Talk:Shakespeare authorship question Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Shakespeare_authorship_question

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Shakespeare authorship question 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. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting.

	Shakespeare authorship question is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 23, 2011, and on April 23, 2017.
Article milestones Date Process Result February 19, 2010 Peer review Reviewed January 5, 2011 Peer review Reviewed April 3, 2011 Featured article candidate Promoted
Current status: Featured article

This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Shakespeare Top‑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 Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Alternative views Top‑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 Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Skepticism Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory, conspiracy theories, 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Literature Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Literature 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.LiteratureWikipedia:WikiProject LiteratureTemplate:WikiProject LiteratureLiterature Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations: "Wikipedia's Shakespeare 'Problem'". IEEE Spectrum. August 2011. "'Anonymous': New Hollywood Film Shows William Shakespeare as Someone Else". ABC News. October 2011. "Contested Will: Who Wrote Shakespeare? by James Shapiro". Simon & Schuster. 2010. "Shakespeare Beyond Doubt: Evidence, Argument, Controversy Paul Edmundson, Stanley Wells, eds". Cambridge University Press. 2013. "Shakespeare Wrote Insightfully About Women. That Doesn't Mean He Was One. by James Shapiro". The Atlantic. 2019.

This graph was using the legacy Graph extension, which is no longer supported. It needs to be converted to the new Chart extension.

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)[reply]

Late answer, but it was a recurring plot-point, see for example [1]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 23:01, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Raising a question from a person banned from editing Wikipedia text. 2600:1700:BB10:EDE0:DCA0:F8C6:8A56:7D5A (talk) 22:15, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not the text in this article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 23:00, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pageviews on the WP-saq articles. At least on WP, Oxford still rules. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:52, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]