Talk:Shakespeare authorship question

message: More eyes at recent problematic edits at this page, please. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:27, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Marlovian theory of Shakespeare authorship]] 

message: @GümsGrammatiçus About your  rewrite. Afaict, it's quite correct per source, though there is a little support for "mundane and unpoetic" in the last sentence, but IMO not anything that should be put in wikivoice.
The "problem" I see know is that the rewritten paragraph is off-topic for the "Case against Shakespeare's authorship" section it's in. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:02, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hm 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  "Theories"? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the  template. M.Bitton (talk) 19:46, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 April 2023