This article was nominated for deletion on 22 September 2015. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. |
The first question, obviously, is whether I'm allowed to participate in a discussion, given that I'm still under a ban for editing anything that has to do with my areas of professional expertise as they are partly outlined in the article created by Mr. Reedy.
On the assumption that I might be, here are a few comments:
"Stritmatter and Kositsky responded to the aforementioned criticisms by both Vaughan and Reedy in their 2009 Brief Chronicles article[12] as well as their 2013 book, On the Date, Sources and Design of Shakespeare's The Tempest.[13]"
What did they say? Doesn't fairness require a brief summary of both sets of arguments? The article summarizes with quotation Professor Vaughan's lackluster tautologies, but somehow when it comes to giving a man a fair shake on the page that allegedly summarizes his life's work, he's to be scared off with scarecrow announcements of moral superiority, while the real substance of his arguments is ignored, attacked, or belittled by card-carrying members of Wikipedia's
And why isn't this article marked with a sign indicating that the reverter-in-chief Mr. Reedy clearly has a material stake in the article, insofar as the legitimacy of his scholarship has been challenged and, in the eyes of many, discredited, by Kositsky and Reedy, and should therefore recuse himself from editing it? Just wondering.
And at what point in the evolution of this discussion will it be noted, for the record, that although this article continues to state that The Sea Venture is "generally accepted as a source for Shakespeare's The Tempest," it fails to supply a single post 2013 citation to suggest the accuracy of that statement. What is correct is that this theory *used to be "generally accepted." This is very poor form in a academic writing of any type.
From the looks of it, it is only accepted by a shrinking subcategory of orthodox Shakespeareans who are behind in their reading or who started off, like Mr. Reedy and Dr. Vaughan, with a strong need for denial and a serious lack of training in the relevant disciplines of the discussion. Doesn't strike one as being in the slightest NPOV-- 76.100.170.62 ( talk) 21:19, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
KW I put all the education in one graf. Hopefully by the time someone is working on their doctorate they've received an education. PhDs are awarded for contributing to a field of knowledge, which presumably already has been mastered. Tom Reedy ( talk) 01:32, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Please stop reverting. See WP:NOT, especially 2.3, 2.4, 2.9, and 2.10, and also this. Tom Reedy ( talk) 17:23, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
This article was nominated for deletion on 22 September 2015. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. |
The first question, obviously, is whether I'm allowed to participate in a discussion, given that I'm still under a ban for editing anything that has to do with my areas of professional expertise as they are partly outlined in the article created by Mr. Reedy.
On the assumption that I might be, here are a few comments:
"Stritmatter and Kositsky responded to the aforementioned criticisms by both Vaughan and Reedy in their 2009 Brief Chronicles article[12] as well as their 2013 book, On the Date, Sources and Design of Shakespeare's The Tempest.[13]"
What did they say? Doesn't fairness require a brief summary of both sets of arguments? The article summarizes with quotation Professor Vaughan's lackluster tautologies, but somehow when it comes to giving a man a fair shake on the page that allegedly summarizes his life's work, he's to be scared off with scarecrow announcements of moral superiority, while the real substance of his arguments is ignored, attacked, or belittled by card-carrying members of Wikipedia's
And why isn't this article marked with a sign indicating that the reverter-in-chief Mr. Reedy clearly has a material stake in the article, insofar as the legitimacy of his scholarship has been challenged and, in the eyes of many, discredited, by Kositsky and Reedy, and should therefore recuse himself from editing it? Just wondering.
And at what point in the evolution of this discussion will it be noted, for the record, that although this article continues to state that The Sea Venture is "generally accepted as a source for Shakespeare's The Tempest," it fails to supply a single post 2013 citation to suggest the accuracy of that statement. What is correct is that this theory *used to be "generally accepted." This is very poor form in a academic writing of any type.
From the looks of it, it is only accepted by a shrinking subcategory of orthodox Shakespeareans who are behind in their reading or who started off, like Mr. Reedy and Dr. Vaughan, with a strong need for denial and a serious lack of training in the relevant disciplines of the discussion. Doesn't strike one as being in the slightest NPOV-- 76.100.170.62 ( talk) 21:19, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
KW I put all the education in one graf. Hopefully by the time someone is working on their doctorate they've received an education. PhDs are awarded for contributing to a field of knowledge, which presumably already has been mastered. Tom Reedy ( talk) 01:32, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Please stop reverting. See WP:NOT, especially 2.3, 2.4, 2.9, and 2.10, and also this. Tom Reedy ( talk) 17:23, 5 June 2015 (UTC)