Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-09-10 Shakespeare Puzzle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia Mediation Cabal

Article: Shakespeare authorship State: Closed Requested By: Puzzle Master Other Parties: Alabamaboy, AndyJones, The Singing Badger, Mediated By: Addhoc (talk · contribs), physicq210 (talk · contribs) Comments: Discussion on case page

Contents 1 Mediation Case: 2006-09-10 Shakespeare Puzzle 1.1 Request Information 1.2 Mediator response 1.3 Compromise offers 1.4 Discussion

[edit] Mediation Case: 2006-09-10 Shakespeare Puzzle

[edit] Request Information

Request made by: (Puzzle Master 13:24, 10 September 2006 (UTC))

Where is the issue taking place?

Shakespeare authorship Talk page

Who's involved?

Moderator: Alabamaboy, user:AndyJones, user:The Singing Badger, user:barryispuzzled

I suspect that the first two are the same person.

What's going on?

The dispute centers around whether user:barryispuzzled's self-published book The Shakespeare Puzzle is a reliable source to be cited in the article 'Shakespeare authorship'. The Wiki guidelines are "Exceptions may be when a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field, or a well-known professional journalist has produced self-published material. In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by reliable third-party publications." WP:V I claim the following: (a) (reluctantly) that I am well-known as there is an article on myself at Wiki "Barry R. Clarke" whose presence is justified in its Talk section. (b) I am a journalist as I have written many articles for The Daily Telegraph (a UK national) (c) my work has been previously published by reliable third-party publications (Dover, Cambridge University Press, Sterling-Mensa). Although my speciality is maths and puzzles, the phrase 'relevant field' in the Wiki directive applies only to a 'professional researcher'. When I argued this with user:AndyJones (who I suspect is also Alabamaboy) he responded with no reasons except:

"This argument not even close to convincing. Your book fails WP:V and its inclusion breaches WP:VAIN and WP:SPAM. Nothing more to debate, here. AndyJones 11:28, 10 September 2006 (UTC)"

Furthermore, at the same time, Alabamaboy (spitefully I thought) placed a 'deletion' tag against the Wiki "Barry R. Clarke" article.

One problem is that all the regular editors of the Shakespeare authorship article are Stratfordians and my book has lots of Baconian evidence so their attitude to me feels rather like a religious war.

What would you like to change about that?

I would like the issue as to whether or not The Shakespeare Puzzle by Barry R. Clarke (myself) is a reliable source to be adjudicated by a third party. I would like Alabamaboy to be issued with a warning because I find his negative and spiteful attitude to me distasteful.

Would you prefer we work discreetly? If so, how can we reach you?

Personal e-mail qbrute@aol.com

[edit] Mediator response

According to WP:RS: "A self-published source is a published source that has not been subject to any form of independent fact-checking, or where no one stands between the writer and the act of publication. It includes personal websites, and books published by vanity presses. Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources.

Exceptions to this may be when a well-known, professional researcher writing within his field of expertise, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material. In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications, and they are writing under their own names, and not a pseudonym.

However, editors should exercise caution for two reasons: first, if the information on the professional researcher's blog (or self-published equivalent) is really worth reporting, someone else will have done so; secondly, the information has been self-published, which means it has not been subject to any independent form of fact-checking.

In general it is preferable to wait until other sources have had time to review or comment on self-published sources."

However, according to WP:VAIN: "If you wish Wikipedia to cite your own reliably published work, please bear in mind the neutral point of view and no original research policies. When citing yourself could be interpreted as POV-pushing, it is advisable not to cite your own work without discussion. On the talk page of the article in question you can propose your work and ask other editors their opinion about including a citation of it. See also WP:NOR#Citing oneself."

In this context, I would suggest you personally shouldn't attempt to cite a self-published work. Addhoc 19:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I have two questions. (1) Can The Shakespeare Puzzle be regarded as a reliable source? (2) Does your judgement allow a third party to cite this work? Best Wishes (Puzzle Master 22:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC))

Ok, I should emphasize this isn't arbitration, I am merely giving my view. In this context, I could express an opinion, but judgement is possibly going too far. However, clearly, there would be significantly less concern about a neutral third party, who wasn't prompted by you, arguing this publication was a reliable source. Addhoc 22:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Compromise offers

