Jump to content

Talk:Hugh Hamersley: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 15: Line 15:


::This is a superb article, and those responsible for it deserve some commendation. However -- and it is a big, big, however -- I don't see why this material is under the heading "Hugh Hamersley." This immediately and incorrectly prejudices the entire discussion by implying, wholly without justification, that the Ashbourne portrait is really a portrait of Hammersley. I doubt that any serious reader of the literature in question could conclude that it is. The contents of this article really belongs under an entry for "Ashbourne portrait." If someone wants to do an entry about Hamersley, it should be about him. That might *include* the Ashbourne as a painting that has been said to be him (but more accurately should reproduce the full length painting which is *known* to be him, after the Pressley article). What about it?--[[User:BenJonson|BenJonson]] ([[User talk:BenJonson|talk]]) 15:35, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
::This is a superb article, and those responsible for it deserve some commendation. However -- and it is a big, big, however -- I don't see why this material is under the heading "Hugh Hamersley." This immediately and incorrectly prejudices the entire discussion by implying, wholly without justification, that the Ashbourne portrait is really a portrait of Hammersley. I doubt that any serious reader of the literature in question could conclude that it is. The contents of this article really belongs under an entry for "Ashbourne portrait." If someone wants to do an entry about Hamersley, it should be about him. That might *include* the Ashbourne as a painting that has been said to be him (but more accurately should reproduce the full length painting which is *known* to be him, after the Pressley article). What about it?--[[User:BenJonson|BenJonson]] ([[User talk:BenJonson|talk]]) 15:35, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

== several merchant companies, including the mercant companies of - typo? ==

Is mercant a typo? (foroguzzi)[[Special:Contributions/69.64.235.42|69.64.235.42]] ([[User talk:69.64.235.42|talk]]) 17:38, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 17:38, 12 July 2010

WikiProject iconBiography: Politics and Government Start‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the politics and government work group.
Note icon
An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information.
WikiProject iconLondon Start‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Shakespeare Matters as RS

Paul, you are mistaken about the Shakespeare Fellowship journal, and the associated website. Or perhaps you are just misinformed. To enlighten you, the journal and website are edited by Roger Stritmatter, PhD, and the publication includes on its editorial staff four PhD's in literary studies -- Dr. Daniel Wright of Concordia University (English), Dr. Felicia Londré of the University of Missouri at Kansas City (Theatre History), Dr. Anne Pluto (English) of Leslie College and Dr. Roger Stritmatter, Instructor of English at Coppin State College in Baltimore, MD. As such, the journal and its website are indeed RS. If you want to fight that, then feel free to take it to another level of Wiki administration. But with their credentials, I don't think you will be successful. On a private note, I would think that the article, even though it appears in an Oxfordian journal, would be of interest to you. The research is sound, the references outstanding, and the conclusions are reasonable. And my edits do not conclude that De Vere is the sitter, but that the Hamersley identification is probably wrong.

This is a superb article, and those responsible for it deserve some commendation. However -- and it is a big, big, however -- I don't see why this material is under the heading "Hugh Hamersley." This immediately and incorrectly prejudices the entire discussion by implying, wholly without justification, that the Ashbourne portrait is really a portrait of Hammersley. I doubt that any serious reader of the literature in question could conclude that it is. The contents of this article really belongs under an entry for "Ashbourne portrait." If someone wants to do an entry about Hamersley, it should be about him. That might *include* the Ashbourne as a painting that has been said to be him (but more accurately should reproduce the full length painting which is *known* to be him, after the Pressley article). What about it?--BenJonson (talk) 15:35, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

several merchant companies, including the mercant companies of - typo?

Is mercant a typo? (foroguzzi)69.64.235.42 (talk) 17:38, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hugh_Hamersley&oldid=373113933"