Talk:Robert Crowley (printer)

message: The article tends in places to read like an academic paper, presenting vari[o]us views and then correcting them.  For example:
:On the other hand, Peter M. W. Blayney contends that the revised STC erroneously indicates that Grafton printed Crowley's works. Blayney believes that the revisers realised that the ornamental "A" in Crowley's The baterie of the Popes Botereulx (1550): A6r (STC 21613) "had once belonged to Grafton", but they did not know that "the person from whom Crowley borrowed it was almost certainly not Grafton but John Day, who apparently acquired it from Grafton in 1548 (STC 23004) and never returned it (2087.5, 6849.5, 7633.3, etc.)". Additionally, Blayney suggests that the STC revisers were misled by another fact:  
::"In and after 1560, Grafton's son-in-law Richard Tottell used quite a lot of Grafton's old ornament stock. It has long been the received opinion that when Mary Tudor deprived Grafton of his royal office, he immediately sold off his printing house and equipment to Robert Caly — except, of course, for the various bits and pieces that Tottell allegedly used to set up shop in that same year. In fact, that is not what happened at all. [my italics] What Grafton did with his printing house was to sublet it to Caly — and when Elizabeth acceded in late 1558 he took it back and attempted to re-start his own career (STC 16291 of 1559 was really printed by Grafton, as the titlepage claims). By the end of 1559 he had realised that it wasn't going to work — and it was not until then that Grafton stopped paying the rent for his printing house and Tottell acquired his supply of ex-Grafton initials." 
This needs to be corrected; could published sources be found for claims like these? --Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 09:19, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  PoV strains 

message: :Please read Wikipedia:No original research.  I've listed this at RfC, as it seems that other input would be helpful. --Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 11:09, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm a little surprised at the infantile abuse and the emotional ranting, but perhaps it's best ignored.  Nothing that you've said, however, does anything but confirm that you are, in fact, engaging in original research. This is strictly against Wikipedia policy.  The place for that is in the academic literature.  When and if you've published it there, it can be referred to and drawn upon here. --Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 09:39, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Mel, "infantile abuse and the emotional ranting"? Could you have been any less constructive?  As you point out, DK is at least somewhat out of alignment with our policy. However, he does make some good points and it is clear that he is trying to do the right thing for the article. Rather than fixating on the small inflammatory part of his post you could have responded to the rest and sought ways to get him in alignment with NOR. WP:NOR is an important rule that protects us against wars with crackpot theorists, but it can be take too far... It also has the potential to suppress good work as DK has observed, but that is a trade-off we've deemed acceptable. --Gmaxwell 13:45, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: No original research

message: For practical reasons (if nothing else), I recommend ignoring the "no original research" question in this context and focusing on the policy Wikipedia:Verifiability and its related style guide Cite sources. I think mutual understanding can be arrived at on the basis of the need to be able to verify the contents of a Wikipedia article. That a contributor says "trust me" is not good enough. Then again, there are MANY unsourced claims in Wikipedia, and no one should hold contributors to this article to higher standards than exist in similar articles elsewhere in wikipedia (example: unremarkable uncontested unsourced claims often are allowed to stand). WAS 4.250 23:24, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Verifyability

message: Is there a wikipedia protocol for old date references, as in history and literature studies? (NS/OS?) The dates given here and in similar articles may not be uniformly "new" or "old style." At the least, individual articles could indicate which calendar is in use and make all dates follow it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.94.45.243 (talk) 18:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Calendars, Dates

message: This whole section was pretty deep in the scholarly weeds when it was written and is no longer necessary, since the publication of Peter Blayney's magisterial history of the Stationer's Company in 2014. It should be sufficient to identify Crowley as a printer, briefly, who later became a stationer. Blayney's account: https://books.google.com/books?id=SLGkAgAAQBAJ&lpg=PT927&vq=crowley&pg=PT928#v=snippet&q=crowley&f=false Dan Knauss (talk) 17:02, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Printer status