User talk:AdamBerg: Difference between revisions
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
[[User:CIreland|CIreland]] ([[User talk:CIreland|talk]]) 11:29, 3 March 2011 (UTC) |
[[User:CIreland|CIreland]] ([[User talk:CIreland|talk]]) 11:29, 3 March 2011 (UTC) |
||
This is what the arbitration committee said about a Neutral point of view: |
|||
"Neutral point of view |
|||
4) All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view. They must fairly portray all significant points of view on a subject, in accordance with their prevalence as reflected in the best and most reputable sources, and without giving undue weight to minority views. Where an article concerns a theory that does not have majority support in the relevant scholarly community, the article must fairly describe the division of opinion among those who have extensively studied the matter. Good-faith disputes concerning article neutrality and sourcing, like other content disputes, should be resolved by a consensus of involved editors on the article, or if necessary through dispute resolution procedures." |
|||
By this standard the "Edward de Vere" article and the "Shakespearean authorship question" article are NOT written from a neutral point of view. They do NOT fairly portray all significant points of view. In fact, they're openly dismissive of them. Serious scholars have presented compelling evidence of the links between de Vere and the plays. These are reputable sources. Mark Anderson is a serious journalist who has written a well-received and well-reviewed book, "Shakespeare by Another Name." Why we are not allowed to discuss this on the "Edward de Vere" page is incomprehensible. The article does NOT fairly describe the division of opinion among those who have extensively studied the matter. How can you have a consensus about good-faith disputes when the disputes themselves are what need discussing in the article. The people who believe that Will Shaksper was the great author of these have eliminated any reasonable discussion of the authorship question by deciding for themselves what reputable sources are what a consensus is. |
|||
== Policy == |
== Policy == |
||
Revision as of 05:00, 4 March 2011
Welcome
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia.
This is just a quick note to let you know that coverage of the topic you have recently been editing (Shakespeare Authorship) has been a source of contention.
In particular, you should be aware that the was recently a case held by Wikipedia's final dispute resolution body, the Arbitration Committee (link here) and that because of some disruptive editing in this area, wide discretion was given to administrators to ensure the editors and articles remained within Wikipedia's guidelines.
Please be mindful of our policies on neutrality, verifiability and repeated reverting.
CIreland (talk) 11:29, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
This is what the arbitration committee said about a Neutral point of view:
"Neutral point of view 4) All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view. They must fairly portray all significant points of view on a subject, in accordance with their prevalence as reflected in the best and most reputable sources, and without giving undue weight to minority views. Where an article concerns a theory that does not have majority support in the relevant scholarly community, the article must fairly describe the division of opinion among those who have extensively studied the matter. Good-faith disputes concerning article neutrality and sourcing, like other content disputes, should be resolved by a consensus of involved editors on the article, or if necessary through dispute resolution procedures."
By this standard the "Edward de Vere" article and the "Shakespearean authorship question" article are NOT written from a neutral point of view. They do NOT fairly portray all significant points of view. In fact, they're openly dismissive of them. Serious scholars have presented compelling evidence of the links between de Vere and the plays. These are reputable sources. Mark Anderson is a serious journalist who has written a well-received and well-reviewed book, "Shakespeare by Another Name." Why we are not allowed to discuss this on the "Edward de Vere" page is incomprehensible. The article does NOT fairly describe the division of opinion among those who have extensively studied the matter. How can you have a consensus about good-faith disputes when the disputes themselves are what need discussing in the article. The people who believe that Will Shaksper was the great author of these have eliminated any reasonable discussion of the authorship question by deciding for themselves what reputable sources are what a consensus is.
Policy
Your personal opinion is that Will Shaksper of Stratford wrote the plays. Most people have a personal opinion about who wrote the plays. Any opinion anyone has is personal. The article on Edward de Vere is written to discredit the idea that he was the author of these plays. No neutral point of view is used to discuss the overwhelming cirumstantial evidence that he was the true author. No discussion of the many writers and scholars who have written in favor of de Vere is allowed. In addition, the Shakespeare authorship page is slanted the same way. People should know that serious, convincing work has been done in the field and that many learned people believe de Vere was the author. It doesn't matter what article or what page this controversy appears on, the narrative is not written objectively. It is written with a very heavy bias against de Vere. I'm not ediorializing when I say de Vere wrote these plays. That's what evidence suggests.
