Talk:Francis Bacon

Moving up a class

Having looked afresh at this article after a while, I can't help thinking that it deserves more that a "C" on the scale. It covers lots of issues, is well structured and well referenced. Anyone have any views about what we need to do to get it onto the "B" scale at least? Contaldo80 (talk) 09:52, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

The article has quite a few large chunks of content without references. Pollinosisss (talk) 11:06, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok - but can you be a bit more specific then please? Contaldo80 (talk) 14:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

It's fine as B. I have fixed your edit. Gary King (talk) 03:36, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Nieves Mathews

A recent edit has removed the {{cn}} tag from this author's opinion as given in the article. However the missing query seems valid so I'm about to add the requested citation, but from Perez Zagorin, arguably a more distinguished source.--Old Moonraker (talk) 16:53, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Done. A blockquote also removed: it seems not to have been verbatim but compiled from different letters at different times. All subject to review if contributors can find other sources. --Old Moonraker (talk) 18:20, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm removing this line

He may even have been blackmailed, with threats to expose his homosexuality, into confession.

I do not have any problem with speculating about his homosexuality in the personal life section; which is quite unencyclopaedic in itself, but seems to be a trend here on wikipedia. This particular line, however, is speculating about another speculation. The tone of the line more or less confirms his homosexuality for which there is no concrete evidence. There is no place for such biased supposition on any encyclopaedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarat Chandra M (talk • contribs) 22:54, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

This was sourced information—did you read the footnote? However now we have the actual quote from Rowse I can tweak the article text to match it more closely. --Old Moonraker (talk) 06:23, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing it, the new version sounds infinitely more appropriate. I did see that the information was sourced, but the wording "threats to expose his homosexuality" did not feel right. It appeared as if the line was validating his supposed homosexuality. I don't have any problem with your version. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarat Chandra M (talk • contribs) 06:47, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the positive response.--Old Moonraker (talk) 08:02, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

About homosexuality, the part on Relationships begun (Aubrey) and ended (Several authors) with this question. I have put Aubrey with the others at the end. Dominique Meeùs (talk) 13:32, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Bacon's viscountcy

Bacon's peerage is in the article given as "Viscount of St. Alban", "Viscount St. Alban" and "Viscount St. Albans" - which one is correct? From comparing with other encyclopedias, I would assume it is the latter version ("Viscount St. Albans") but can anyone check this please? Cyan22 (talk) 20:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

It's the middle one. He was MP for St Albans but named for the cathedral's patron saint Alban, so he can't be Viscount of St Alban. This can be cited from the existing ref "Peltonen (2007)" if required: that's where I got it. Made some fixes (leaving one, which is a quote and can't be changed) with acknowledgement to User:Cyan22. --Old Moonraker (talk) 20:56, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, User:Pmanderson, for adding more about the name discrepancies. I'd like to call it clarification, but it seems that the sources are as confused as I now am. If the discussion below does result in a page move this will have to be thought about again. --Old Moonraker (talk) 06:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

---

Copied from Francis Bacon (philosopher)

Botched move

Does anybody know how to RV this page move? The talk page has disappeared; the DAB page contains only a circular link and, most of all, it was done with no discussion or consensus. I'd give it a try myself, pending proper discussion, if the talk page hadn't vanished.--Old Moonraker (talk) 09:45, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Reversion requested --Old Moonraker (talk) 10:16, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I did not/do not think the move is controversial, hence no formal request was made. As for Talk, it was linked to move automatically and I didn't unlink it, so? --Artiquities (talk) 12:13, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Controversial in this context has quite a narrow interpretation: "If the move you are suggesting is uncontroversial (e.g. spelling and capitalization), please feel free to move the page yourself", from Wikipedia:Requested moves. --Old Moonraker (talk) 15:08, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

End of copied talk, which refers to the move of Francis Bacon to Francis Bacon (philosopher).

