQ, which "should be mentioned in the text of other articles only if independent reliable sources connect the topics in a serious and prominent way." The entire raison d'être of the SAQ is to right a great wrong, i.e. the putative misattribution of Shakespeare’s works, and insistence on including a brief mention and a link to the SAQ in other pages is clearly a tactic in that battle. Doing so violates WP:DUE, WP:OR, and WP:ONEWAY, and is the equivalent of mentioning the John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories in every article that discusses Kennedy and his family, administration, or policies. Espousing such a cause in other than directly-related articles thwarts the intent and spirit of policy and the goals of Wikipedia. An SAQ link in the Shakespeare template is already included on every Shakespeare-related page. The policies are quite clear, and Shakespeare-related pages should conform to those existing policies. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:17, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Nishidani

The fringe conspiracy theory has no serious academic backing. The best recent research employing ground-breaking techniques of stylometric analysis to establish attribution is unanimous in dismissing all of the alternative candidates that have been proposed. One version, by Looney, was proposed in 1920, with the confidence that archives would turn up a smoking gun. 90 years later, not one shred of evidence to support the conspiracy has been forthcoming. The small, if vocal movement, has populist roots, but no support in serious scholarship. Wiki has many pages on the subject, almost all poorly written, by editors who subscribe to these theories. The documentation there often comes from writers who have no background or qualified competence in Elizabethan studies, and to a specialist is virtually unreadable (Joseph Sobran, Mark Anderson, Charlton Ogburn, Richard Whalen, J. Thomas Looney or Diana Price). The articles cannibalize each other, often verbatim, as if proliferation were an indication of importance. See Shakespeare authorship question, Marlovian theory, Baconian theory, Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship, Oxfordian Theory - Parallels with Shakespeare's Plays, Prince Tudor theory, Chronology of Shakespeare's plays – Oxfordian, List of Oxfordian theory supporters, etc. Almost all of the content of these articles has been analysed, and dismissed by competent experts. I'm actually fine with keeping those articles,on the proviso that editors who believe these theories undertake to actually observe wiki standards of evidence, and write them to GA standard. I don't think a fair review of the quality of those pages would conclude that Shakespearean articles would benefit by the intrusion of amateurish sources and idiosyncratic material one finds there. If anything, pages on Shakespeare, as the most studied author in world literature, demand the highest standards, and should be written by exploiting the huge number of mainstream academic works under university imprint written by competent scholars, none of whom think this fringe material of any importance except as a minor blip in the history of marginal conspiracy theories.Nishidani (talk) 19:46, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

In reponse to Bertaut. Who denies that SAQ exists? No one. Who would eliminate all mention of it on wiki? No one, certainly not Tom and myself, since we have devoted several months to a thorough 1,000 edit plus review of the literature and the page to offer the encyclopedia a comprehensive coverage of that hypothesis. The argument is simply whether a fringe set of hypotheses should be described on a few appropriate pages, or be mentioned wherever Shakespeare is mentioned. Nishidani (talk) 10:44, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

What's happened to the mediation? Has my persiflage ruined it? Has it died in its tracks. I wish to avoid situations of conflict but they are inevitable unless we can get some mediation, particularly on what constitutes proper sourcing and GA level editing on wikipedia. This is the crux for me, since the pages I wish to fix, related to the SAQ business, are horrendously bad from a purely technical point of view. When I started to look at and do some elementary work today at Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship , all I got was a blanket revert (which restored demonstrably false information and poor sources) with no response on the talk page where I had given my reasons for the edits proposed. Without wishing to rush things..

Had we but world enough and time

Cunctator modes would be just fine . . ;) Nishidani (talk) 17:21, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Smatprt

I believe that specific content concerning a notable minority viewpoint has been systematically deleted from at least 11 articles, clearly violating NPOV, and feel there is no fundamental Wiki policy which argues against including an appropriate reference to the SAQ in these and other articles. BTW - the primary objection (ONEWAY) is a guideline, not a policy, so should not be the determining factor. It's also being misapplied.

I used to believe the SAQ fell under WP's broad definition of "fringe", but that description has narrowed [[2]] [[3]] to the extent I no longer feel the SAQ qualifies. Regardless, all minority and fringe theories are not the same. To equate the SAQ with Holocaust denial or FlatEarthers, for example, has no basis in Wiki policy.

