Talk:Francis Bacon (artist)
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Francis Bacon (artist) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2 |
![]() | This article 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.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
Nitpick about date
This may seem a bit tedious, but I wonder if we need the date in the following quote (found under Early Works)?
"In 1935 he saw Eisenstein's The Battleship Potemkin,[17] the scene of the nurse screaming on the Odessa steps later becoming a major theme in his paintings, with the angularity of Eisenstein's image often combined with the thick red palette of his recently purchased medical tome."
After all, by 1935 "The Battleship Potemkin" was already 10 years old. And in his own words (according to the reference provided), Bacon seems to be unsure of whether he saw the film in Paris during that time, or was already aware of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.226.142 (talk) 20:22, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Orphaned references in Francis Bacon (painter)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Francis Bacon (painter)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "R151":
- From Triptych, May–June 1973: Russell 1971, p. 151
- From Black Triptychs: Russell, 151
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 02:50, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Requested move
The request has been made to create a Francis Bacon disambiguation page with--as it stands--Francis Bacon → Francis Bacon (philosopher).
Francis Bacon--an artist of the 20th Century--gets as many external hits as the philosopher and the current set up is affecting the evolution of the artist article insofar at is currently awkward to access. There is, in any case, arguably, no clear primary topic. If you wish to add your views on this discussion Talk:Francis Bacon#Requested_move
Artiquities (talk) 20:08, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- I agree that a disambiguation page should be created. But I'm puzzled as to why you moved Francis Bacon (painter) to Francis Bacon (artist). Your rationale was "He was not a painter, he was an artist. He did plenty more than painting." Did he? I'm only aware of furniture design, very early in his career and for a very short time. He hasn't produced any drawings - a few surviving sketches are not universally acknowledged as his works. So, why did you move the article? --Jashiin (talk) 10:38, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- I agree he is only really notable as a painter, but "artist" is better style for all artists, except maybe some sculptors. Johnbod (talk) 11:16, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, it was only a matter of format, "(painter)" is little used on WP; my rationale was poor though since he did not do much else but paint. The rationale is that "(artist)" is basically standard. IRL some object to epithet "painter," because it somehow connotes painting-and-decorating. --Artiquities (talk) 11:25, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- I see. I was not aware of this WP practice. Thanks for replying! --Jashiin (talk) 12:34, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- You need to put your views on the page move on Talk:Francis Bacon#Requested_move, not here. Ty 13:02, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- Oops, I thought the link led here, not to the talk page of the philosopher's article. Posted there. --Jashiin (talk) 14:07, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- Artiquities, I was quite surprised at the move, considering he was so insistant that he did not draw, though of course we now know that not to be true (Jashiin the Tate accepts them and have published,[1] though they admit they have no real artistic merit. Anyway, I'm grand with reasoning above to moving, 'artist' is fine. There is a lot of dab work to be done though, is one of the consquences of a move like this on a major figure (regardless of what the philosophy people say, har). Ceoil (talk) 22:44, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
- I recall reading somewhere that the Tate is almost the only one to accept their authorship, but I can't remember where I read that. --Jashiin (talk) 14:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, I think you might be right about that. They bought the archive early and published with in a few months. And now are only ones accepting the authorship! Har. Ceoil (talk) 16:06, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
- I recall reading somewhere that the Tate is almost the only one to accept their authorship, but I can't remember where I read that. --Jashiin (talk) 14:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
- Artiquities, I was quite surprised at the move, considering he was so insistant that he did not draw, though of course we now know that not to be true (Jashiin the Tate accepts them and have published,[1] though they admit they have no real artistic merit. Anyway, I'm grand with reasoning above to moving, 'artist' is fine. There is a lot of dab work to be done though, is one of the consquences of a move like this on a major figure (regardless of what the philosophy people say, har). Ceoil (talk) 22:44, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
- Oops, I thought the link led here, not to the talk page of the philosopher's article. Posted there. --Jashiin (talk) 14:07, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- You need to put your views on the page move on Talk:Francis Bacon#Requested_move, not here. Ty 13:02, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- I see. I was not aware of this WP practice. Thanks for replying! --Jashiin (talk) 12:34, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, it was only a matter of format, "(painter)" is little used on WP; my rationale was poor though since he did not do much else but paint. The rationale is that "(artist)" is basically standard. IRL some object to epithet "painter," because it somehow connotes painting-and-decorating. --Artiquities (talk) 11:25, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Main image
I personally think that Reginald Gray's portrait of Bacon, an actual illustration of the article's subject, would be preferable as a main image than Study after Velázquez's, which can be used elsewhere in the article. Sir Richardson (talk) 18:21, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
New External Link
I would like to add a link to a 3 minute short doc of Damien Hirst commenting on a Francis Bacon Exhibition at Tate. Discussions of artworks, footage of the pieces and interesting to see how his work had insipred people working in contempory art practice today. Amy.jackson-bruce (talk) 12:11, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- As there have been no objections to this suggestion, I have now added the above-mentioned link. Within the link, I linked to Damien Hirst's Wiki page, as readers might find further information about Hirst useful in this context. Amy5 13:55, 14 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amy.jackson-bruce (talk • contribs)
Lede
Should the lede describe Bacon as Irish orAnglo-Irish?