I don't see what the problem is here. It makes sense that Francis Bacon moves to Francis Bacon (philosopher), and Francis Bacon becomes the disambiguation page, currently at Francis Bacon (disambiguation). This is because there is no clear primary topic per Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Is_there_a_primary_topic.3F. Francis Bacon the artist is as notable as Francis Bacon the philosopher.

See stats on this for June 2010:

Francis Bacon the artist = 22034[1]

Francis Bacon the philosopher = 42015[2]

However, anyone searching for the artist will end up on the philospher's page and then have to click to get to the disambig page, and then have to click to finally get to the artist page. Some people will get there via internal links, but it is likely that a majority were searching for the artist directly, i.e. many of the 42,015 people who looked at Francis Bacon, the philosopher, didn't want that page at all. The real page views of the philosopher are more likely to be nearer half the figure given, i.e. in the region of 20,000, or at any rate roughly comparable to the painter's views. This is without counting the other four Francis Bacons on the disambig page.

Can we therefore agree to move Francis Bacon to Francis Bacon (philosopher) and Francis Bacon (disambiguation) to Francis Bacon. NB it needs an admin as some deletion is involved, but I can do it, if there is agreement.

Ty 21:24, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to look at this issue. The artist has been, until recently, "Francis Bacon (painter)" and forth on a disambiguation page (on which the philosopher is clearly prioritized) hence, as you note, quite awkward to access, as default is philosopher. In this case, there is no purpose in prioritizing the philosopher, as it stands Francis Bacon (artist) seems strangely "hidden" on WP. I wonder if editors of the philosopher can see this. --Artiquities (talk) 04:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus for move. I came close to moving the page, because some of the arguments in favor of moving appeared to be more in line with our policy on primary topics, but in view of the strong arguments on both sides "no consensus" is the inevitable result. Ucucha 07:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

---

Francis Bacon → Francis Bacon (philosopher) — Francis Bacon--a philosopher, is currently the default, but Francis Bacon--an artist of the 20th Century, gets as many external hits, the current set up is affecting the evolution of the artist article insofar at is currently awkward to access--wrong page, then disambig, then , finally, the page in question... Artiquities (talk) 20:08, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Oppose. As important as the artist is, this Bacon is still the primary topic. However, to allay your concerns about multiple clicks needed to access the artist's page, I'll add him to the hatnote here. — AjaxSmack 20:30, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
• Strong oppose Clearly this Francis Bacon satisfies WP:PRIME; he is far better known than the other people listed on the dab page. Further, in May 2010 the dab page received less than 3,000 views compared to nearly 70,000 for this page, indicating that less than 5% ended up at this article looking for something else. As far as the painter is concerned, WP:RECENT is relevant and anyway he gets around 1% of the interest of this Francis Bacon (modified per Artiquities comment). Nev1 (talk) 20:32, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

• Before adding to this survey please take a moment to read info+stats in "Botched move" thread directly above this thread. --Artiquities (talk) 20:40, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. People doing a Google search will get both the philosopher and the painter on the first result page, furthermore when you type "Francis Bacon" in the Wikipedia search-box the example pop-up box underneath it gives you direct access to both the disambig and the painter-article. As such I cannot buy the assertion given in the abovementioned paragraph that the real page views for the philosopher is "in the region of 20,000" or that "anyone searching for the artist will end up on the philospher's page". The philosopher is clearly the primary topic. --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:56, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. No doubt I'm just piling on here, but the philosopher is plainly the primary topic, with the painter a strong secondary contender. The others are mere footnotes, and not a good reason to place a dabpage here. — Gavia immer (talk) 21:07, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose I had heard of the philosopher, and although I did not know a great deal about him, I thought he was a fairly important figure. I had never heard of the artist. There could be a degree of recentism, google searches and the like aren't everything. PatGallacher (talk) 00:20, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose The philosopher is one of the fathers of modern science and of the modern world. The artist, however great he may be, has not been around long enough to exercise that tremendous degree of influence. The AjaxSmack's new hatnote is ample. JKeck (talk) 03:19, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

