Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare authorship question/Evidence: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Line 486:
However, she has a lot of knowledge of the field (check her webpage) and could make a valuable contribution to wikipedia. On several occasions she has made valid points, though usually in an inappropriate or overstated way. These valid points have been ignored or dismissed by the main editors of the page.
She was right to point out that 'Bardolatry' does not belong in the lead [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Shakespeare_authorship_question#Organization_Problems_-_Bardolotry]. I pointed out later that wp:Lede says "specialized terminology and symbols should be avoided in an introduction." She was also right to point out that "Not All Authorship Theories Postulate A Conspiracy" [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Shakespeare_authorship_question/Archive_20#Not_All_Authorship_Theories_Postulate_A_Conspiracy] - and eventually, 'all' was deleted after intervention of a neutral editor [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shakespeare_authorship_question&diff=407362570&oldid=407355226]. Note that in each case her point was initially dismissed by a member of the "Stratford team". Another valid point she made was "I felt like I was reading Shapiro" [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Shakespeare_authorship_question&diff=406637223&oldid=406637029] - too much of the content and style of the article is based on Shapiro's book.
I think that the suggestion of MoreThings of short-term blocks for breaking wiki rules, applied to BOTH sides, is appropriate. Another long-term one-sided ban would not only be unfair and inappropriate, but would also be counter-productive. The best way to encourage and strengthen a minority view is to attack it aggressively and ban it. As an objective outsider with some experience of the climate debate, it is amusing to see the "Stratford team" make all the same strategic errors made by climate scientists and their supporters that have been so damaging to them. [[User:Poujeaux|Poujeaux]] ([[User talk:Poujeaux|talk]]) 10:04, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
| |||