Talk:Shakespeare authorship question/Archive 32

Archive 25

←

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Mild query regarding a tense unfamiliar to me.

Greetings,

I was reading through some of the archives (what a morass!) and came across a suggestion by Nishidani (talk) to rewrite this article in "past passive narrative mode". This suggestion appears in the Talk Page archives, Talk:Shakespeare authorship question/Archive 24: 'Brian Boulton's suggestion, pasted here' - https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Shakespeare_authorship_question/Archive_24#Brian_Boulton's_suggestion,_pasted_here

I am not strong on tenses, so I looked for the term on the interwebs without getting a hit. Wikipedia is also silent on this term. The user, Nishidani, does not seem to be active on Wikipedia any longer.

SO, in words of one syllable or less, what the hay does "past passive narrative mode", mean?

Curiosity abounds and thankful for your time, Wordreader (talk) 03:38, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Narrative tense just means past tense. Narrating an incident, you use past tenses of one kind or another.

“Someone had strewn litter on the pitch” - Past Active

“Litter had been strewn on the pitch” - Past Passive

Those could further subdivide into Past Perfect, Past Continuous, Past Perfect Continuous…etc. At which point it starts to become a bit geeky. If you have a practical reason for asking (i.e. you want to make an edit), you’d need to cite the passage in question.Terpsichore47 (talk) 15:30, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Suggest adding link to Love's Labour's Lost page

In "Evidence for Shakespeare's authorship from his works" 4th paragraph, suggest adding a link to the Love's Labour's Lost page of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.159.248.94 (talk) 19:13, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Agree and done, thanks for noticing. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:02, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Safa Khulusi and the Arab Shakespeare/Shaykh Zubayr

Given that this is a featured article, I was somewhat surprised to see that it contains nothing about Safa Khulusi's famous fringe theories about Shakespeare having been an Arab called "Shaykh Zubayr". This is perhaps more interesting from the perspective of Arab nationalist myth-making than from the perspective of literary criticism (Khulusi's theory is still very popular in the Arab world, though support is mostly cheeky, with the majority now recognizing it for the nonsense it is), but I do think that it is notable for showing how this whole authorship question became a globalized phenomenon during the 20th century.

Reliable sources on it include Ferial Ghazoul's 1998 paper "The Arabization of Othello" and Eric Ormsby's 2003 contribution to The New Criterion called "Shadow language". Abdul Sattar Jawad's essay published in Duke University's student magazine called "Shakespeare in Baghdad" may also contain some semi-reliable background information, while this blogpost about it at Duke University's website gives some bibliographic pointers. For background information, there's also a whole book called Shakespeare, the Orient, and the Critics devoted to the general topic of Shakespeare's relation to Orientalism. I just took these sources from Khulusi's article and a quick Google search, but I'm pretty sure there's much more once one starts digging. Enough, that is, for a brief paragraph in this article. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 00:29, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't know about "famous" (in comparison), but I have heard of it. The heroine in this [1] comic-book mentions it as her favorite SAQ.

This is the "top" article on SAQ, and there are several SAQ theories with separate WP-articles that are not mentioned here, and I think that is reasonable per summary-style. See for example Talk:Shakespeare_authorship_question/Archive_31#John_Florio. The sheikh and others can be found at the sub-article List of Shakespeare authorship candidates.

But if Zubayr bin William, Shaykh ("Sheik Zubayr") meets WP:GNG, making a WP-article about him is probably the way to start. Afaict, noone has tried. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:11, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

To paraphrase Jack Sparrow, but you have heard of it. Since we're talking about a trope primarily circulating in the Arab world, I think that's saying something. I didn't know about List of Shakespeare authorship candidates, thanks for that.

However, first create a WP article about 'Shaykh Zubayr'? That sounds kind of backwards: imagine that every topic on which articles would want to spend a sentence or two would first need to have a whole article of its own... Moreover, Safa Khulusi's article, from which I just removed a huge primary source based analysis laying out the fringe theory in painstaking detail, is the proper place to spend a whole section on the topic. It's just that under FA criterion 1.b comprehensive, a brief mention of it would be apropos here too. Just thought I'd mention the sources here if anyone feels up to it.

