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.

Article policies

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, 32: 30 days

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

Error: The code letter saq for the topic area in this contentious topics talk notice is not recognised or declared. Please check the documentation.

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 has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Shakespeare FA‑class 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 articles
FA	This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Alternative views FA‑class

	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 articles
FA	This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Skepticism FA‑class Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory 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 articles
FA	This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:

Marlovian theory of Shakespeare authorship

More eyes at recent problematic edits at this page, please. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:27, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hm

@GümsGrammatiçus About your [1] 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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 April 2023

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. M.Bitton (talk) 19:46, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]