Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare authorship question/Evidence: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Evidence presented by Fut.Perf.: +more on Zweigenbaum |
→Evidence presented by Johnuniq: add response to Protonk |
||
Line 542:
*People enjoy investigating puzzles (examples: [[crossword]]s, [[whodunit]]s, [[List of conspiracy theories|conspiracy theories]]). See puzzle investigator and SAQ enthusiast [[Barry R. Clarke]], created by now-blocked [[User:Barryispuzzled|Barryispuzzled]], and illustrated at this [[WP:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-09-10 Shakespeare Puzzle|2006 mediation]].
*Enthusiasts conclude that because Shakespeare did not have direct knowledge of many details described in his plays, he could not have written those plays. Yet it is more than 350 years since anyone had direct knowledge about Shakespeare, so no anti-Stratfordian arguments are based on direct knowledge.
*Someone who can "see" that academic consensus<sup>[[Shakespeare authorship question#cite note-2|SAQ footnote]] {{oldid|Shakespeare authorship question#cite note-2|
*Therefore, some form of article probation is required to ensure the policies outlined at [[WP:5P|5P]] are upheld without exhausting good editors (my [[WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare authorship question#Statement by Johnuniq|statement]] gave sufficient examples of recent inappropriate behavior, and the [[WP:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-09-10 Shakespeare Puzzle|2006 mediation]] link that I mentioned above shows that the issue is long term).
In an article such as [[Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship]], the view that someone other than Shakespeare wrote the plays should be described neutrally. The article needs to make clear that the arguments are rejected by academic consensus, but the Oxfordian arguments should be fully explored. However, [[Shakespeare authorship question]] must accurately reflect the best sources: the reader should be in no doubt that whereas there are certain Oxfordian arguments, the consensus among academics in the relevant discipline is that Shakespeare wrote the plays.
===Response to Protonk===
The RSN discussion (archived [[WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 45#NY Times Survey as Reliable Source for Shakespeare Authorship section?|here]]) was conducted at two levels. Superficially, it looks like a question regarding whether the NYT survey was a reliable source for a certain statement. However, the involved editors know this survey was organized by an anti-Stratfordian<sup>[http://www.observer.com/node/51292 ref]</sup> (someone who promotes the view that Shakespeare did not write the plays), and that the survey has frequently been misused to promote anti-Stratfordian views. Of course the NYT survey satisfies [[WP:IRS|reliable sources]] to verify some assertions, but the issue concerns precisely what assertion is reasonable.
The survey has these problems:
*The respondents were those that "teach Shakespeare" to undergraduates and graduates—they are academics, but they do not publish results of research into the relevant history, so they are not subject experts whose SAQ opinions satisfy [[WP:SOURCES]]. The survey should not be used to imply that researchers within the field have significant doubts about Shakespeare's authorship.
*The survey asked if there is good reason to question whether Shakespeare is the principal author of the plays and poems in the canon (6% yes, 11% possibly, ±5% sampling error). That question is loaded because there ''is'' good reason to believe that Shakespeare was not the <u>principal</u> author of some works (for example, [[Titus Andronicus]], [[Two Noble Kinsmen]], and [[Henry VIII (play)|Henry VIII]]). Furthermore, "possibly" is an attractive response for many academics who, when politely questioned, would be inclined to agree that ''possibly'' our knowledge of historical events is incomplete.
*Crucial questions (such as, "is there good reason to believe that the [[Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship|Earl of Oxford wrote the plays]]?") were not asked.
*It is likely that many of those who did not respond to the survey have no doubt about Shakespeare's authorship (while those with a doubt would be inclined to respond). That factor, together with the "primary authorship" issue, probably inflated the 6% "yes" response.
[[Shakespeare authorship question]] needs to explain whether research by relevant subject experts supports Shakespeare's authorship. The article currently states "all but a few Shakespeare scholars and literary historians consider it a fringe belief with no hard evidence" with an explanatory footnote.<sup>[[Shakespeare authorship question#cite note-2|SAQ footnote]] {{oldid|Shakespeare authorship question#cite note-2|410115041|(permalink)}}</sup> However, editors want to counter the experts cited in that footnote with a statement that the NYT survey shows that 17% (6%+11%) of academics doubt the authorship.<sup>{{diff|Talk:Shakespeare authorship question|prev|403106547|diff1}}, {{diff|Talk:Shakespeare authorship question|prev|404545828|diff2}}</sup> Such an interpretation of the survey is not reasonable due to the problems described above, mainly that those surveyed are not published scholars.
==Evidence by Bishonen==
| |||