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)

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)

Redirection?

Should Anti-Stratfordians redirect here? It doesn’t say that it does. Queermedea (talk) 18:06, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

It looks like it currently does redirect here. Simonm223 (talk) 20:54, 25 November 2024 (UTC)