With regard to Florian theory of Shakespeare authorship, I guess that what I'm trying to say is that some fringe theories like that do seem to be notable enough precisely to be summarized here. The best format would probably be a section called Shakespeare authorship question#Fringe theories, to be placed before the Shakespeare authorship question#In fiction section. Sure, fringe is difficult to deal with properly, but it is a notable aspect of this article, and at the moment it is entirely missing. Again, just a suggestion to anyone who would feel up to a new challenge. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 10:04, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

And I didn't know about the Shaykh Zubayr section, that was quite interesting. No to having a section called Fringe theories, because this is an article about a bunch of fringe theories, but I can see an "Others" section at the end of "Alternative candidates". The WP-easy way to pick what to mention there would be to start with the theories with WP-articles, then it may get harder to agree on which are WP:PROPORTIONate, maybe not. I see the sheik is also mentioned at History_of_the_Shakespeare_authorship_question#Non-English_candidates. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:53, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that paragraph in History of the Shakespeare authorship question#Non-English candidates is exactly the type of thing I was thinking of. It's fairly typical for WP to have three articles for what should just be one, but of the three this is the only one missing the info. It's not the end of the world though. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 14:00, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

I get the impression that Shaykh Zubayr is unique among the candidates in that he seems to be fictional. Of course I have seen SAQ proponents claim that Shakespeare was fictional. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:25, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

@Apaugasma, @Nishidani, other interested. How about if we add a sentence to the first paragraph under "Alternative candidates":

Among the nominees are non-English candidates like John and Michelangelo Florio and Shaykh Zubayr.

Or something like that. The "international" angle is worth mentioning. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:02, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

That would require adding other furreners like the Rosicrucians and Cervantes for equal weight, and would then impose per Wikipedia:Summary style the creation of an expansion in the main article to justify mention of these in the lead. So we'd be back to the same problem, this time with a technical warrant for a new section.Nishidani (talk) 09:56, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Never noticed Cervantes was on the list, but there he is. Not sure he is quite "equal" in terms of RS-coverage to the others, though, but I haven't actually checked (has no one suggested Lope de Vega, btw?). And if we mention foreigners, perhaps we should mention women candidates as well. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:16, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Lope de Vegan as Shakespease?Nishidani (talk) 10:56, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

He was a poet and lived about he same time, what more do you need!? He may not have spoken English, but that is obviously part of the conspiracy against him. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:05, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

And sorry for missing the witty pun. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:08, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

-We're going to Fangtasia. -Fangtasia? - You have to understand, most of us vampires are very old. Puns used to be a celebrated form of humor. True Blood. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:11, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be possible to write what Gråbergs Gråa Sång proposed and follow it up with an explicit statement of their marginal notability, so that the opening paragraph of the 'Alternative candidates' section reads:

While more than 80 historical figures have been nominated at one time or another as the true author of the Shakespearean canon, only a few of these claimants have attracted significant attention. Among the nominees are non-English candidates like the English-Italian humanists John and Michelangelo Florio and the supposed Arab merchant Shaykh Zubayr, as well as women candidates like Shakespeare's wife Anne Hathaway and Elizabeth I, Queen of England. Most of these candidates have had a very limited number of proponents. However, other candidates, even though rejected by the scholarly community at large, have enjoyed a somewhat broader support. The proponents of the latter are called 'Baconians' (after their candidate, Sir Francis Bacon), 'Oxfordians' (after Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford), 'Marlovians' (after Christopher Marlowe) and 'Derbyites' (after William Stanley, 6th Earl of Derby). In addition to sole candidates, various "group" theories have also achieved a notable level of interest.

