Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare authorship question/Evidence: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 15:42, 10 February 2011

Latest revision as of 07:19, 27 March 2022

(2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)

Line 199:

==Evidence presented by NinaGreen==

Proxied by request on behalf of NinaGreen, who is blocked, by [[User talk:AGK|<fontspan colorstyle="color:black;">'''AGK'''</fontspan>]]<small> <nowiki>[</nowikI>[[User:AGK/Arbitration and content|&bull;]]<nowiki>]</nowiki></small> 22:04, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

=== Arbitration as it stands should be dismissed ===

Line 211:

I also wish to make it clear that the foregoing has nothing to do with evidence which might be presented in an arbitration case by any of the parties involved. It has to do with the fact that LessHeard vanU did not support in any way in his statement below the key issue on which he requested arbitration, the alleged 'coordinated campaign'. Wikipedia editors should not be dragged into an arbitration on the basis of a statement by an administrator which the administrator has entirely failed to support in his request for arbitration.[[User:NinaGreen|NinaGreen]] ([[User talk:NinaGreen#top|talk]]) 01:41, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

{{Collapse top|Original RfAR Statement by LessHeard vanU|Note: The collapse boxes were added by me. [[User talk:AGK|<fontspan colorstyle="color:black;">'''AGK'''</fontspan>]]<small> <nowiki>[</nowikI>[[User:AGK/Arbitration and content|&bull;]]<nowiki>]</nowiki></small> 22:04, 17 January 2011 (UTC)}}

The SAQ article derives from a small but vocal minority of Shakespeare students and occasional academic who hold that the mainstream Literature view that William Shakespeare of Stratford upon Avon was the sole or principal author of the works ascribed to him is false, and that there are other better suited candidates for the title. That there is this viewpoint is accepted by Shakespeare scholars, although there is little credence given to the arguments or the other claimants, and it is WP consensus that the article should reflect this.

However, there is a sustained and possibly co-ordinated campaign to have the Wikipedia article reflect the POV of the "anti-Stratfordians"; providing potential authorship candidates (and one in particular presently) an enhanced (preferably equal) standing within the article to that of Shakespeare. This is attempted by use of tendentious editing of the SAQ talkpage, exhaustive Wikilawyering over detail (often while ignoring the substantive issues) during discussions, non consensus edits to the article page - usually by ip's or throwaway accounts, and personal attacks, attempted outing and harassment of those editors who attempt to maintain and explain Wikipedia:Neutral point of view editing of the article.