| Revision as of 10:27, 29 October 2019 editSineBot (talk | contribs)Bots2,555,331 editsm Signing comment by Terpsichore47 - ""← Previous edit | Revision as of 10:53, 29 October 2019 edit undoTerpsichore47 (talk | contribs)66 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 57: | Line 57: | ||
| My revisions/additions to this passage made on 22 Oct were undone by Kfein on the grounds that it was “unsourced original research”. However, the existing version could be subject to the same action, since unsourced original research is exactly what it was before I touched it. If any use has been made of Jonson’s Epigram 109 in extant sources for the purposes of arguing Neville’s authorship, those sources were not cited. | My revisions/additions to this passage made on 22 Oct were undone by Kfein on the grounds that it was “unsourced original research”. However, the existing version could be subject to the same action, since unsourced original research is exactly what it was before I touched it. If any use has been made of Jonson’s Epigram 109 in extant sources for the purposes of arguing Neville’s authorship, those sources were not cited. | ||
| In my new revision, I’ve done three things. First, I’ve found and cited a source. Second, in the unrevised text of the article the idea that Epigram 109 refers to Neville’s poetic muse, not Jonson’s, is merely covert. But the source’s claim is explicit, and I’ve worded my revision to make that clear. Finally, I’ve extended the quotation from the epigram. The first line is only a fragment of a complete statement covering three lines. Quoting all three puts readers in a better position to decide for themselves whose poetic muse is being referred to. |
In my new revision, I’ve done three things. First, I’ve found and cited a source. Second, in the unrevised text of the article the idea that Epigram 109 refers to Neville’s poetic muse, not Jonson’s, is merely covert. But the source’s claim is explicit, and I’ve worded my revision to make that clear. Finally, I’ve extended the quotation from the epigram. The first line is only a fragment of a complete statement covering three lines. Quoting all three puts readers in a better position to decide for themselves whose poetic muse is being referred to.] (]) 10:53, 29 October 2019 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 10:53, 29 October 2019
 | Shakespeare Start‑class Low‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 28 March 2016. The result of the discussion was keep. |
Sources that help establish notability and should be incorporated for neutrality
- Hope, Warren; Holston, Kim (2009). The Shakespeare Controversy: An Analysis of the Authorship Theories (2nd. ed.). McFarland. pp. 128-129.
{{cite book}}: Invalid|ref=harv(help)
- Edmondson, Paul; Wells, Stanley (2013). Shakespeare Beyond Doubt: Evidence, Argument, Controversy. Cambridge UP. pp. 54-60.
{{cite book}}: Invalid|ref=harv(help)
- Carnegie, David; Taylor, Gary (2012). The Quest for Cardenio: Shakespeare, Fletcher, Cervantes, and the Lost Play. Oxford UP. pp. 67-69.
{{cite book}}: Invalid|ref=harv(help)
Two of these I found accidentally while trying to find anything else by the publisher of The Truth Will Out, so I'm curious as to why they haven't appeared yet. @RalphWinwood: how did you not find these? Or if you did, why did you not incorporate them? Ian.thomson (talk) 03:05, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Proposal for deletion of sentence
Though this is properly sourced, it is false; there is no actual documentary evidence to support this assertion: As a boy, Neville was educated within the household of Sir William Cecil, Lord Burghley.
I propose deleting it unless someone knows of an independent documentary source that suggests that this is correct. Perhaps someone can give me guidance in how to properly resolve an issue such as this.
Kfein (talk) 05:40, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
I deleted the two references. It should be added back only if an independent source can be found that refers to primary documentary evidence supporting this assertion. Kfein (talk) 07:21, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
Proposal for modifying initial paragraphs
I do not think we need to go into detail on the code evidence in the introductory paragraph. It is enough to mention the initial discovery. Then the code evidence can be combined into its own separate section of the article. This will make it read better and allow the article to put more details to the forefront. Kfein (talk) 00:06, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
I moved it to the code section.Kfein (talk) 04:51, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Clarifying who is meant by "Shakespeare"
This small amendent was originally made on 22nd Oct as part of a larger edit, which was reverted by Kfein on 23rd. I should have done it as a separate edit, because there is a good reason for amending the wording. In the SAQ “Shakespeare” is used as the name of the author but is non-specific as a reference to a living person, since his identity is what is in dispute. My amendment clarifies which living person is meant. Terpsichore47 (talk) 10:05, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Extending quote and citing source for its implications
My revisions/additions to this passage made on 22 Oct were undone by Kfein on the grounds that it was “unsourced original research”. However, the existing version could be subject to the same action, since unsourced original research is exactly what it was before I touched it. If any use has been made of Jonson’s Epigram 109 in extant sources for the purposes of arguing Neville’s authorship, those sources were not cited. In my new revision, I’ve done three things. First, I’ve found and cited a source. Second, in the unrevised text of the article the idea that Epigram 109 refers to Neville’s poetic muse, not Jonson’s, is merely covert. But the source’s claim is explicit, and I’ve worded my revision to make that clear. Finally, I’ve extended the quotation from the epigram. The first line is only a fragment of a complete statement covering three lines. Quoting all three puts readers in a better position to decide for themselves whose poetic muse is being referred to.Terpsichore47 (talk) 10:53, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
Categories: