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

Revision as of 21:31, 7 February 2011

Revision as of 07:11, 8 February 2011

Line 582:

[[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.^{[[Shakespeare authorship question#cite note-2|SAQ footnote]] {{oldid|Shakespeare authorship question#cite note-2|410115041|(permalink)}}} 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.^{{{diff|Talk:Shakespeare authorship question|prev|403106547|diff1}}, {{diff|Talk:Shakespeare authorship question|prev|404545828|diff2}}} Such an interpretation of the survey is not reasonable due to the problems described above, mainly that those surveyed are not published scholars.

===Comments by NinaGreen===

At the Workshop are several comments by NinaGreen requesting clarification of what problem is claimed. For example, this {{diff|Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare authorship question/Workshop|prev|412570571|diff}} includes "I could see no case against me since not a single allegation on the Evidence page cites a Wikipedia policy which I have allegedly violated backed up with relevant diffs which establish the allegation." A week earlier I had explained at [[User talk:NinaGreen#Some background]] that "Wikipedia is [[WP:BURO|not a bureaucracy]]: that means we do not try to spell out every detail of what is right or wrong. Instead, policies and guidelines and essays are used to provide advice and opinions."^{{{diff|User talk:NinaGreen|prev|405270489|diff}}} My [[WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare authorship question#Statement by Johnuniq|statement]] includes some information about problems caused by NinaGreen's talk page style, with reference to the presentation of serious claims (in this case, "defamation") without evidence.

In the Workshop, NinaGreen makes a very strong claim regarding me: "a false allegation by Johnuniq implying that I had made 21 distinct edits on 20 December",^{{{diff|Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare authorship question/Workshop|prev|411035271|diff}}} repeated as "false allegation by Johnuniq".^{{{diff|Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare authorship question/Workshop|prev|411075783|diff}}}

From [[Wikipedia:No personal attacks#What is considered to be a personal attack?|no personal attacks]] we see that among comments that are "never acceptable" is "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence."

At the [[WT:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare authorship question/Workshop#Claim of false allegation|workshop talk]], I responded with evidence to show that my "false allegation" was in fact a simple (and correct) statement of fact. A day later, I posted "Please either strike out your claim, or present evidence to support it" at [[User talk:NinaGreen#Claim of false allegation|NinaGreen's talk]]. The only response from NinaGreen was a short statement which did not respond to my request, but which repeated "Johnuniq's false allegation" twice.^{{{diff|User talk:NinaGreen|prev|411659646|diff}}} I have previously notified NinaGreen that evidence of claims is required, for example: "serious claims like that need at least a link with some attempted support (directing personal abuse at an editor is [[WP:NPA|totally prohibited]]; an unjustified claim of abuse is in itself abuse)".^{{{diff|Talk:Shakespeare authorship question|prev|406650884|diff}}}

==Evidence by Bishonen==