In this way, we would truly summarize the section in its opening paragraph, while at the same time making room for more marginal candidates like Shaykh Zubayr, and indicating why we won't spend a full paragraph on these latter. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 11:44, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

I think that's pretty good. Get some good cites in there, and it's good enough for mainspace. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:12, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

It's well-written but doesn't work. In one paragraph, extremely minor figures mentioned only in the fringe lunatic literature are given equal weight and have precedence narratively over four figures who dominate the alternative theory history, not to mention a dozen who have from one to several books backing their candidacy. The Florio stuff is nutterland -spun out by an illiterate and self-published: Zubayr a stale eccentricity. Idem for Hathaway and Queen Elizabeth, and indeed why not also Amelia Bassano Lanier,as here who fits all the politically correct criteria, dark (black)/female/probably Jewish. If we want to highlight non-English pretenders, then why not also William Nugent, like Patrick Mc Ginty 'an Oirishman of note'? Thus put, it becomes an attention-drawer to what was, from the outset, dead-in-the-water nonsense. Nishidani (talk) 15:56, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

There can be no talk here about giving equal weight: the 'Alternative candidates' section that follows spends multi-paragraph subsections on each of the four more notable candidates, while the four less notable candidates get exactly one sentence for all of them. That one could just as well give completely different examples always holds when a small number of examples need to be selected from a large subset, and is a poor argument to give no examples at all. Narrative austerity, yes, but in my view this qualifies for that. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 16:46, 17 July 2022 (UTC) Feel free to move this reply along with your comment to the proposal subsection below.

Yup. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:57, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

The four main candidates get extensive coverage to reflect the weigh of attention historically given them. Of the 82 remaining candidates, it is utterly subjective to showcase ultra fringe examples from the stampede, as a contrast to the big four, esp. when many of the others we would thereby ignore have earned far more attention or been the object of serious coverage by accomplished scholars. E.g. Sir Henry Neville's candidacy espoused by the mainstream historian, William Rubinstein.Nishidani (talk) 17:05, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, but he's a boring English nob like most of the others, and doesn't add anything about the width of the field of candidates, though Prince Phillip is supposed to have liked him too. We could add something about most candidates being upper-class poet-ish guys too, directly after "Among the nominees" (I don't know a good source for that atm). Perhaps with something on the snobbishness behind, if there's a better source than Ben Elton. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:13, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

We could, as I have stressed a few times, add tons of stuff written on the infinite facets of this identity theory, much of it interesting, but the consequence would be only to entice a yen for discursive overflow the article was repeatedly trimmed in the FA process to avoid. I think everyone in the trade recognizes that the fundamental premise of Shakespeare doubters is the moronic idea that only someone with a strong formal education, available almost exclusively to the rich (with BJonson the exception) couldn't write that brilliantly. Ergo upper-class. Yes,class prejudice and arch snobbery. That the majority of nominees are English however is unavoidable.The field is English. I live in Italy,so I spot this Crollalanza crap re the Florios regularly. Apaugasma studies Arabic matters, so they see Sheikh Zubayr more often than the rest of us. What counts is the degree RS reflect these trivial pursuits or recondite murmurs from the province. It's not bias that causes the relative silence, as much as a perception of the vacuity such extremes of tendentiousness can reach. The two suggested originally are example of ideas attemptings to get some nationalistic traction by suggesting the Poms have covered up and expropriated in their customary imperial(ist) fashion cultural/intellectual property that belongs to other nations or peoples. Open up that can of worms and you'll get further big bang explosions of discursive overload.NishidunnyNishidani (talk) 22:48, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Interesting but I don't think it worth summarizing here. Regional obsessions in other languages can generate a mass of provincial trivia, which can be summarized somewhere, but surely not here. I have a fairly close knowledge of the massive bullshit regularly circulated in Italian media about the Florio theory in its two versions. It is painful to read, and were Shaykh Zubayr (which I like to think of as a comic distortion of 'Shake-cock' (zubr), i.e. 'wanker') included, ex aequo we'd get the Florio nonsense. Both have no traction in the real world of scholarship which takes as 'fringe' the four alternative authors we sketch here, and would therefore take as fringe of the fringe these two pseudos or ghost figures. I don't think being 'comprehensive' covers the fringe of the fringe. The last consideration is that this is a page that excites speculative mania, with regular forays to get one's own fav minor league oddball onto the mainpage, often simply to promote a recent theory. A fringe-fringe section would be destabilizing, as providing an open-sesame day or field for true believers in any of the liminal protagonists to war in their candidate. If Florio père/fils and Shakecock get a leg in, why not my fav. marginal hero? etc. Nishidani (talk) 10:55, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

