User talk:Inkweasle

The cited amendment to the "controversial interpretation" sub-section is relevant. Please do not remove. While the controversial interpretation is fun, it is fitting to provide an orthodox interpretation (one that is cited from an authoritative source on the topic) as a point of scholarly contrast, as well as to remind the reader that the word "weed" has many antique definitions in addition to meaning "cannabis." Don't get me wrong: I'm down for the cause. But to interpolate contemporary meanings into an Elizabethan text without admitting a possible (if not probable) contextual reading (albeit, less titillating) is misleading.

Thank you. I promise I will never remove the "controversial interpretation" content, which is also cited and relevant. Please respect my quite reasonable request that the orthodox counterpoint remain.

--Inkweasle (talk) 02:48, 4 March 2011 (UTC)