Misplaced Pages

Talk:Shakespeare authorship question/to do: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Talk:Shakespeare authorship question Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 14:44, 13 October 2006 editBenJonson (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,818 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit Revision as of 17:44, 13 October 2006 edit undoAndyJones (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers12,503 edits Revert to last by me. I've already moved your question to Talk:Shakespearean authorship.Next edit →
Line 1: Line 1:
#<s>A section providing a rebutal of the anti-Stratfordian arguments is needed to balance out the article and address POV concerns.</s> Sorted #<s>A section providing a rebutal of the anti-Stratfordian arguments is needed to balance out the article and address POV concerns.</s> Sorted
#'''Citations are needed for many of the claimed orthodox perspectives''', many of which use ]s such as 'the orthodox perspective is...'. Quotable sources include Sam Schoenbaum's ''Shakespeare's Lives'' and ''Shakespeare: A Documentary Life'', Jonathan Bate's ''The Genius of Shakespeare'', Park Honan's ''Shakespeare: a Life'', Irvin Leigh Matus's ''Shakespeare in Fact'' and . #'''Citations are needed for many of the claimed orthodox perspectives''', many of which use ]s such as 'the orthodox perspective is...'. Quotable sources include Sam Schoenbaum's ''Shakespeare's Lives'' and ''Shakespeare: A Documentary Life'', Jonathan Bate's ''The Genius of Shakespeare'', Park Honan's ''Shakespeare: a Life'', Irvin Leigh Matus's ''Shakespeare in Fact'' and .

I wonder why my question, namely about the justification of the application of the term, "weasel words" to the prhase "orthodox perspective," was deleted without an answer. I asked politely, and my purpose was to obtain clarification about what this editor thinks is or is not allowable. As I stated in my query, the phrase "orthodox perspective" seems to me a basic and necessary distinction in this discussion. If there is some rule against ordinary people posting queries to this part of the discussion board, I would appreciate a clarification as to the proper form to submit such a query. I will be taking a screenshot of this page after this edit appears. Thank you for your assistance--] 14:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


#'''Citations are needed for many of the anti-Stratfordian arguments'''. Any properly published (see below) anti-Stratfordian text is acceptable. Avoid giving undue weight to not-yet established or minority theories: this too would follow . #'''Citations are needed for many of the anti-Stratfordian arguments'''. Any properly published (see below) anti-Stratfordian text is acceptable. Avoid giving undue weight to not-yet established or minority theories: this too would follow .
#In accordance with the previous point, all ideas that are only supported by references to '''self-published books''' or '''websites by non-experts in theatre history''' need to be weeded out (not because they're necessarily wrong, but because is to avoid citations to such texts). #In accordance with the previous point, all ideas that are only supported by references to '''self-published books''' or '''websites by non-experts in theatre history''' need to be weeded out (not because they're necessarily wrong, but because is to avoid citations to such texts).

Revision as of 17:44, 13 October 2006

  1. A section providing a rebutal of the anti-Stratfordian arguments is needed to balance out the article and address POV concerns. Sorted
  2. Citations are needed for many of the claimed orthodox perspectives, many of which use weasel words such as 'the orthodox perspective is...'. Quotable sources include Sam Schoenbaum's Shakespeare's Lives and Shakespeare: A Documentary Life, Jonathan Bate's The Genius of Shakespeare, Park Honan's Shakespeare: a Life, Irvin Leigh Matus's Shakespeare in Fact and David Kathman's website.
  3. Citations are needed for many of the anti-Stratfordian arguments. Any properly published (see below) anti-Stratfordian text is acceptable. Avoid giving undue weight to not-yet established or minority theories: this too would follow Misplaced Pages policy.
  4. In accordance with the previous point, all ideas that are only supported by references to self-published books or websites by non-experts in theatre history need to be weeded out (not because they're necessarily wrong, but because Misplaced Pages policy is to avoid citations to such texts).
  5. Many typical anti-Stratfordian arguments are still missing, e.g. the claim that Shakespeare was not eulogized when he died.
  6. The Baconian section needs trimming to make it a summary; the more specific points can then be removed to the Baconian theory article (as has been done for the Oxford and Marlowe sections) Completed.