| Revision as of 22:51, 1 March 2011 editSucamilc (talk | contribs)4 edits →Shakespeare authorship question: ~~~~← Previous edit | Revision as of 23:16, 1 March 2011 edit undoLaser brain (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users22,564 edits rm off-topic discussion and continuation of previous disputesNext edit → | ||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
| *'''Indeed''', I wish to make clear right off the bat that FAC delegates will remove commentary by users or socks of users who were banned from this topic area. --] ] 14:52, 1 March 2011 (UTC) | *'''Indeed''', I wish to make clear right off the bat that FAC delegates will remove commentary by users or socks of users who were banned from this topic area. --] ] 14:52, 1 March 2011 (UTC) | ||
| This sounds like even further censorship by Misplaced Pages. Facts are facts. This article was tagged by Adam Gopnik in a February 14 article in the New Yorker as one of the two most contentious articles on Misplaced Pages and a constant battleground. For Misplaced Pages to grant it Featured Article status when the edit history of the article establishes that the entire article was essentially written during the past few months by two editors, Tom Reedy and Nishidani, stridently vocal proponents of the orthodox view of the authorship controversy, while everyone of the opposite view was constantly reverted by them, actively discouraged by them from participating through endless equivocation on Talk pages, or outright banned from editing through their machinations in concocting spurious complaints, would be to violate everything Misplaced Pages allegedly stands for in terms of its principle of neutrality. It's bad enough that the article is now the playground only of those who champion the orthodox view of the authorship controversy, with everyone of the opposing view prevented from contributing to it and restoring it to neutrality. To grant it Feature Article status while those conditions obtain would indicate just how far Misplaced Pages has strayed from its alleged principle of neutrality.] (]) 17:46, 1 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :This is what Gopnik said (in an interview), and it is exactly why we need to show that we can create a stable article that reflects real-world scholarship: "What worries me is the spread of information (I cited Shakespeare authorship and the Shroud of Turin in the piece) where the truth is known but the lies keep coming. Evolution and creationism. A kid going on line to do research on the Second World War is one fatal click away from negationism. That's worrying." . If we can bring this article into the "featured" fold it will be a triumph for the wiki-way that will go some way to allay these very fears. ] (]) 19:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| '''Comment''': Xover argues for the nomination on the grounds that "Tom has put in a tremendous amount of effort over the past year." This is like my students arguing that they deserve an A because they worked really hard. | |||
| Its clear that Tom has worked really hard: through his industriousness, along with impressive contributions by "Nishidani," Paul Barlow, and perhaps others, the article has been well scrubbed. It is now a shiny new used car with a broken engine. Anyone who believes that conformity to established doctrine is a higher value than critical thinking should vote in favor of the motion. | |||
| Others may wish to pause before doing so. The article has a long and tumultuous history which, contrary to Tom's implication, is highly relevant to the present nomination. Most recently, informed parties who would have been involved in the editing process and helped to provide a more objective content, not to mention less awkward prose, have been bullied into leaving by Mr. Reedy and "Nishidani." Tom's reference to "high degree of stability" is an illusion, if not a *de*lusion*. Within the next six months, at least four new books, all of them endorsing or supporting an Oxfordian authorship candidacy are set to appear, some by major publishers. | |||
| The current bibliography of the article contains only a single reference the (multiple) works of ] and fails to note that the arguments of ], are from a historical perspective frequently unimpressive beside Greenwood's powerful cross-examination, as any number of more contemporary literary historians, such as From the perspective of intellectual history this is nothing short of pathetic. | |||
| If we examine the article from a more contemporary point of view, the same prejudicial deficiencies are glaring: ]'s "Shakespeare by Another Name," arguably the most important book (along with) on the subject written in the last six years, is not only scrubbed from the reference section but is not mentioned in the entire article! There is no reference to the establishment of '']'' or ''The Oxfordian,'' both peer reviewed journals of authorship studies. There is no reference to the contemporary dynamic circumstances of the Shakespearean industry, as exemplified, for example, by William Leahy's new. | |||
| It should also be noted, for the record, that the nominator has a conflict of interest. Having been party to the negativism, lack of good faith, and etc. which has brought the article to its present uncomprehensive, pedestrian and prejudicial state, when the *application* of good faith might have produced more impressive results, he now wants his handiwork to be treated as a model of Misplaced Pages process. | |||
