User talk:HenryVIIIyes

October 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. Your recent edit to the page Macbeth appears to have added incorrect information and has been reverted or removed. All information in this encyclopedia must be verifiable in a reliable, published source. If you believe the information that you added was correct, please cite the references or sources or before making the changes, discuss them on the article's talk page. Please use the sandbox for any tests that you wish to make. Do take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thank you. MarnetteD | Talk 19:51, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Hamlet. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. MarnetteD | Talk 19:52, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

To supplement, Wikipedia has strict rules on reliable source WP:RS, not giving undue weight to minority theories WP:UNDUE, and especially not giving undue weight to very minority theories WP:FRINGE. It is perfectly OK to add sourced material to the article on Shakespeare about the minority view that DeVere wrote the plays of Shakespeare, by using sourced material and acknowledging that this is minority viewpoint. It is NOT OK to state as UNcontroverted fact withOUT as source in the Hamlet article that DeVere is the author. Wikipedia policy is very clear on this kind of thing.

This is in turn part of WP's policy that the criterion for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. WP:VERIFIABLE.--WickerGuy (talk) 22:22, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Put differently, it is the policy of Wikipedia to reflect the common consensus of mainstream scholarship, even though there is a possibility that it is mistaken. Wikipedia is NOT to be used as a soapbox to advance theories that are currently controversial, and especially not the place to simply assert them as if they were uncontroverted fact.--WickerGuy (talk) 23:52, 19 October 2011 (UTC)