It's just because this topic excites speculative mania, indeed largely revolves around this, that fringe of the fringe deserves a place here. It's that kind of topic. We're supposed to cover what's out there in the real world, all significant published views, not just what appeals to our editorial taste. Fringe can be very significant and wiki-notable, if written about by non-fringe sources. Yes, fringe is difficult not least because of the open nature of WP and the danger of pet theory pushers seeing it as an opportunity. The way to curb that is to duly consider whether there are enough high-quality RS, and to excise any and all OR coming from WP editors forthwith. Also, in my experience, having excellent coverage of a notable but controversial topic is the best way to make life easier also for WP editors: write a short section about the Florio and Zubayr stuff, firmly based in secondary sources and clearly characterizing it as fringe, and you'll see that most talk page troubles will soon disappear. It's just a tip though; I came here through cleaning up others' mess in the Khulusi article, and I personally have no interest in this topic whatsoever. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 11:55, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

The stringent criterion by which this article was hauled out of the sludge of despond in which alternative author sponsors drove it was that, overwhelmingly, sourcing should be restricted to scholarship written by specialists in the area. That effort won it the FA status it now bears. The four crank theories happen to have, save for Marlowe, an enormous historical literature of speculation, most of it a century old, which critical Shakespearean scholarship does mention, if mostly en passant. Secondary source coverage of these two is extremely rare in that scholarship. I can assure you, from over a decade of seeing my, not to speak of Tom Reedy's, time wasted in fending off sponsors of crackpot theories that have no substantial recognition, that the toxic, internet-fueled, lunacy is well and alive. I do a lot of clean up articles as well, and the only remedy I can find is to tighten the sourcing belt, so that the articles cover everything in due proportion as represented by commentary that has the appropriate credentials. By the 1980s, there were 25,000 articles on the interpretation of Hamlet: that has probably tripled now. We have to thresh for the grain, which even means ignoring much that is either interesting, or too intricate for an encyclopedic article. If so much is left out from quality sourcing, opening up space for trivia would be a pity.Nishidani (talk) 12:28, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

@Apaugasma: What you currently see in the article is the result of a decade-long balancing act of exactly the kind you outline. See WP:SAQ for a "brief" summary of the battle-scars that were incurred on the path to the current equilibrium, and why a high threshold for inclusion is necessary in the overview article. It's not that anyone disagrees with the principles and approaches you outline—quite the opposite—but rather that local experience and subject-matter expertise assesses this particular aspect to fall below the threshold.

It is in general non-intuitive to those not deeply invested in the Shakespeare field, but the scholarly (that is, the reliable secondary sources) attention to even the minutest detail and obscurest sub-topic is immense, and has been so for over four centuries (most people of an academic bent have an idea of it intellectually, but the visceral understanding of just how immense the publishing in the field is surprises almost everyone). So while the sources you list would be an excellent GNG-basis for most topics on enWP, in this particular area they still fall below the fold. For example, even for this narrow sub-field we have an excellent review in Shapiro that helps "calibrate" the threshold for inclusion.