• support Arguably today the painter is just as well known as the philosopher (particularly for his portrait of the Screaming Pope). I think it's sensible to make clear which is which. We must think of the broad readership of wikipedia.Contaldo80 (talk) 08:39, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support Yes, arguably and statistically too: these are plain vanilla google searches for artist 381,000 results; whereas philosopher only 155,000 results returned. As it stands the only benefit is that plenty of readers who are not familiar with the 1st Viscount are getting an unexpected introduction. --Artiquities (talk) 15:05, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
  • 3,330,000 results for "Sir Francis Bacon", 277,000 with quotation marks. Powers ^T 17:40, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose The above statistics are flawed, as Sir Francis Bacon was not simply a philosopher. City of Destruction 16:28, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose as presentism - and if Bacon is to be disambiguated, Francis Bacon, 1st Viscount St. Albans would be far more natural. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:56, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Please don't do that, or we'll have to start all over again! See Bacon's viscountcy, above

Didn't realize that was a problem; I'll check Complete Peerage and edit accordingly. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:39, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support Bacon the artist is a major world figure. In such cases it is usual to have a disambiguation page. My figures stated at the beginning of topic above are not in themselves as convincing as I thought, but other considerations also apply. Ty 13:05, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Let's check the criteria listed at WP:PRIME. I don't think Google searches without quotation marks are relevant, as numerous pages containing both "Francis" and "Bacon", but not "Francis Bacon" would be found that way. Searching with quotation marks gives 335,000 results for artist, 120,000 results for painter, 146,000 results for philosopher, and 93,000 results for scientist. Not only that, but searching Google News for mentions of Francis Bacon shows that both the artist and the philosopher are regularly mentioned in the media today—which means our readers may very well be interested equally in both. WP:RECENT cited by Nev1 above most definitely does not apply: of course, Bacon the artist died some 20 years ago, however quite a few of his most important and enduring paintings were created in the 1940s, some 70 years ago. Hardly "current news breaks" WP:RECENT deals with. One should also keep in mind that painting topics are poorly represented at Wikipedia: our articles on such famous painters as Johannes Vermeer, Diego Velazquez, Pablo Picasso and Hieronymus Bosch leave much to be desired, and things did not get better when Commons was flooded by thousands of horrid images of paintings from some German collection. This would explain the relatively small amount of "what links here" articles for the painter's article (for example, Picasso's article most definitely should mention Bacon). However, even with things as bad as they are, the painter's article gets approximately 30,000–35,000 page views per month, versus 60,000–70,000 page views here, and the figures stay the same for most months. Had it been 20% or 30%, a hatnote would suffice, but the 50% figure plus the ambiguity created when comparing Google results with Wikipedia hits definitely points to a need for a disambiguation page. --Jashiin (talk) 14:05, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support I have often stumbled around trying to get to Bacon the artist; and I've been there several dozens of times; it's an awkward situation...Modernist (talk) 14:27, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support, Per Jashiin. Bacon was a major world figure, and the most expensive living painter at the time of his death. Ceoil (talk) 18:36, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose per Nev1 et al. Riggr Mortis (talk) 10:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support - WP:DAB indicates that an article must be "one of these topics is highly likely – much more likely than any other, and more likely than all the others combined – to be the subject being sought when a reader clicks the "Go" button for that term" to be considered the primary topic. That is not the case here - the painter is clearly a noteworthy figure and many people are likely to be searching for him.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:24, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

As of August 21, it really seems unnecessary for further opposers to add above. --Artiquities (talk) 06:54, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Not unless there is a wave of support, no. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:41, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Isn't this discussion a bit biased. We're effectively asking a group of editors who are interested in the 16th century Francis Bacon whether they think he is more important than the 20th century Francis Bacon and should remain the prime article. They're bound to say yes. Why not ask the 20th century Francis Bacon editors too for a properly balanced discussion? Contaldo80 (talk) 09:07, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Artiquities posted the link on Talk:Francis Bacon (artist) on 19 August. --Old Moonraker (talk) 11:29, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks for clarifying. Contaldo80 (talk) 15:19, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