| In short, the article has suffered markedly from the single-minded prejudices of the recent crew of editors, and I would have concur with contributor 72.234.212.189, regardless of the circumstances of his or her situation, that the article hardly qualifies for nomination to this category let alone "election." Thank you for your thoughtful perusal of these comments.--] (]) 17:33, 1 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::note: the principle on which the footnoting is undertaken is in conformity with ] and ]. ] is an acknowledged Shakespeare expert. ] is a journalist with no expertise in 16th-17th century literature, as are most of the "peer reviewers" on the board of ''Brief Chronicles''. These are matters that have been discussed elsewhere. There may be legitimate criticisms to be made about the structure of the article or the use of sources, but we need helpful input, not disruption and walls-of-text from editors who have had plenty of opportunity to contribute to the article and recent discussions. ] (]) 18:22, 1 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Response''': Mr. Barlow again illustrates a prejudice that seems to interfere with his understanding of simple factual matters that are beyond reasonable dispute, viz: | |||
| :including the general editor, there are twelve members of the editorial board of BC. Of these,at least seven are either fully qualified experts in early modern English literature or have published (sometimes extensively) in topics on early modern English literature. | |||
| :Five are full professors, one, Professor Ostrowski, at Harvard, where he will be this fall teaching a course of the authorship question. Professor Regnier has published extensively in several peer reviewed journals on the subject of Shakespeare and the law. There is no person in the world more qualified (some may be *as* qualified) to hold an informed opinion on the intersection between law and literature in the Shakespearean canon. | |||
| :Two of our board members are recognized experts in the topic of pseudonymous literature: Michael Hyde, PhD Hyde served as the sub-editor for Walter Houghton on ''The Wellesley Index to Victorian Periodicals'' (from 1974-1980), a massive five volume compilation of more than thirty leading British-Scottish-Irish magazines published between 1800-1900. Georgetown adjunct Waugamun is a leading theorist on the subject of the relevance of psychoanalysis to literature and has written at length on the relevance of psychology generally and psychoanalysis in particular to the study of pseudonymous texts. Some of his many relevant publications are available on his website, which is at oxfreudian.dot.com. I attempted to insert a link to Dr. Waugaman's site, BUT, journalists take NOTE, this cleanup crew at Misplaced Pages has been so THOROUGH that Waugaman's site is blacklisted from Misplaced Pages. WOW! Way to go, guys! (n.b. I attempted to discover the problem with this and the site is not listed on any of the wiki Blacklists, so this MAY be some sort of bug. I sure hope so.) | |||
| :Professor Gilbert, a man at most in his early forties, holds an endowed chair in theatre history at the University of Guelph; Professor Londré is Curators’ Professor of Theatre at the University of Missouri-Kansas City and Honorary Co-Founder of Heart of America Shakespeare Festival. She was the founding secretary of the Shakespeare Theatre Association of America. She is the editor of a selection of critical essays on ''Love's Labour's Lost,'' ''Love’s Labour’s Lost: Critical Essays'' published by Garland (1997) and Routledge (2000). Dr. ], one the members of our board who has not published in early modern studies, is a world recognized expert not only in forensic linguistics but in Frye standards for evaluating the authority of expert witnesses in the courtroom! Are you telling us that her area of expertise is not relevant to issues of authorship? | |||
| : All of this information is readily available on the BC website. I don't know why it seems necessary to repeat it hear, except that some persons who might be too busy to visit the site and discover it for themselves might be tempted to think that you have any credibility. | |||
| :Paul, leading aside your blind faith in Shapiro's expertise, which has been widely punctuated in numerous reviews and commentaries readily available on the internet, your willful misunderstanding of the relevance of the expertise of BC board members to the ''interdisciplinary mission of the publication,'' and your ironically pedantic efforts to deny Mr. Anderson his rightful place in the current discussion, based on the merits of his work and not his "professional" qualifications, in what universe do you subtract five from twelve and get the answer "most"? --] (]) 21:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::It would take several volumes to unpack the deceptions and disingenousness here, but suffice it to say that it is largely irrelevant to the issue we should be discussing here, and is typical of the ]-like strategy adopted by Oxfordians here to utterly drown useful discussion in a sea of verbiage so that once one steps in to this incarnadine ocean, returning is as infinitely tedious as go o'er. ] (]) 22:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::Waugaman's blog (if that's the site Ben means) is not blacklisted . ] (]) 22:10, 1 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::'''Note''' {{u|BenJonson}} self-identifies as Roger Stritmatter, the General Editor of the journal ''Brief Chronicles'' he is here advocating, and has been made aware of the ] guideline. The journal has been discussed at ] twice and rejected as a ] except in extremely limited circumstances. The mentioned blog, “oxfraudian.com”, is currently on the blacklist due to spamming. --] (]) 22:31, 1 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| '''REQUEST''': I would like to request that commenters