[edit] Discussion

I agree with the mediator's stance. While it is not explicitly forbidden to include self-published work in accordance with WP:RS, it is, in practice, discouraged, as it may lead to allegations of violations of WP:OR, WP:VAIN, among others, as you are experiencing now. Therefore, it would be best if a third-party editor, not you, added the information into the article. I'm not saying that what you did was wrong; I'm only saying that adding self-published information is frowned upon by many editors. --physicq210 21:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Could you clarify that you mean an unprompted third party editor? I.e. that the Puzzle Master must wait until someone else acknowledges his book's value? You don't mean that he simply 'phones a friend' do you? Just checking! The Singing Badger 23:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the unprompted third party editor was what I meant. --physicq210 00:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I work at the Bodleian library in Oxford. Maybe my view doesn't count because I'm not registered here but I've been checking some of the book's references and they seem ok and it also looks well written. But with so much anger around I'm not getting too involved. Bodleyman 16:14, 12 September 2006

Ok, but I'm not in any position to judge whether a theory is correct or not. In Wikipedia, the approach is to avoid verifying theories, merely to report the consensus in a specific field of understanding. If this book proposes a different view then, regardless whether the ideas are corrrect or not, it's very possible the book should not be included until these ideas have gained more widesprerad approval. Addhoc 17:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the text in question...

"In 2004, Daily Telegraph puzzlist Barry R. Clarke claimed to have discovered three occurrences of the name Bacon hidden in dedicatory texts prefacing the First Folio and the Sonnets,[1] the only three dedications signed by initials. Developing a method employed by US trial lawyer Penn Leary, Clarke deciphered the Sonnet dedication's message as "TO THE ONLY BEGETTER BACON WHILE DATED YEAR REGISTERS THE LEGER KNIGHT" and interpreted Ben Jonson's opening First Folio dedication as revealing "FR BACON PP B", possibly indicating that Bacon had delegated the production of the First Folio to Jonson."

I would suggest the following extract from WP:NPOV has relevance

• If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
• If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
• If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.

In this context, the view being expressed could be perceived as held by a vastly limited minority and consequently, doesn't belong in Wikipedia. Addhoc 19:06, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course the discoveries are a minority view - I'm the only one that came up with it! Surely that should be no surprise! Following this absurd logic, Edwin Durning-Lawrence's minority interpretation of honorificabilitudinitatibus should also go as should Mrs Elizabeth Wells Gallup's bilateral cipher after all "only Ms. Gallup could reliably distinguish between the "two" fonts". At least, I can claim to have a better (recognised) expertise in ciphers and puzzles than Gallup and Lawrence. So I hope reason prevails here. (Puzzle Master 23:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC))

Ok, I would suggest the relevant guideline is WP:Consensus, in this case we appear to have a consensus of editors on the talk page agreeing to implement policy and guidelines. Also, you appear to be arguing against WP:NPOV, a core policy of Wikipedia. In this context, I doubt the mediation-cabal would be able to further assist in the resolution of this conflict. Accordingly, I would suggest you read WP:DR and consider alternative methods of dispute resolution. Thanks, Addhoc 15:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Close it down then. My defence attorney failed to show up anyway, and I'm not sufficiently au fait with Wiki guidelines to put up a robust enough defence. (Puzzle Master 21:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC))

There is one thing that needs to be said. The Wiki guidelines are intended to ensure that the public get accurate information. I'm sure this works well in most cases but the Shakespeare authorship issue is an exceptional one. There are some excellent anti-Stratfordian arguments (with full historical citations) which, due to the publication policy of the University Presses, can never reach scholastic publication and so would be prohibited under Wiki guidelines. It one strictly adhered to Wiki policy, only Stratfordian arguments would be represented in this article. If one wants a Shakespeare authorship article that serves the public and portrays all arguments, then there needs to be some flexibility here and arguments should be judged on their own merit. (Puzzle Master 10:36, 16 September 2006 (UTC))

This isn't about university presses, I'm sure everyone understands that anti-Strat stuff won't get published by them. But it's perfectly possible to get this material published by reputable publishers: for example, Sobran's book on Oxford is published by Simon & Schuster, and the Henry Neville book is published by Longman. As I understand it, the Wiki guidelines demand references that have been through the normal publication process - i.e. where there has been some kind of editing process by someone other than the author. It's the layer of editing that offers at least some form of check and balance on the author to ensure that their material is accurate or at least plausible. Whether it really works is questionable, but that's the kind of references demanded by this site, because there have to be some rules. The Singing Badger 16:40, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I accept there must be rules and I would certainly demand that all facts are verifiable (have references to published sources). (Puzzle Master 18:14, 16 September 2006 (UTC))