An earlier question - "Would you expect a mainstream Shakespeare expert to have heard of the SAQ and be familiar with its arguments?" The answer is yes. Leaving it out should actually raise eyebrows, not the other way round. An appropriate mention (brief, to avoid weight issues) is certainly legitimate. As was noted, "it could even be beneficial, in that considering it can be used to clarify the relationship between the works and Shakespeare the man". Smatprt (talk) 02:24, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

SamuelTheGhost

I am in substantial agreement with what Smatprt has written above. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 16:42, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Bertaut

Yep, I agree with Smatprt as well. I'm an academic, although I've never lectured on a Shakespeare course, so I pretty much consider myself to be an amateur. If I had come to Wikipedia and found no mention of the SAQ, I'd have been shocked. Like I've said before, the SAQ exists. It doesn't have any major academic backing, but it exists. And therefore is! There are books on it. There are articles on it. All Shakespearians are familiar with it, and if you look at the introductions to the various modern editions (Arden, Cambridge, Oxford etc), you'll often find the SAQ mentioned. Granted, it's mentioned so as to refute it, but nevertheless, they still consider it important enough to mention. On a more practical level, I freely admit, I'm not overly familiar with Wiki policy. I've read through the various pages mentioned above by Tom, but I've found nothing to justify what himself and Nishidani have been doing. They often accuse Smatprt of having an agenda and forwarding his own ideology. However, I've read through much of the material he has written which has subsequently been deleted, and I can find no sense of an agenda at all. In fact, I think the arbitrary attempt to delete large quantities of the material constitutes more of an agenda than adding (fully referenced) articles in the first place. I can look at this issue more objectively I think, than Tom, Nishidani or Smatprt, as I don't believe in the SAQ but I also have no problem with it being covered on Wiki. And looking at it from that perspective, I simply cannot understand what the problem is. Bertaut (talk) 00:44, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

ScienceApologist

The hope was to have a new version of the main article on this subject ready. Nishidani informs me that there is a version that he and Tom Reddy worked on nearly finished. It is time to present it to the community for wider input. A WP:RfC with some notice on relevant boards (such as WP:NPOVN, WP:FRINGE) and the relevant Wikiprojects should get enough input to decide what the consensus is. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:42, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

SA - did you post this in the wrong place? This location is for your view on the mediation issues [[4]] raised by Tom and I. The main article you reference is a completely different matter. Thanks. Smatprt (talk) 15:03, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

This is a bigger issue, I think. Resolve this issue and the cards will fall into place. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Not sure I agree. I don't understand how the fate of the main SAQ article has anything to do with the deletion of material from the articles listed in Tom's original mediation request (his list does not even include the main SAQ article). These are two very separate issues. The issue of the main SAQ article was all about merging related articles and appropriate forking. And none of those affected articles are listed in this mediation. Smatprt (talk) 19:15, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Having a good main article on a topic is one way to determine how coverage of that topic as a whole on Wikipedia should proceed. Determining how to handle single sentences and sections in other articles is easier when the main article on the subject is well-referenced and arguments can be made for why links to the main article should be made. In every case at disagreement here, links to the main article were involved. That makes the content of the main article important. Having been involved in content disputes of this nature in the past, I can tell you that having a main article that anchors a topic well can resolve side issues almost instantaneously. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:02, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Not to squelch any conversation here, because you're bringing out some good points, but shouldn't all this come out in the discussion instead of the individual opening statement of your view of the matter? Or is this your opening statement? Tom Reedy (talk) 12:55, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

My opening statement was the three sentences I wrote at the top. I think it confused some of the participants, but I hope it's clearer now. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:14, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Xover

My apologies for going AWOL; I got blindsided by work. I'll try to get my response posted here this weekend. --Xover (talk) 18:43, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

sigh, and a week after my self-imposed deadline, which was already unforgivably tardy, I finally get around to actually delivering. My apologies all around, and particularly to Seddon if he was waiting for my contribution before getting started. Mea culpa.

My view of the dispute can be summed up thus: ignorance perceived as malice, impatience and frustration received as enemy action. Smatprt argues for the inclusion of a source because he genuinely considers it to meet WP:RS, or for a particular phrasing or the inclusion of some material in a given article because he genuinely believes it is the best and most accurate portrayal of the subject. If given the chance (by other editors) he will understand logically that mainstream scholarship is overwhelmingly against his standpoint, and I expect (but won't state categorically, I'm already pushing the bounds of what to attribute to another person to the breaking point) also what that means for how the material is presented; but being completely contrary to one's convictions one is very unlikely to get it on a visceral level, which makes it very very hard for anyone to not resist it. Meanwhile, other editors have exhausted their supply of both patience and ability to assume good faith, and tend to react as if his every action were the deeply planned malicious actions of a conspiracy (of one) to undermine the project, and them personally. Being met like this, Smatprt would be quite justified in feeling (again, these are my assumptions; Smatprt and others may have a radically different interpretation) that he is being attacked, perhaps even bullied, and subjected to outright censorship. And round and round it goes.

I've tried my very best to act as a calming influence in these interactions, but I fear my skills at mediation are so poor that I've been actively harmful rather then help.