This would be the wave of support. I do not change my !vote, and encourage others; since this still seems recentism. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:09, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Informing Wikiproject painting but not Wikiproject philosophy about this discussion would tend to create such a "wave". --Saddhiyama (talk) 08:13, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Not to mention Wikiproject science... and there are certainly other relevant projects. One key issue is whether the merit of the main topic is based on hits or actual historical stature: what are the Wikipedia standards?

In any event, the problem of "stumbling around" for the painter is rectified by the hatnote. "Major world figure" seems rather hyperbolic; perhaps more accurate: "major art-world figure." Regardless, the philosopher (for good or ill) transcends being a world figure. He in fact established the conditions for every modern world figure, and in fact the air we breathe (so to speak) in the modern world, including the themes the painter expressed. JKeck (talk) 13:33, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Lovely dismissive and hyperbolic all at the same time. Well done. Ceoil (talk) 21:46, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

SmackBot edit

What was wrong with this edit? It's been reverted twice now. The second time it was under the premise that it tinkered with the refs, but in fact it combined a duplicate ref into one, which really is a good thing in the end.Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:51, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

That edit by SmackBot looks fine to me. It improves some link, reference and template formatting. It also removes some excess whitespace, which is no big deal, and capitalizes template names, which I'm not fond of - but really, it's just a random bot edit, nothing worth reverting and slapping a {{nobots}} tag on the article for. Of course, it is also not worth any sort of revert war. — Gavia immer (talk) 01:59, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Some people like the named footnote formation, which implies multiple footnotes at a given place; others don't. The decision between them should be made by human editors, not by bots. as WP:FOOT says. If I see Smackbot pretend to editorial judgment once more, I will consider what further means of dispute resolution may be necessary. In the meantime, curb your bots. Septentrionalis PMAnderson

Naming duplicate references is not, surely, the same as changing the style of references. WP:FOOT does not in fact seem to offer advice for this precise situation but its most relevant comment appears to be this:

"If a reference is reused in more than one footnote, it is preferable to use the format 'Smith, Short Title, 182' rather than 'Ibid, 182', so as to avoid these problems, or use named references if appropriate."

The footnotes in this case are not distinguished by different page numbers (as in the first "preferable" option), so, if WP:FOOT applies at all, it states in this context that "it is preferable to use ... named references".

No, it means it is preferable not to use Ibid. This article doesn't. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:45, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Please consider whether that one bot edit (with which three human editors have now expressed satisfaction) justifies both stopping SmackBot from editing any articles and blocking this article from being edited by any bots. If you disagree with the criteria under which SmackBot edits, your objections can be discussed on the bot owner's talk page or in a broader forum. It is illogical to single this article out for exemption when none of your objections are specific to this article.

Please also consider the nobots documentation and examples of ownership behavior: "An editor disputes minor edits...". Is blocking really a proportionate response?

— Richardguk (talk) 23:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, because I have no reason to believe that SmackBot will stop - and the fact that it has been permitted to do this shows that the old rule, that bots will do only non-controversial edits, no longer applies. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:40, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Since you only seem to have an issue with SmackBot, rather than all bots, and since nobody else has stated an issue with any bot, I've changed to {{bots|deny=SmackBot}} instead. Note that I oppose having even this, but in any case there is no stated reason to go any further. Pmanderson, if you have a problem with bot policy in general, you should raise the issue at one of the many more appropriate fora, rather than disrupting this article to prove a WP:POINT. — Gavia immer (talk) 01:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Name one "of the many more appropriate fora". I've attempted to protest many bot abuses and have consistently gotten the run-around.

