Talk:Francis Bacon (artist)

Infobox

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The infobox I had added back in April [1] has been removed in early September by Jip Orlando [2] on procedural grounds. So here I am: is there consensus for the reintroduction of the infobox? What are the arguments against its introduction? JBchrch talk 03:46, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, JBchrch for the ping. For anyone else reading, the editnote requiring discussion of an infobox was added here: [3], with the edsum: remove infobox added with no discussion recently. What a surprise that this has caused edit-warring! There is an inconclusive discussion in talk archive 1, but a consensus is needed. Bound to be problematic here. There appears to be no current consensus either for or against an infobox. The tangential discussion I referenced in my edsum took place briefly in Archive 2. Also, per this: [4], infoboxes are neither required nor prohibited. So, here are my thoughts on an infobox for this article:

• Oppose - comparing the current revision: [5] to the most recent one with an infobox: [6]:

1. An infobox shrinks the image too much. The px parameter can be modified, but I think that doing so makes the infobox intrusive into the text.
2. Duplication of info- His born and death dates are in the lead, along with his notable work.
3. The controversy over "British" versus "Irish-born British." "British," in the previous infobox, had redirected to British Nationality Law, which has nothing in it regarding "Irish-born British." This is a dangerous omission based on the controversy that litters the talk page and its archives.
4. Lack of nuance- his style is identified as Figurative art and the movement as Abstract Expressionism. But his output encompassed more than a single style and movement. As the lead says: "His output can be broadly described as sequences or variations on single motifs; including the 1930s Picasso-influenced bio-morphs... the 1950s 'screaming popes' ... and the cooler, more technical 1980s paintings."

This final argument is most important in my opinion- we shouldn't do the reader a disservice by presenting things as a list that have better nuance written as prose. Jip Orlando (talk) 14:28, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose - per above and before. We have enough trouble with the first line - a box would only increase this. Johnbod (talk) 14:36, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support, as proposer. An infobox serves readers. It allows them to immediately identify the relevant time period, the relevant geographic area, the relevant medium, and other relevant information that allows them, in a few seconds, to know who the subject is. Changes to the content of the infobox can be made, discussions can take place and consensus can be met, so the argument that "my" infobox was wrong (which I'm happy to accept) is not really a good argument again the introduction of an infobox at all. I would also like to point out that pretty much all the articles about 20th-century painters have an infobox: Pablo Picasso, Jackson Pollock, Cy Twombly, Marc Chagall, Willem de Kooning, Mark Rothko, Amedeo Modigliani, Roy Lichtenstein, Andy Warhol, Jean-Michel Basquiat, David Hockney, Robert Rauschenberg... Is there anything specific to Bacon such that an infobox could not be created? Finally, regarding the Irish/English controversy, I note that at least two editors who have been involved in this controversy have been blocked indefinitely, so it's not like this debate involved constructive, good-faith editors in good standing. It was just one example of the project-wide, longstanding edit-warring between different nationalisms. This should not distract us from our primary function, which is to serve readers. JBchrch talk 14:59, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per discussion. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:29, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. Pointing to the existence of IBs in other articles is a WP:OTHERCONTENT argument that has no force against local consensus. Nationality disputes are among the most intractable and I doubt that we've seen the last of this one despite any user blocks. Agree with Jip Orlando. Ewulp (talk) 04:21, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

WP:AADP is rarely useful as an essay, because you can extract pretty much anything from it. In this particular case, the section you cited states While these comparisons are not a conclusive test, they may form part of a cogent argument; an entire comment should not be dismissed because it includes a comparative statement like this. Besides, there is no prior consensus: we are forming the consensus right now. JBchrch talk 14:05, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose, as somebody that is not opposed to infoboxes per se,[7] but Bacon is singularly unsuited to categorisation, and say this having been married to a librarian who spent 10 years documenting and categorising artifacts, so understand the urge. But...for eg describing him as an Abstract Expressionist is way off the mark / cringe worthy and a good eg of the issues likely to be brought up in this case (he was not part of any movement, and conversely there is no "school of Bacon"), to say nothing of the torture that a one/two word infobox description of his nationality would reign down on this page, for years and years. Ceoil (talk) 01:33, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Notes

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Additional sources

This entire journal issue is devoted to [this particular] Francis Bacon, with 7 articles & 3 reviews:

• Visual Culture in Britain, vol. 10, no. 3 (2009) [8], URL access: subscription (to get more than abstracts).

 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:20, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Cleanup

3rd-4th graphs could use some edits. "Bon vivant" and "bleak" repeat. One can be existential AND be charismatic, well-read, and articulate. Worldlelvr (talk) 06:26, 26 April 2024 (UTC)