refrain from talking about Nishidani and Tom Reedy or any other user and focus '''''only''''' on the article itself. I find such personal talk unprofessional, unhelpful, and annoying in this space. All of the stuff about Tom and Nishidani and the rest was settled in the Arbcom case. Everyone had their "day in court." Now it is time to talk about actual content. If you want to talk about editors, rather than content, there are other places for that. ] (]) 18:11, 1 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Wrad''': Reedy and Nishidani have made themselves the subject of this discussion, by refusing to act responsibly as editors dealing with a controversial topic. For a very recent example, just check out the recent talk thread conversation between myself and Nishi. Within 5 minutes of my supplying two footnotes ''to an un-footnoted controversial claim,'' which passed muster all of the lo these many months when I have avoided this page like the plague it was turned into, apparently approved of by Nishi, Reedy, and the rest of the gang who has made this entry their own private playground by hounding anyone with alternative perspective, was still surviving and alive, but with no footnote! I can only conclude that Mssrs. Reedy and Nishidani either do not understand that controversial claims require clear documentation, or perhaps think that they are above the principle that on any controversial topic it is ''incumbent '' on the editors to chose as examples of documentation ''the strongest possible arguments on both sides'', and not, as Reedy and Nishi prefer, to go about erecting straw men at every possible juncture in the discussion so that one side can be made to appear foolish and the other omniscient. Ha! According to ''ANY reasonable scholarly practice'' the sentence I edited REQUIRED a footnote, and I supplied TWO (with a slight amplification of the sentence to reflect more accurately the nature of the claim being summarized). Both references were to a peer reviewed journal, '']'', which has Misplaced Pages entry and a prestigious line up of academicians on its editorial board, including one from Harvard. | |||
| :The first issue of BC has had excerpted from it by Gale publishing, in their annual ] (2011, forthcoming in April) an article by Dr. Earl Showerman, MD, on the classical sources of ''Much Ado About Nothing.'' '''' is an annual academic publication sold exclusively to University libraries, published by the largest and one of the most prestigious publishers of academic series and textbooks in the world, that has published 57 volumes. This year they are publishing not only Showerman's article but another by Charles Burford, an outspoken and articulate advocate of the Oxfordian position, on the psychology of feudalism. According to Nishi's logic (if it prints something I don't like), SC would not be "RS" -- and his bizarre claim that BC isn't either is followed with a "You should know this" sneer. Do you think its possible that just perhaps Nishi and Mr. Reedy have been so busy editing this page that they don't have a clue what is actually happening in the outside world of Shakespearean scholarship? Sounds that way to me. | |||
| : The result of months of domination of this article by Reedy and Nishidani is eloquently summarized below by 72.234.212.189 "It does not present any of the essential arguments which make the non-orthodox view compelling, and which gave rise to the authorship controversy in the first place and which have kept it an ongoing topic of interest for decades." Nishidani's reflexive censorship of my attempt to supply a footnote only confirms how thoroughly and savagely this practice has been enforced for far too long by these two (aided and abetted by others). | |||
| :I don't know how it can reasonably be expected that persons actually knowledgeable of the subject under discussion should continue stuff rags in their mouths about this kind of misbehavior out of some sort of alleged loyalty to the "principle" of never criticizing such perverse and damaging actions. I'm sure that in some other universe Nishidani is a perfectly lovely human being. As an editor of this particular Misplaced Pages page he is neither competent nor civil. Indeed, he seems to adhere without deviation to the principle that he is always right, and anyone who questions him will be contradicted and insulted. Well-intentioned attempts to find common ground, such as by supplying appropriate documentation to unsourced claims, are rejected with bogus definitional arguments that'' never engage the substance of the issue''. | |||
| :Wrad, with all due respect, this sort of thing is not in the best interests of Misplaced Pages. I, too, would prefer to discuss content. But Reedy and Nishi have made that all but impossible to do so, by various means including (very frequently) imposing arbitrarily and typically false definitions on key terms like "RS" without any discussion or defense. The motive is very clear from the pattern they have established over many months: to censor the voices of those who have something significant to say on this topic and preserve the dogma of an entrenched paradigm, whatever the cost to Misplaced Pages or to the values of informed discourse on questions of significant intellectual and public matters. This is vulgar and should stop. You should not condone it.