It's entirely possible that this variant will bubble up over the threshold eventually (not least due to its popular culture appeal), but that'll typically be whenever someone updates or supplants Shapiro (which my guess is will be a while). Xover (talk) 11:59, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

@Apaugasma. Just to supplement Xover's concise objection, one of the primary secondary RS adduced to attest to the Sheikh Zubayr's worthiness for inclusion, Ferial J. Ghazoul's 'The Arabization of Othello,' in Comparative Literature Winter, 1998, Vol. 50, No. 1 (Winter, 1998), pp. 1-31, only makes a passing glance at the 'theory', with less words devoted to it than we do in the wiki article on Safa Khulusi (p.9 ). Xover's point reminds one that, by 1948, a comprehensive bibliography of alternative author candidate books and articles enumerated some 4,500 items (from memory). One could quadruple that now. Perhaps 3 or 4 sources since then have noted stuff like Sheikh Zubayr, which, in terms of WP:Due, makes it hyperfringe, ergo very hard to justify in a text as compressed as this.Nishidani (talk) 13:56, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

I understand. I was wrong to suggest a whole paragraph like we have at the history of SAQ article. That's also why in my proposal above and below, I only spend six words on Shaykh Zubayr. I still think that a fleeting mention like that is instructive and wp:due (it just briefly illustrates what kind of wild theories have been proposed, and how SAQ has gone global), but if you don't agree that's fine by me. Just take it into consideration. Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 15:33, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Actually I'm glad you raised the point. It brings back memories of how people like myself - reined in by Tom Reedy, the great overseer (and published on Shakespeare) of this article - tended for some months to highlight quotes and passages from supporters of the 4 main candidates which were so ludicrous in their inanity or ignorance that, if cited, readers would be hilarious with disbelief at the folly to which such theories lend themselves. Tom, and Xover reined me in. True, they argued, this is blarney in bullshit mode, but we can't tilt the article out of neutral territory by mockery, implicit or otherwise in order, to use your words, 'briefly illustrate what kind of wild theories have been proposed'. They were right, and a dozen bits were docked for that reason. Basically, herein lies my objection - narrative austerity and neutrality.Nishidani (talk) 16:10, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

And I like to think Florio's motto "Italus ore, Anglus pectore" can be read "[My] Italian tongue on English breasts", in true Shakespearean wit. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:10, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Just happens I was discussing the other day with a friend what Late Latin can do to its classical ancestor, as here: 'Italian by appearance, English in (my) heart of hearts.' My dialect murmurs mischievously:'wog with a Will for a waggish wit':)Nishidani (talk) 14:44, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Proposal

Since Gråbergs Gråa Sång liked my proposal above and only asked for citations, I have added the appropriate refs. Most of them are taken from our article here, and some others from List of Shakespeare authorship candidates. The proposal is to amend the opening paragraph of the 'Alternative candidates' section as follows:

While more than 80 historical figures have been nominated at one time or another as the true author of the Shakespearean canon, only a few of these claimants have attracted significant attention. Among the nominees are non-English candidates like the English-Italian humanists John and Michelangelo Florio and the supposed Arab merchant Shaykh Zubayr, as well as female candidates like Shakespeare's wife Anne Hathaway and Elizabeth I, Queen of England. Most of these candidates have had a very limited number of proponents. However, other candidates, even though rejected by the scholarly community at large, have enjoyed a somewhat broader support. The proponents of the latter are called 'Baconians' (after their candidate, Sir Francis Bacon), 'Oxfordians' (after Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford), 'Marlovians' (after Christopher Marlowe) and 'Derbyites' (after William Stanley, 6th Earl of Derby). In addition to sole candidates, various "group" theories have also achieved a notable level of interest.

As I suggested above, in this way we would truly summarize the section in its opening paragraph, while at the same time making room for more marginal candidates like Shaykh Zubayr, and indicating why we won't spend a full paragraph on these latter. I understand Xover and Nishidani's reservations about due-ness above, but it's really just a brief florilegium of some of the wilder theories that have been proposed, and it also concisely illustrates how the SAQ has received attention far outside of the English-speaking world. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 15:32, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

References

• Churchill, Reginald Charles (1958). Shakespeare and His Betters: A History and a Criticism of the Attempts Which Have Been Made to Prove That Shakespeare's Works Were Written by Others. London: Max Reinhardt.