This all would be no worse than an unhappy experience on Wikipedia for a finite and small set of people but for the involved parties (me included) all being tenacious and passionate people willing to roll up their sleeves and plough through. What first gets lost in these interminable cycles on the merry-go-round is the wider perspective: the endless bickering (which need not be particularly bad in itself, in that isolated case) creates a confrontational atmosphere that wears out editors, and bogs down all possibility of forward progress on the topic on the wider project, the WikiProject, and whatever article is the immediate object. Lack of any progress combined with extensive and neverending bickering on one minute part of an article is the perfect recipe for forcing the choice between throwing in the towel or burning out.

Smatprt has behaved badly and has violated several policies in spirit if not necessarily in letter. I absolutely understand how that happened, and am entirely convinced that no ill will or bad intent is required to explain it. Representing a minority viewpoint (any minority viewpoint, regardless of merit) puts you in a situation where only inhuman effort could prevent that in attempting to, in entirely good faith, advocate your point of view (in the discussion; I'm not refering to WP:POV etc. here). Similarly, other editors, in attempting to counter him, have similarly behaved badly and violated several policies. And equivalently no ill will or intent is required to explain it: when you feel (right or wrong) that your counterpart is being deliberately obtuse and endlessly argumentative, it's almost impossible to not lose your cool, get frustrated, and ever more confrontational.

This downward spiral is aided by the lack of wider community input by people familiar with the subject matter; we can barely manage to get outside opinion in at all, and those that do show up usually lack the expertise to form well-founded opinions on the often extremely esoteric points being argued (Shakespeare studies are relatively esoteric in themselves, when it comes to the SAQ we're way beyond that even, and the actual points being discussed are often obscure even within that narrow context). This means it's in effect impossible to form a consensus that will stick; none of the parties involved are really willing to accept the results even when there is something approaching a consensus, which makes the net effect of RfCs and similar a mere lottery where whichever party had the most sympathy can grasp on to a tenuous support for their position.

Ultimately I think Smatprt (and the other Authorship adherents) hold the key to resolving this issue—they need to accept that while Wikipedia might be a good way to get information about their favoured candidate out, it has to happen by way of articles written from the mainstream scholarship point of view; which is almost entirely dismissive of them—but that can only happen if the rest of us (I'm including myself here) actually give them a chance to do so. I think Smatprt, in particular, has done remarkably well working collaboratively and compromising in a hostile atmosphere, despite the somewhat lackluster actual results; he's been the most vocal of the Authorship-sympathetic editors, and hence has met with the most pushback (and frustrated outbursts, and criticism, and...), and given the circumstances has, I think, handled it remarkably well. In that sense I'm far more disappointed with the rest of us who have let petty frustration run away with our better judgement far too often.

In a related AN/I discussion, LessHeard vanU made a suggestion regarding editing from the opposite point of view in order to try to break out of some patterns of interaction and promote better understanding. I've long imagined that getting, for instance, Smatprt to edit the main SAQ article as he believes the mainstream scholarship regards it—even if he disagrees completely—would be a valuable exercise. Mostly because I suspect we've (all of us) managed to give him the clear impression that the mainstream is quite extreme in its dismissal (maybe even outright suppression) of the Authorship question. If he were the one editing the article to reflect that, and the rest of us thus put in the position to be moderate, it would highlight the points of commonality rather than those of dispute. I've hesitated to suggest it because I think it will require an insane amount of effort to succeed, and if it fails it has the potential to make things even worse.

My fear is that we're fast running out of ways to turn this into a productive and cooperative process, and that the only way out will end up being ArbCom with attendant topic-bans and other onerous restrictions that even in the best case scenario will deprive the WikiProject of a desperately needed contributor (and I don't even want to think about the worst case scenario).