--] (]) 21:19, 1 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| Editors are relevant. Tom Reedy brought them up: 'an intensive editing process by many excellent editors'. This is manifestly not the truth. The edit history of the article shows that it is the product of two editors, Tom Reedy and Nishidani, both indefatigable proponents of the orthodox view. Their view is that anything which opposes the orthodox view is the pushing of a non-neutral point of view, which is manifestly ridiculous in an article which is purportedly about the authorship controversy. The reality is that the article as it now stands does nothing but disparage the non-orthodox view. It does not present any of the essential arguments which make the non-orthodox view compelling, and which gave rise to the authorship controversy in the first place and which have kept it an ongoing topic of interest for decades.] (]) 18:46, 1 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| Cardinal to the claim that this Misplaced Pages Article warrants featured article status is the assertion that the Shakespeare Authorship Question constitutes a 'fringe belief'. This by itself suffices to disqualify the claim on the grounds of non-neutrality. If someone were to claim that Shelley had written Lord Byron's works, that would certainly constitute a 'fringe belief'. But it is clear that the two situations are not the same, because the questions about the Shakespeare Authorship not only show no sign of diminishing after at least 150 years, but are increasing in scope and influence year by year. When a major best-selling orthodox Stratfordian author like James Shapiro sets aside four years of his life to write a novel type of 'refutation' of anti-Stratfordian theory ('Contested Will'), and when more of the masters of evidence of the US Supreme Court lean towards authorship scepticism, than towards orthodoxy, along with innumerable other signs, then this is blatantly no longer a 'fringe belief', but rather a 'minority belief'. It is indeed a kind of bunker mentality, supported by circular definitions of legitimate scholarship, that denies this obvious and ever more overwhelming flood of data. | |||
| Featured Article status must therefore be opposed on the grounds of the article's clear non-neutrality.] (]) 22:24, 1 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Note''' the account {{u|Sucamilc}} was registered today and has made a single edit on Misplaced Pages: the comment above. --] (]) 22:35, 1 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| 'Be open and welcoming.' (Misplaced Pages guidelines.) Thank you, Xover. ] (]) 22:51, 1 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 23:16, 1 March 2011
Shakespeare authorship question
Shakespeare authorship question (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
| Toolbox |
|---|
- Nominator(s): Tom Reedy (talk) 02:07, 1 March 2011 (UTC) and Paul B (talk) 11:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Over the past 14 months this article has received an extensive makeover that at one time involved probably half of Misplaced Pages's administrators (not really, but it sure seemed that way sometimes). It is probably the most accurate and balanced short treatment of the topic that can be found on the Internet. POV issues were wrung out of the article (often painfully) during an intensive editing process by many excellent editors over the past few months. Once the scene of many POV battles, the article and talk page have achieved a high degree of stability over the past several months and has been edited with a high degree of collegiality. All references used in the article are from scholarly and reliable sources, an achievement in itself given the nature of the topic. Thanks to a lot of extremely talented editors, this article can serve as a model for other related Misplaced Pages articles. My hope is that this group of editors continues to work on those pages. Tom Reedy (talk) 02:07, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
- Tom has put in a tremendous amount of effort over the past year, and there has recently been a nice collaboration going with several editors involved in the preparations for FAC. I am happy to certify this nomination. --Xover (talk) 08:21, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
This article does not meet the listed criteria. The prose is pedestrian. It is certainly not 'engaging, even brilliant'. The article is not 'comprehensive'. It neglects major facts concerning the reasons why certain individuals have been proposed as authorship candidates. It is not particularly well-researched, for the same reason that it is not comprehensive. It is decidedly not neutral, and if it is accepted for featured article status it will be a triumph for outright censorship on Misplaced Pages since all editors other than those supporting the orthodox view of the authorship controversy were either discouraged from contributing to the article or outright banned by Misplaced Pages. It has been the subject of ongoing edit wars for four years, and is only recently 'stable' because editors who did not support the orthodox view were banned from editing. It is an overly lengthy treatment of the topic with an abundance of unnecessary footnotes, and its structure is illogical, as the historical section is in the middle of the article.72.234.212.189 (talk) 05:48, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
- Note that this topic area has been the subject of a recent ArbCom case and that standard discretionary sanctions have been authorized. The IP-edit above amply illustrates why that was necessary, and I would urge everyone to not needlessly engage with the various drive-by commenters that have been an issue whenever this topic has been the subject of a community process in the past. --Xover (talk) 08:06, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
- Indeed, I wish to make clear right off the bat that FAC delegates will remove commentary by users or socks of users who were banned from this topic area. --Andy Walsh (talk) 14:52, 1 March 2011 (UTC)