Like many editors, you misquote WP:POINT: it applies to actions which the agent does not want to have happen, to show by analogy how bad other actions are. I want all bots out of this article. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:12, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

And yet, not every editor here wants all bots out of this article. — Gavia immer (talk) 01:24, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

No forum mentioned, I see. Is there one? Where? Shall I go to ArbCom and request that the Bot Approval group be dissolved? Is there any other way to protest this continuous abuse of automation. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:27, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Knowledge is not Power

In the section 'Philosophy and works' it is written that Bacon's .."famous aphorism, "knowledge is power", is found in the Meditations." Yet on the page linked through "Knowledge is Power" it is said that.. "there is no known occurrence of this precise phrase in Bacon's English or Latin writings."

Perhaps the article is suggesting that the source of that common phrase can be found in Bacon's work? In which case the quotation marks would not be appropriate.

Despite this the two articles cite different sources for the maxim.

I am a first time user and not sure how best to procede? Should I find some good sources and correct?

Trickard (talk) 17:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

It has been suggested

....that Queen Maud of Norway could not have given birth to the later King Olav V. That was German nazi propaganda. At this point, anyone can guess i am not a fan of such allegation that Mr Bacon is the secret son of Queen Elizabeth I. Shall it be kept, or removed? --85.164.223.189 (talk) 15:56, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

North America and the New Atlantis

I have done relatively substantial (for a non-professional) scholarship on the New Atlantis and find this section seriously lacking. For example, when the various "reforms" of Bensalem are listed (women's rights, no debtors prisons, etc.), four secondary sources are listed, but no page numbers are given. Women's rights are certainly not a focus of the New Atlantis, if they are mentioned at all. Claims about Francis Bacon and the "mysterious Oak Island treasure" are pseudo-historical at best. And throughout the entire article, claims taken from Frances Yates's work should be taken extremely skeptically - The Rosicrucian Enlightenment, for instance, although widely read, has been denounced by the preeminent scholars of Bacon (See Brian Vicker's Francis Yates and the Writing of History http://www.jstor.org/stable/1879218 ).

Sometime in the next two months I hope to do an almost complete reworking of the New Atlantis page, as well as add a page for Bacon's The Wisdom of the Ancients. At the moment I do not have the time.

Vincent Moon (talk) 00:43, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Bacon on Ireland

Someone might add this compendium of his thoughts on the government of Ireland in 1598-1617.86.42.201.30 (talk) 09:51, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

"Knowledge is power"?

The link from the claim that "Knowledge is power" is in the Meditations actually says the opposite -- the statement in the usual form is mistakenly attributed to Bacon. I do not, however, exactly feel qualified to resolve this issue...

(talk) 21:33, 8 July 2011 (UTC)ibn_khaldun, 8 july 2011

Oops...didn't see that there was already a thread pointing this out...sorry Ibn khaldun (talk) 21:37, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Near the end of The Great Instauration he writes, "And so those twin objects, human knowledge and human power, do really meet in one" which is a longer, more florid way of saying... "Knowledge is power." Even at the beginning of the work in fact, it is clear that he equates the two, e.g., taking classical philosophy to task because it provides no power and thus its knowledge is illusory. He's not saying (as many wrongly believe) that knowledge of any kind strengthens us physically, mentally and spiritually; rather, he is making power (as in control of nature) a qualification for calling anything (real) knowledge. This is similar to the constriction of the term "science" (originally all systematic knowledge; etymologically: knowledge or knowing) to encompass only that which we can learn through the methods of the modern natural sciences (i.e., controlled experiment). JKeck (talk) 01:16, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Quotation.

In response to the inquiry after possible corruption, the article reports that Lord Bacon said "My lords, it is my act, my hand, and my heart; I beseech your lordships to be merciful to a broken reed.". Wikiquote, however, has it as "I do plainly and ingenuously confess that I am guilty of corruption. I beseech your lordships...". Does any one propose an explanation of the disparity?
I,E ^{• Wouldst thou speak?} 02:18, 7 August 2011 (UTC)