Talk:Hedingham Castle

message: Hello, I am planning to add to this article by adding a present day use, gardens, and photography & filming sections so that the article covers other information people may be interested in along with the history. I hope this is OK by the regular contributors! Perspectionhickmott (talk) 13:51, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Is this article biased enough against the Oxfordian authorship theory, or perhaps there's a way it could be edited to make it even more biased?  Maybe someone could add some quotes about how the 17th earl possessed no redeeming qualities and his early poetry written under his initials was absolutely deplorable?  Also let's add some statements about how Oxfordians are elitist snobs, and other original arguments that have never been heard before.  Oooh, I thought of one:  How did he write the last several plays? Did he write 'em while he was dead??  I'm sure I would have no problem finding all kinds of "sources" for these all over the internet.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by BenjPHolm (talk • contribs) 00:15, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Shakespeare authorship

message: * 22:48, 1 September 2011 PBS (combined further reading and external sources, One new entry with comprehensive bibliography, removed some less useful sources and added full information for the others) (undo) 
*22:52, 1 September 2011 user:Nev1 (→Further reading: restore further reading items deleted without a valid explanation)
The explanation was given in the edit history. I removed what was a random collection of entries: Take for example this entry "Coulson, Charles (2003) Hedingham Castle, Anglo-Norman Castles ed. R. Liddiard, Boydell Press" Have you checked the the book? The chapter does not exist for that author. (If you look in the references section you will see that I included the book because one of the chapters is now cited so there is no need to include it in the further reading section).
I left in place two specific official entries the official website and the county website which I fixed. In addition I and added a new entry that contains a comprehensive bibliography. This I noted on the page.  -- PBS (talk) 23:17, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: So why did you remove the RCHME work? Nev1 (talk) 23:31, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it is listed in the comprehensive bibliography I included (why include that and not all the other things listed in the comprehensive bibliography which might be of some interest in a further reading section?). The information in the other two are useful in their own right. The first because it is directly accessible and is the county's own database and the other because it is on line and includes such things as telephone numbers for people who wish to visit the site. -- PBS (talk) 23:46, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Why include the most important works related to the castle in a further reading section? Beats me. Why write an article at all. I know, how about we just replace this article with a link to another website which does this better than us. I particularly like The Gatehouse. Nev1 (talk) 23:51, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

text: As The Gatehouse has a comprehensive bibliography I've removed the other links as they were duplicating what the website already listed. Nev1 (talk) 23:59, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal and additions to further reading

message: *
*
From the history of the article:
* 03:06, 21 November 2011‎ Dearagon‎ m . . (9,985 bytes) (+95)‎ . . (→‎Description: minor grammatical and date corrections,)
The edit added information around the date 1186, but neither of the source (at the end of the paragraph and listed above) mentions that date so where does the information come from?
Source 1 says "The keep was built c.1130-40" sources 2 "Castle Keep circa 1130-1140". The edit (21 November 2011‎) changed the Wikipedia text from "and the keep between 1130-1140" to "and the keep in the 1130s and1140s" is the inclusion of 1140s extracted from information in anther source? -- PBS (talk) 09:41, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Well caught. I had  quick look elsewhere. Goodall's "The English Castle" (2011) has the keep as being begun shortly after 1141 (pg.117); on pg.119, however, he prefers after 1138, but pg.120 has it back at after 1141. Hmm. I'd be inclined to suggest we upgrade the reference, but note that there is some uncertainty! Hchc2009 (talk) 17:02, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Dearagon. If the changes are to remain then you must modify the inline citations to support the changes that you made as the current ones do not. -- PBS (talk) 20:09, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: PBS.  Reference provided.  The problem is, no one knows the exact or even approximate dates of the construction period.  On "stylistic grounds" it could date between the late 1120s to about 1160, as Dixon and Marshall point out.  Renn is an Anglo-Norman castle expert, and he suggests it was begun in the 1130s and finished in the 1140s.  That seems the most reasonable estimate.DeAragon 05:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Does Renn also support 1186 date? -- PBS (talk) 08:34, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes to the Description section 

message: I have changed the link to the wrong Colne Valley to avoid geographical confusion.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bodgesoc (talk • contribs) 11:20, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  There is more than one Colne Valley