Talk:Shakespeare's Birthplace
Appearance
A fact from Shakespeare's Birthplace appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 24 November 2008, and was viewed approximately 3,900 times (disclaimer) (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
Authenticity of Claims
[edit]To be a balanced article this should show that claims regarding the birthplace are not universally accepted. I would appreciate discussion before anyone reverts. BTW I am not an Oxfordian Hardicanute (talk) 12:25, 5 June 2011 (UTC)Hardicanute
- Saying nothing about the content of the contribution at all (which I haven't fully examined), the claim you're making in your proposal is not discussed at all in the article, and as such should not be summarized in the lead. Per WP:LEAD, it is intended to summarize the views presented in the article in proportion to its weight. If this info belongs anywhere, it would belong in the article body. — Jess· Δ♥ 18:19, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
That is fair enough, so can I take it that if I expanded on this theme in the body of the article, perhaps creating a section based on the source I could then also refer to it in the lead. I don't want to do this work and have someone come and undo it Hardicanute (talk) 21:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- Cannot see a problem of adding to the body of the article and then put a short note summarising it in the lead. Keith D (talk) 22:22, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- I haven't actually looked over the content or sources, so I can't guarantee it is appropriate for the article, or that new content you add to expand the section would be justified either. However, adding it is the only way it's got a chance to be included. The lead should be a summary of the substantial issues raised in the article, not everything, so we'd then have to figure out if this warranted discussion in the lead as well. It might. I don't know. I'd have to see it first, notably with ample sourcing. — Jess· Δ♥ 00:38, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
- The way you are writing it comes across as though you have some particular authority and decides what is written here. I can't see anything on your page to justify that you have any more authority than Keith D. and suggest that you should alter your tone. All I could see about you was that you reverted an edit on another page without bothering to check any of the references. Hardicanute (talk) 01:01, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
- No, no editor here has any more authority than any other. This includes administrators. However, I have been around the block a few times, and my advice above is founded in policy. Please keep things civil, and on article improvement, and please indent your posts. Thank you. — Jess· Δ♥ 08:07, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
- The article states that “Records show that in 1529 John Shakespeare was fined for leaving a pile of muck outside his home in Henley Street, proving that he and his wife Mary did own a house there at the time.” I do not believe this date is correct (although there may be some records that go back that far). I think the correct date for this would be 1552. DeVereGuy (talk) 20:58, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- I propose changing the last sentence of the opening paragraph to: It has been referred to as "a Mecca for all lovers of literature"[4] and yet according to others, it appears that William Shakespeare was neither born in the birthplace nor did he ever live there. [11] With a reference to Edwin Reed's 1907, The truth concerning Stratford-upon-Avon, and Shakespere, page 37. I wanted to discuss it here beforehand, so any objections could be raised and perhaps avoid an unnecessary revert. 24.9.24.228 (talk) 21:02, 14 February 2012 (UTC)