Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare authorship question/Evidence: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
MoreThings (talk | contribs) m →Evidence presented by MoreThings: fix heading |
Paul Barlow (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 487:
Warshy, Richard Malim and Zweigenbaum on this very page seem to advocate that Wikipedia's policies should be suspended for this case because knowledge is not exclusive to "academies" or because academics are hiding the truth in some way. Richard thinks that the opinion of a judge with no expertise on Elizabethan literature trumps accredited experts. He also "forgets" ''all'' [[Shakespeare_authorship_question#Shakespeare_on_trial.2C_part_2|the other judges]], the overwhelming majority, who ruled for Shakespeare, and whose legal expertise is presumably to be discounted. This double-think is constantly to be encountered. Nina Green insists that her personal findings should disqualify sources that meet the standards of [[WP:RS]] - especially the main biography of Oxford by [http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~ahnelson/ Alan Nelson]. Meanwhile the most draconian interpretations of policy should apply to statements made in opposition to her position (see Zweigenbaum's diffs [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AEdward_de_Vere%2C_17th_Earl_of_Oxford&action=historysubmit&diff=402185707&oldid=402173139]). Accusations of conspiracy and veiled threats are common, which drives away all but the most committed editors and produces a siege mentality in those who stay. This is problematic for several reasons. I don't always agree with Tom or Nishidani, but any apparent 'dispute' gets picked up upon. This can create a closing of ranks which does not encourage open debate about the content and structure of articles. Accusations abound. Samuel the Ghost on this page accuses Nishidani of lying (see talk page for context) for what in other circumstances might be interpreted as a minor slip (and has already been discussed [[User_talk:Nishidani/Archive_11#irrespective_of_SAQ|at length]]).
My feeling is that we need clear guidelines for both non authorship-related Shakespeare pages and for the fringe-theory authorship pages, so that we can have a set of specific principles to follow. I would very much like to be able to work with SAQ "believers" in a way that does not degenerate rapidly into name-calling. However, the fundamental problem is that Oxfordians and “Strats” essentially want different kinds of article. The former want a forum to showcase their arguments and circulate them as widely as possible. The latter want encyclopaedic discussion of the history, interpretation and intellectual status of the arguments. Hence the fact that the Oxfordians show very little interest in the history of their ‘movement’ (the article on its founder is barely more than a stub) and certainly not in other forms of Anti-Stratfordianism, but do want to add their ‘evidence’ to other pages which are not directly about the topic. Attempts to remove these on the grounds of [[WP:Fringe]] are seen as forms of censorship. I've no doubt that none of the active Stratfordian editors want to censor or eliminate discussion of the topic. It's just that we have very different ideas about how and where it should be discussed.
==Evidence presented by warshy==
| |||