Anyways, I'm glad to see Phil has stepped in to assist Sneddon here; and I hope a (pair of) active mediator(s) helping us lift our collective gazes out of old patterns of conflict can stave off further deterioration so we can get back to actually improving the Shakespeare articles on Wikipedia. Just the topics we have current articles on count around a thousand of which only 3% are GA-class, and that's not even counting the topics we lack articles on, so it's desperately needed. --Xover (talk) 12:26, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Just a note on the atmosphere of bullying. Unless I am mistaken I have had only 3 blips of interactions with Smatprt since early March, until I laid a complaint against him denying me my right to edit on October 8. One edit to an accusation, not against me, of edit-warring (harsh, and I took User:Noleander's advice (see quote on User:Tom Reedy' s page) at that, to adhere strictly to neutral comments); one to defend him vigorously against User:RewlandUmmer, a sock who attacked him in August; and one, on August 19, where I registered my view that he edited poorly. Over 7 months, that is it. When I laid the complaint to have my rights restored, I was accused of a campaign of harassment over 10 months. I agree he feels bullied, and my explanation is that when I started editing, he was not isolated. Editing for his POV also were Alexpope; Softlavender; Asfamit BenJonson, Schoenbaum, Ssilvers and Mizelmouse, to name a few off the top of my head. They however left him to carry the can, except when crucial decisions required a vote, and the picture created was of 2 (Tom and myself) against one. He's been in this recent period, let down by his allies, rather than, I believe, assailed by adversaries. Within two months, the page was split, and that was the effective end of it. I don't know what things were like from 2007 to February 2010, but I think your description is more historic than contemporary. Regards Nishidani (talk) 13:55, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we're in particular disagreement; and my intent was not to (explicitly or implicitly) accuse anyone of anything. My point was more that, right or wrong, I think—and by all means, this is just my impression which is often wrong—that Smatprt feels persecuted and marginalized, and that he has ample reason to feel that; which is not the same as having reason to argue that. As I said I'm quite certain that neither you nor Tom, nor anyone else for that matter (the malicious sockpuppet incident aside), has had any intent of of doing that; but I'm equally convinced that had I been in Smatprt's shoes I would have felt like that was the case even had I been able to logically see that wasn't so. And the relevance is, of course, that the way we feel tends to have a fundamental effect on our ability to argue rationally, objectively, and, not least of all, assume good faith on the part of those with whom one disagrees. We're all human beings, and thus by definition flawed. --Xover (talk) 14:21, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't look at this mediation as an accusation; to me it's a policy interpretation disagreement. I happen to believe that the disagreement is rooted in WP:SOAPBOX, but the motivation is irrelevant to the desired result, which is adherence to Wikipedia policy. If Jimbo Wales dropped in and told us that Smatprt's actions were consistent with Wikipedia policy, I would happily acquiesce and move to halt the mediation forthwith. Barring that event, we're forced to hash it out with the help of an overseer who has (we all hope) the background and knowledge of policy to help us arrive at a just conclusion. Our particular editing histories are irrelevant. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:20, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

True, but I think training as a wikipedian consists of learning to suspend one's feelings in editing to a subject. I can still recall vividly reading things in reliable sources that put my POV in a poor perspective. I thought:'No one knows about this detail. I can just ignore it' But, reflection tells one, 'it's in the source', and, thinking of Ezra Pound's 'Pull down thy vanity (POV), I say pull down' (Canto LXXXI, Faber ed.p.521), one swallows one's POV and puts that valid information in. One shouldn't think of 'the other' in editing, but of one's ethical obligations to history. Sorry, but it's Sunday, and I still suffer from residual echoes of it being a preachy day:)Nishidani (talk) 14:32, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, I felt this interchange from 19 August was pretty close to bullying. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 16:34, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

bullying? Check your language But let it drop, we are spoiling Xover's comment section, and my apologies to him/her.Nishidani (talk) 16:59, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Hey guys, as Tom would say, I think we've gone "off topic" (although I certainly appreciate much of what Xover said and think he/she had made some good points). In any case, this section was where each of us was to put, in "less than 200 words", our comments on the issues described in this mediation report. We were supposed to "focus on content", not on the other editors. Could we give that a try? Thanks. Smatprt (talk) 18:21, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Status?

I wonder if this case has not went stale? AGK 19:46, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Seddon isn't really taking an active role, that I can tell. We need a better moderator. ScienceApologist (talk)

The issues are still very much alive; but for some reason the moderator has gone AWOL. Perhaps he reviewed the history of this problem, which has been on-going for four years now, and decided to retire from Wikipedia. I can't say I blame him if that were the case. Tom Reedy (talk) 12:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Mediation is desperately needed. We received a message from our moderator about a week ago, apologizing for the delay, but have heard nothing since. Can you AGK look into the matter? Thanks. Smatprt (talk) 01:57, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll be helping out until Seddon returns. PhilKnight (talk) 23:12, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I signed up two months ago. It's getting tricky scheduling this, because private lives run to different timetables. Just for the record, I will be incommunicado, in a place where computers aren't used, from the first week in November to sometime in February. If there is anything or any question regarding my input at least, I have another 10 days to participate (unless this runs on, and I wouldn't be surprised :) into late February). Or of course, I could simply withdraw formally, if that's what the rules would indicate? Regards Nishidani (talk) 09:35, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Nishidani, thanks for letting me know. Obviously, you could withdraw, if you wanted, but you shouldn't feel obliged to. You never know, we could make some useful progress in the next few days. PhilKnight (talk) 20:01, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay Phil. Just didn't want to appear to walk out on a mediation in mid-course. In anycase, I think it's basically about interpretation of policy, therefore could be lengthy, and, as you know, I know nothing much at all about rules except what I pick up here and there, and so it's best left to others. Cheers Nishidani (talk) 20:10, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

• What with the withdrawal of Nishidani, I'm closing this case. AGK 21:12, 30 November 2010 (UTC)