Talk:Stephen Greenblatt

message: This article needs to be toned down considerable. Right now it reads like an uncritcal, promotional essay. Lotte Monz 15:38, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tone and criticism 

message: Hello - I see that this link was removed recently. I have put it back, because I want to make sure there is a discussion before removing it. It is a serious, one-hour interview with Greenblatt about his Shakespeare biography. Now, I know that there was some controversy about this book, but I still think that the link is of importance for this article. However, I am open to discussion if there are contrary views. Let's discuss. Thanks KConWiki (talk) 16:51, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Booknotes external link

message: added a section, headed "Controversy", in which he summarised an article by Greenblatt in the New York Review of Books as "evincing his pro-Zionist leanings". I've read that (long) article, and that summary is pure WP:SYNTH, so I removed that section with the edit summary "moved quoted article to Publications – there's no "Controversy" & Greenblatt doesn't "evince his pro-Zionist leanings." I also made numerous other improvements to the article, all of which was reverted by Masihsal with the edit summary "I have given a reference in a prestigious American paper where Greenblatt shows his pro-Zionist leanings. If truth hurts, there is no point in hiding it. It exists." I didn't remove Greenblatt's article, only Masihsal's interpretation. Instead of reverting my revert, Masihsal should have followed WP:BRD and start a discussion first; as it is now, he's started an edit war. I suggest to restore my version until sources can be found to support Masihsal's interpretation of Greenblatt's writing. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:23, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Pro-Zionist

message: 'Some critics have charged that it is "antiethical to literary and aesthetic value ..."'. Maybe those critics meant, or maybe the writer actually wrote, "antithetical"? The source is Greenblatt, Stephen (2005). The Greenblatt Reader. Hoboken: Wiley-Blackwell. pp. 1–3. Can anyone verify? And was it Greenblatt himself, or an editor, who wrote this? Andrew Dalby 11:25, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It's from the marketing copy, I suspect. See his website. It may be Michael Payne (the editor) in an introduction and that bit just got lifted for the blurb, but I think just attributing it to this edition with Greenblatt as author is the least confusing option. Oh, and it is, obviously, "antithetical" and not "anti-ethical". :) --Xover (talk) 11:52, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: That word got changed from "antithetical" to "antiethical" in  on 4 November 2014 by User:130.226.230.7. The passage  by User:Jennifer Lynn on 10 February 2006. I suggest to change it back. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:07, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for finding that out: I wondered, but I was too lazy to search. To judge by Google, confusion about this word is spreading. As you suggest, I've changed it back. Andrew Dalby 13:36, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Antiethical 

message: I have commenced a tidy-up of the Bibliography section using cite templates. Capitalization and punctuation follow standard cataloguing rules in AACR2 and RDA, as much as Wikipedia templates allow it. ISBNs and other persistent identifiers, where available, are commented out, but still available for reference. This is a work in progress; feel free to continue. Sunwin1960 (talk) 05:57, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bibliography