Talk:J. Thomas Looney

Untitled
My only problem is with the "bravely." Otherwise, except, I suppose, for the bizarrely archaic prose, I don't have any problem with this article. Hydriotaphia 05:07, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)

I agree that "bravely" displays a bias best ommitted, and I have revised accordingly. Other than that, I fail to understand the nature of the objections to the entry. Perhaps those who flagged the article would be kind enough to indicate the nature of the alleged problems. To me the article, aside from the one misplaced adjective, is scrupulously objective. I'd be happy to work further on the article if needed.--BenJonson 00:24, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Apart from a rather excessive interest in praising various Novocastrian libraries, I can't see what's NPOV about this article. Paul B 11.28, 20 Mar (UTC)

I have noted the last point and removed the first Lit and Phil reference.author: Emmet 3.52, 8 May

Does this article really need to be disputed? Seems fine to me? User:mattsday 12:52, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

Today I edited this page to read "teacher and scholar." Without comment, someone silently edited out the word "scholar." I'd like to know why. What is so threatening about acknowleding Looney as a scholar? Also, I added a reference to Looney's critical role in 1921, with Sir George Greenwood, the author of a half dozen or more books on the Shakespearean question and a british MP active in the India Independence campaign, in founding the Shakespeare Fellowship. I respectfully request that whoever removed these edits without comment justify their reasons for doing so. Thanks.--BenJonson 03:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

its unique system of operation
What was this unique system and how did it help? It's not in the library's page, either. (fotoguzzi) 69.64.235.42 (talk) 21:11, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

This page was mentioned in the news...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2011/nov/04/anonymous-shakespeare-film-roland-emmerich --- Wrad (talk) 23:54, 19 November 2011 (UTC)


 * This review is already a ref in the article (ref #3), but perhaps there ought to be a para on Anonymous? --GuillaumeTell 22:39, 20 November 2011 (UTC)


 * "Though you won't find this on his Wikipedia page, Looney was a priest in a cultish Victorian religious group called the 'Church of Humanity' in Newcastle" It's a pity that Shapiro's comments about this article are not even accurate. It would have been nice if he'd bothered to read it first! That information was in the article a for nigh-on a year and a half before he wrote those words. Paul B (talk) 13:48, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Pronunciation
I've removed the reference to the pronunciation being "Loney". Having spoken to his relatives, I know this to be false, but of course cannot include what I "know" in the article. However, the claim is apparently traceable to a 1972 article by Charles Wisner Barrell, and has been challenged by Irvin Leigh Matus (see here). Therefore it should not be presented as fact. Paul B (talk) 16:19, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, it should be noted within the article that the pronunciation is disputed, providing both citations. We let the reader make up their own minds; we do not make it up for them. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:42, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't make it for them did I? I removed an assertion that it is pronounced in a particular way. I didn't replace it with an assertion that it is really pronounced any other way. It would be possible to have a section discussing the "issue", but I hardly think there's enough material. Paul B (talk) 12:06, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * When a claim appears in the literature that we are sure is wrong, it is a perfectly normal editorial decision to suppress it. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to compress information, not to build a huge heap of needles where nobody can find the hay. However, if an apparently incorrect claim is relatively popular, there should be a footnote making it clear that we haven't overlooked it, or in some cases even a detailed discussion. In practice this is sometimes impossible because the reason we are sure it's wrong isn't citable, and apart from that there is only the silence on the matter in the reliable sources that get it right. But then, if the reliable sources think it's not worth debunking explicitly, then it may be a good idea to follow them. Hans Adler 12:25, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * A little aid for the pronunciation: LOONEY BY NAME, LOONEY BY NATURE.DMC (talk) 07:39, 11 July 2012 (UTC)