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. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 60 days |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
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. |
To-do list for Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship:
|
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 60 days |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
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. |
To-do list for Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship:
|
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)