Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare authorship question/Evidence: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Line 712:
===Self-indictment, with a few clumsy sobstory excuses.===
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nishidani#Arbcom_submission_here.2C_since_it_is_far_too_long.2C_and_I_am_far_too_exhausted_to_waste_my_last_weeks_on_vacation_reading_thousands_of_diffs I've placed my evidence, also against myself, on my own talk page here] since, despite struggling for a week, I cannot bring myself to do what is required of me, and mount a case against anyone. I prefer to just give the thinnest of sketches as to how I perceived things over the past 11 months. I apologize to arbitration. My knowledge of rules, my grasp of diff theory, everything on wikipedia, is empirical, and in my experience one very rarely gets a comprehensive picture from diffs, unless someone is willing to riff back and forward for context, or read whole archives, which would be a form of cruelty here. I should add, though it is a partisan, subjective comment, that the attempt here to make us into an indistinguishable POV tagteaming duo is unfair to Tom Reedy. He thoroughly revised my 900+edit version of the article, invariably with a severe eye on [[WP:NPOV]], as befits his professional training, and he even went at times out of pocket to purchase and send me rare books on the subject so I could form my own independent idea of some recondite aspects of the field. He is a passionate Shakespearean scholar with however a broad and deep knowledge of that period, yes, but, despite a lapse or two, deserves nothing like the halo of suspicious thrown about him repeatedly, by virtue of his editorial association with me, over the past several months. [[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] ([[User talk:Nishidani|talk]]) 06:04, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
==Evidence presented by jdkag==
===SAQ Assortment of Supporters===
I see two sides to the Wiki controversy on SAQ: on one side, those who passionately defend Stratford, and on the other side, SAQ proponents who think that there are valid and interesting reasons for questioning the Stratfordian attribution. The article has been written by the passionate defenders, who have converted the article into a history of the question (though there is also a separate Wiki entry on this). Moreover, they use every opportunity to belittle the SAQ concept. What the defenders have not allowed is a concise and cogent synopsis of the reasons for questioning Stratfordian attribution. The bias is apparent in the first paragraph of the entry, in which SAQ is a presented as a fringe concept. Stratfordians are considered Shakespeare scholars, whereas SAQ supporters are discredited as "an assortment of supporters." The article uses terms such as "unequivocal" to describe the set of facts that are relied upon to defend Stratfordian authorship, and whereas these facts are recounted in detail (too much so for a wiki entry), the weaknesses underlying these "facts" go unmentioned.
Not all who support the SAQ position are necessarily anti-Stratfordians; some, such as Diana Price, have simply published work showing why the case for attribution is particularly weak. Another good pro-SAC book by a professor of Shakespearean studies (as opposed to the anti-SAC Shapiro book) is described here:
http://www.continuumbooks.com/books/detail.aspx?BookId=133116&SubjectId=997&Subject2Id=997
In general, I think that proponents of the SAC position do not see SAQ as an "argument" but as a concept. I would suggest that a more appropriate, non-POV opening sentences would read:
"The Shakespeare authorship question encompasses the concept that William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon may not have been the author of the body of works generally attributed to him."
==Evidence presented by {your user name}==
| |||