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 subject of the article.

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. 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. 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. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Literature Top‑importance Literature portal 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. 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.

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)[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]

For the interested

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

August 2025

@Alan W: well, if you feel strongly about a need for saying "of all time" in such a way that flattens nuance that the world's languages are far too different to make such a sweeping comparison of respective greatest authors in each of them, and it sounds British imperialism nostalgic, then for me, nah, I'm sorry, but nah, it just doesn't sit well with me. GOLDIEM J (talk) 02:49, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is an article talk page and information about what sits well with people is not helpful. If you support a particular change, it would be better to think of an appropriate section heading and briefly state the proposed change with a reason. Johnuniq (talk) 04:16, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnuniq: I honestly don't get what the problem is. Why is changing "greatest author of all time" to "greatest author in the English language" so bombshelly? Why? Can someone please explain? Why does that need to be so bombshelly? I don't get it. Is it really that important that we put it in such a way that flattens linguistic nuance when his legacy is primarily contained to the particular language he wrote in? That's like calling Romance of the Three Kingdoms the greatest novel in English. GOLDIEM J (talk) 21:55, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

August 2025

@Masato.harada: @Jauerback: Do not accuse an editor of edit warring when they are actually trying to comply with WP:BRD. I asked why the edit was problematic, no one chimed in, no further objection so logically it doesn't come across as problematic. I changed it back because it seemed like the only way to get people's attention and I put in my edit summary that I want an explanation of why it's problematic, and you provided that. The citation puts it that way, and that's a valid explanation according to Wikipedia policy (even though I don't agree with it.) If I was edit warring, do you really think I would've asked for an explanation anywhere?

With that out the way, thank you for your explanation. I still have objections to saying "of all time" even if it's used by one source, but it's clear that I need to do some serious source research before I state my case again. GOLDIEM J (talk) 18:01, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I made no such accusation. I pointed out WP:BRD, which you failed to follow. However, in BRD, no where does it say "Be bold and make an edit. After it gets reverted, ask a vague question about it, ignore the advice in the answer given, wait a day, and reinsert the your bold edit." That's not how conensus is formed. The onus is on you to get consensus. I'm not acting as an editor for this page, so I have no opinion one way or the other, but since this is a FA, this process is especially important to follow. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 19:04, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Silly question but what does the source say? All time or English language? Simonm223 (talk) 19:26, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]