Talk:Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5: 2 months

Shakespeare Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Shakespeare, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of William Shakespeare on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ShakespeareWikipedia:WikiProject ShakespeareTemplate:WikiProject ShakespeareShakespeare articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Alternative views High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Skepticism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Computer analysis?

Has computer analysis not confirmed or corrected any of the theories, on the basis of stylistic tendencies, compared via large samples? Valetude (talk) 23:59, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

From the article: "According to a computerised textual comparison developed by the Claremont Shakespeare Clinic, the styles of Shakespeare and Oxford were found to be "light years apart",[95] and the odds of Oxford having written Shakespeare were reported as "lower than the odds of getting hit by lightning".[96]" Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:40, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a grammatically correct sentence

Their arguments are "not taken seriously by Shakespeare scholars because they consistently distort and misrepresent the historical record", "neglect to provide necessary context" and calling some of their arguments 'outright fabrication'".

How is it acceptable to attach the phrase at the end "and calling some of their arguments 'outright fabrication'"? Grammatically it's nonsense. Why doesn't anyone see that?Cdg1072 (talk) 15:16, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this may not necessarily be the most widely read article on Wikipedia, and so poor syntax sometimes stays. I've fixed it. Thank you for your attention, Cdg1072. Another time, when you see something like this, nothing prevents you from fixing it yourself. Bishonen | talk 15:27, 13 October 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Bias

This article needs more attention. I am no Oxfordian, but the article has bias, conflating belief in Oxfordian authorship with fringe conspiracy theories. The reasons another author may have let Shakespeare publish plays under Shakespeare's name are hard to ascertain, but the article makes speculative conclusions supporting the traditional view while dismissing competing views as fringe conspiracy theories — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unified field (talk • contribs) 01:08, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Generic complaints have no value. What text needs attention? Why? What reliable source would justify different text? Johnuniq (talk) 02:10, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To answer this question above: see Roger Strittmatter's page in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:180:8300:EF0:61AE:61B3:D4A6:3816 (talk) 13:16, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He is mentioned and used as reference in the article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:34, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 26 May 2020

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I object to the classification of this theory of authorship under Conspiracy. I also object to much of the language used throughout. This article has a strong level of bias geared at steering away interested readers away from this topic and discrediting those who are interested in it. That is not the job of a Wikipedia page or Wikipedia in general. For example, the sentence "Oxfordians, however, reject the historical record" is entirely false. Oxfordians cite different aspects of the historical record than Stratfordians do; some may even say they cite it more accurately. If they tend interpret the evidence somewhat differently, this is in keeping with what all historians do. The second part of this sentence "and claim that circumstantial evidence supports Oxford’s authorship" could also be said for many of the Stratfordian arguments. We are talking about a theory of authorship that has had many dozen books published about it in various languages, a theory which has received substantial scholarly and academic focus, honed over a century. The goal of this page should not be to "convert" potential readers to Oxfordian theory, but as it stands the current language and classification is designed to casts aspersions on it. (talk) 04:28, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. On Wikipedia, what you think is of little relevance if you cannot back it up with reliable sources. If what you describe is even remotely true, then this is seemingly controversial and would require consensus to be achieved here on the talk page before changes are made to the article. Additionally, as the edit request template states, " "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y"." – it's unclear how you would suggest fixing this, ignoring all the caveats I mentioned before. And all of this for Shakespeare... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:53, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction is totally biased against the Oxford theory

The summary and first part of this article should be neutral but is not neutral, it is 100% critical and dismissive of the Oxford authorship. It should be rewritten to balance and summarize the "Circumstantial evidence" section. The evidence for Oxford has grown to overwhelming proportions. The evidence for Derby and Rutland (Oxford's son-in-law) becomes evidence for Oxford. So does the evidence for Rutland (son of a very close friend who grew up with Oxford). Suddenly an opus that bears ZERO relation to Will of Stratford is illuminated by a huge amount of autobiographical detail. Explanations emerge out of the mist for ALL the poem and first folio dedications, for the meanings of the sonnets, and plays like Hamlet, All's Well that Ends Well, Timon of Athens, Love's Labours Lost. Naturalistic (talk) 23:15, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]