Talk:Shakespeare authorship question

"Theories"?

A theory is a hypothesis that is supported by evidence. Are these hypotheses supported by enough evidence to be called theories? Grassynoel (talk) 05:40, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Grassynoel's hypotheses (that "a theory is a hypothesis", and that such a theory/hypothesis is "supported by evidence") assume a particular definition of "theory" — one that requires evidence. There are other definitions that may be a better fit for this article. For example, according to the Wikipedia article Hypothesis "A hypothesis is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon." And according to the article Theory "A theory is a rational type of abstract thinking about a phenomenon, or the results of such thinking." Also, since Grassynoel's hypothesis ("A theory is a hypothesis that is supported by evidence.") doesn’t mention "enough evidence", it can't be tested against Grassynoel's question: "is there enough?" If Grassynoels’s hypothesis were "A theory is a hypothesis that is supported by enough evidence" — then "enough" would need to be defined. William11002 (talk) 15:13, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

A hypothesis must also be supported by evidence Although its proposition may not, or cannot provide definitive proof, the possibility of the existence of such a proof ought not to be capable of being rendered impossible with counter-evidence. Such counter evidence should be tangible or demonstrable in a non-hypothetical manner, not by thought experiments. It may not be a collection of suppositions, inferences and guesswork. None of the Shakespeare authorship candidates have any tangible evidence supporting them and without such evidence cannot escape being branded "fringe". 88.212.179.151 (talk) 13:49, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Not only is the Shakespeare truther cult not supported by enough evidence to call their nonsense a legitimate theory, it is, in fact, not supported by ANY evidence whatsoever. Neither material nor circumstantial. It's an argument founded solely on baseless speculation and ahistorical presumption. 2600:8801:710D:EA00:5C89:CE97:F494:7B66 (talk) 17:59, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 April 2023

Please change "Fringe theory" to "Hypothesis" in the Short Description.

I understand that there's lots of debate on this article, but even by Wikipedia standards, the title and description should not convey a predetermined perspective of the article. The use of "Fringe theory" suggests immediately a bias against the legitimacy of the article, when in fact it's just an article about a different theory on the subject. Bpier (talk) 14:40, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

While the short description is, well, short, fringe theory is inline with article content and WP:FALSEBALANCE. In WP-verse, these are fringe theories. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:07, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. M.Bitton (talk) 19:46, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 October 2023

• Drystone, Shakespeare Authorship, a Study – examines recent alternate authorship claims analytically

h NaNarGoon (talk) 00:53, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks but there should first be a general discussion on the usefulness of the link and whether it has additional and suitable information. In particular, an edit request should include a description of where the proposed text should be added. Johnuniq (talk) 01:14, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

My apols, I'm finding my way through the process. The intention is that the link would be listed under "External Links". NaNarGoon (talk) 04:03, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

@NaNarGoon, welcome. It's not an awful idea, I haven't read the site, but per [1] its on topic or at least on aspects of topic. But I wonder if this site fails the WP guidance at WP:SELFPUB/WP:NOBLOGS. And if it doesn't fail those, would an EL fit better at Nevillean theory of Shakespeare authorship/Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:50, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

There are much better, less misleading unlinked sites. Neville is the outsider's outsider when it comes to candidates. Sicinius (talk) 13:54, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Per List of Shakespeare authorship candidates, I'd say he's well into the top ten, perhaps top five. I may be WP-coverage-biased here. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:10, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Outside Bacon, Marlowe and Oxford (placed in that order by Google nGrams), rankings become difficult and probability calculations become meaningless. Oxfordians make more noise but still Bacon is more widely mentioned. Neville is high on noise but low on numbers of supporters. After my duties as webmaster of Oxfraud for the last 10 years, I'm weblog-biased. Personally, since it's such a specialist craft, I'd put all the candidates with playwriting qualifications ahead of amateur poets and politicians. And when it comes to probability, the guys who favour Klingons are the only group with Shakespeare's exceptionalism sorted out.

However, link if you feel you must. Since the page has a link to Oxfraud, I'm not really in a position to object. Sicinius (talk) 15:37, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Your point re the possible lack of authority of self-published sites seems vindicated for Drystone as the author makes no claim for expertise in the field of Shakespearian authorship. (In fact she/he almost makes a virtue of lack of applicable background!). I withdraw my request. NaNarGoon (talk) 23:33, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Reconsideration of Recent Edits

I have restored another recent edit by I love RYCBARM, after discussion on our talk pages. Moving further discussion here, in case others have comments on these, whether in agreement or disagreement. I will likely make one or more changes later. --Alan W (talk) 02:04, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Your reverts of the recent changes were correct. For example, changing "interpretations of literature are unreliable" to "interpretation of literature are unreliable" (omitting "s" but keeping "are") is wrong. Further, it is not one interpretation but multiple, so the plural is correct. Likewise, inserting "a" to make "but a highly visible and diverse assortment of supporters" is wrong when the whole sentence is read. It is not easy to find grammatical errors in a featured article. Johnuniq (talk) 02:50, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your perspective, Johnuniq. There are a few cases where I think I_love_RYCBARM's changes do hold up. Otherwise, yes, this is a very seasoned and well-overseen piece of writing, and, after all these years of scrutiny by thousands of pairs of eyes, it would be odd that so much of a grammatical nature should still need changing. --Alan W (talk) 12:42, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Upstart Crow as an "example"

That seems a little misleading to me, as what UC does is to satirise Mark Rylance as a 'just asking questions' Shaks-spar skeptic. But our text isn't entirely clear what it's being cited as an example of. Nor have I seen the original source. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 16:45, 17 November 2024 (UTC)