Talk:J. Thomas Looney

message: 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)
thread_title: Untitled

message: 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)
thread_title:  its unique system of operation 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: A little aid for the pronunciation: LOONEY BY NAME, LOONEY BY NATURE.DMC (talk) 07:39, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Pronunciation