• Dente, Carla (2013). "Counterfeit Classics: Shakespeare/Camilleri Joking with Masks, Translations and Traditions". Journal of Anglo-Italian Studies. 12: 245–262.

• Ghazoul, Ferial J. (1998). "The Arabization of Othello". Comparative Literature. 50 (1): 1–31. doi:10.2307/1771217.
• Gibson, H. N. (2005) [1962]. The Shakespeare Claimants. Routledge Library Editions – Shakespeare. Routledge. ISBN 978-0-415-35290-1. Retrieved 20 December 2010.
• Gross, John (March 2010). "Denying Shakespeare" (subscription required). Commentary. 129 (3). Commentary: 38–44. ISSN 0010-2601. Retrieved 2 March 2011.
• Hackett, Helen (2009). Shakespeare and Elizabeth: The Meeting of Two Myths. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-0-691-12806-1. Retrieved 20 December 2010.
• McCrea, Scott (2005). The Case for Shakespeare: The End of the Authorship Question. Greenwood Publishing Group. ISBN 978-0-275-98527-1. Retrieved 20 December 2010.
• Ormsby, Eric (2003). "Shadow language". The New Criterion. 21 (8).
• Shapiro, James (2010). Contested Will: Who Wrote Shakespeare?. US edition: Simon & Schuster. ISBN 978-1-4165-4162-2. Retrieved 14 January 2011.
• Wadsworth, Frank (1958). The Poacher from Stratford: A Partial Account of the Controversy over the Authorship of Shakespeare's Plays. University of California Press. ISBN 978-0-520-01311-7. Retrieved 28 January 2011.

See the objections in the thread above. perhaps some of that text should be moved here.Nishidani (talk) 16:14, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

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)

Hm

@GümsGrammatiçus About your [2] 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)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 April 2023

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)

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)

 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)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 October 2023

• Drystone, Shakespeare Authorship, a Study – examines recent alternate authorship claims analytically

h NaNarGoon (talk) 00:53, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks but there should first be a general discussion on the usefulness of the link and whether it has additional and suitable information. In particular, an edit request should include a description of where the proposed text should be added. Johnuniq (talk) 01:14, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

My apols, I'm finding my way through the process. The intention is that the link would be listed under "External Links". NaNarGoon (talk) 04:03, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

@NaNarGoon, welcome. It's not an awful idea, I haven't read the site, but per [3] its on topic or at least on aspects of topic. But I wonder if this site fails the WP guidance at WP:SELFPUB/WP:NOBLOGS. And if it doesn't fail those, would an EL fit better at Nevillean theory of Shakespeare authorship/Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:50, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

There are much better, less misleading unlinked sites. Neville is the outsider's outsider when it comes to candidates. Sicinius (talk) 13:54, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Per List of Shakespeare authorship candidates, I'd say he's well into the top ten, perhaps top five. I may be WP-coverage-biased here. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:10, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Outside Bacon, Marlowe and Oxford (placed in that order by Google nGrams), rankings become difficult and probability calculations become meaningless. Oxfordians make more noise but still Bacon is more widely mentioned. Neville is high on noise but low on numbers of supporters. After my duties as webmaster of Oxfraud for the last 10 years, I'm weblog-biased. Personally, since it's such a specialist craft, I'd put all the candidates with playwriting qualifications ahead of amateur poets and politicians. And when it comes to probability, the guys who favour Klingons are the only group with Shakespeare's exceptionalism sorted out.

However, link if you feel you must. Since the page has a link to Oxfraud, I'm not really in a position to object. Sicinius (talk) 15:37, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Your point re the possible lack of authority of self-published sites seems vindicated for Drystone as the author makes no claim for expertise in the field of Shakespearian authorship. (In fact she/he almost makes a virtue of lack of applicable background!). I withdraw my request. NaNarGoon (talk) 23:33, 31 October 2023 (UTC)