Talk:James Wilmot

IP edits

I've reverted all recent edits by IP. The first edit says that the page reference to a book was wrong, and yet it was not - as can be seen here. [1]. There may, of course, be another edition with different pagination, but this one is verifiable. The second deleted the word "linguistic" from the sentence "James S. Shapiro has since provided linguistic evidence of the forgery". This is on the grounds that the word "unromantic", picked out as anachronistic by Shapiro, was first used in the 1730s. Shapiro acknowledges this, but states that "it wasn't yet in currency at the time Cowell was supposedly writing". However, this is irrelevant. Shapiro provides linguistic evidence. Whether you agree with it or not is beside the point. This is a description of what he provides. He constitutes a reliable source (WP:RS), but a Wikipedia editors personal interpretations do not (see WP:OR and WP:SYN). The editor has also added the assertion that "The paper itself is of a type which first appeared in the mid-1790s", using the extant footnote to Shapiro pp.11-14. And yet Shapiro says no such thing on these pages. Perhaps they are stated by him or someone else elsewhere, but we would need an authentic citation. I certainly can't find them in the book. In any case, the phrase "of a type that first appeared in the 1790s" is obscure to say the least. It doesn't even say that the paper actually dates to that period. If the IP has some clearer information or an actual published source for the claim then this needs to be identified. Paul B (talk) 00:04, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Paul B. IP needs to explain his edits here in detail rather than in edit summary.--John Foxe (talk) 00:37, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I accidentally saved without an edit summary. However, the page reference issue is discussed above. I will change it back again unless some explanation is provided. As for linguistic evidence, it is a clear rule of Wikipedia that editors cannot override reliable sources by deleting or altering them just because they think their arguments are wrong. That is policy. Since no one disputes that the forgery is clever, it's hardly good evidence of authenticity that old paper was used. It was very easy to get hold of in the early twentieth century. Any competent forger would use old paper and ink, and imitate handwriting styles of the period. That's what forgers do. Paul B (talk) 09:53, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

The ip is still adding and deleting material based on his/her personal opinion, and is refusing to discuss the matter here on the talk page. To ramble on about the name of the expert is not necessary. It just creates pointless prolixity. The actual content remains the same, just more concisely expressed. More important, however is your persistent deletion of Shapiro's arguments about anachronisms and his own account of the evidence. The former are both linguistic and scholarly (ie 'Cowell' discussing facts about Shakespeare that were not in the public domain at the time). This is what Shapirio says. It can't be deleted because you don't like what he says or disagree with it. I don't personally agree with John Foxe's tendency to push information into footnotes. It think notes should just be citations, unless there is a very good reason to use them for another purpose. But that's essentially a copy-editing issue. Paul B (talk) 17:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I hope we can agree to disagree about footnotes. There's no hard-and-fast rule about such things, and in my opinion, pushing extraneous matters into the footnotes tightens the articles, which otherwise have a tendency to sprout in every direction. It's the path of least resistance for editors to add rather than to subtract.--John Foxe (talk) 17:26, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't feel strongly about it, and I can see that you are trying to tighten the prose. One of the worst aspects of Wikipedia is the tendency of articles to ramble off in various directions because people add bits here or there in a messy manner, so I fully support your aim to make the article more readable and to the point. I just tend to think that many readers will not notice material that's in notes. Paul B (talk) 18:56, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad we're in agreement about essentials. I bet the interested reader would reach more quickly through the links the ancillary material that's now in the notes.--John Foxe (talk) 19:38, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on James Wilmot. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110411084633/http://shakespearefellowship.org/Newsletter/NewsletterMain.htm to http://www.shakespearefellowship.org/Newsletter/NewsletterMain.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:20, 21 November 2017 (UTC)