Irish. Anglo-Irish is not a nationality, it is an ethnicity. Ethnicity should not be emphasised in the lede, per WP:BIO. Ango-Irish should be changed to Irish in the lede for the exact same reasons outlined at Talk:W._B._Yeats#Nationality_again. 89.100.150.198 (talk) 00:58, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
- Bacon was an Irish-born Brit. Writegeist (talk) 02:18, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
- Irish or, possibly, Irish-born British. According to the article, he lived in Ireland until the age of 20, which might suggest the former, unless he held a British passport. --FormerIP (talk) 10:11, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
- Anglo-Irish. It's succinct, to the point and a natural label, unlike Irish-born British or something similar. It's also in use throughout the encyclopaedia, so you'll have lot of changing to go. Edward Carson, what's he? The Duke of Wellington? If it ain't broke, don't fix it. JonCTalk 10:14, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
- It's broke, because it goes against WP:OPENPARA. I don't know whether there are a lot a similar cases but, if so, there is also a lot of time, so that's OK. --FormerIP (talk) 10:31, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
- Having a lot of work to do is no excuse for not doing the work. 89.100.150.198 (talk) 15:36, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
- Good man 89.100.150.198. Ceoil (talk) 20:55, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
- The trouble is that Bacon was not Anglo-Irish, which does not mean just well-off, Protestant and Irish. As exhaustively discussed in archived sections, his mother was his only ancestor born in Ireland, but her parents came from England. Yeats & Wilde were Anglo-Irish, Bacon not. I'm interested to see Ceoil was reverting to "Irish-born British" back in 2009! Johnbod (talk) 01:11, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
- He was Irish, and of Engish descent. That makes him Anglo-Irish. But that's an ethnicity, and so does not belong in the lede as per WP:OPENPARA. So he should be described simply as Irish in the lede. 89.100.150.198 (talk) 17:38, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
- Anglo-Irish is normally meant more specifically than Irish with English ancestry, 89.100.150.198. That aside, though, what are your reasons for preferring "Irish" to "Irish-born British"? --FormerIP (talk) 19:02, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
- Because he's Irish. 89.100.150.198 (talk) 19:26, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
- But he's also British, it seems: [2]. --FormerIP (talk) 19:30, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
- Well yes, Ireland was part of the UK at the time of his birth, which would have made him British. But nobody says we have to use as broad a term as British. Sean Connery for example is described as "a Scottish actor" not a British actor or a Scottish-born British actor. See WP:UKNATIONALS. Calling him "Irish-born British" makes it sound as if Bacon was Irish, ceased to be Irish, and became British, when in fact he was British by dint of being Irish. 89.100.150.198 (talk) 19:47, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
- Connery strongly identifies as Scottish. Other editors have worked long & hard to come up with any evidence that Bacon self-identified as Irish, without success. see the talk archive. Johnbod (talk) 20:43, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
- Well yes, Ireland was part of the UK at the time of his birth, which would have made him British. But nobody says we have to use as broad a term as British. Sean Connery for example is described as "a Scottish actor" not a British actor or a Scottish-born British actor. See WP:UKNATIONALS. Calling him "Irish-born British" makes it sound as if Bacon was Irish, ceased to be Irish, and became British, when in fact he was British by dint of being Irish. 89.100.150.198 (talk) 19:47, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
- But he's also British, it seems: [2]. --FormerIP (talk) 19:30, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
- Because he's Irish. 89.100.150.198 (talk) 19:26, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
- Anglo-Irish is normally meant more specifically than Irish with English ancestry, 89.100.150.198. That aside, though, what are your reasons for preferring "Irish" to "Irish-born British"? --FormerIP (talk) 19:02, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
- Irish-born British is best per WP:NPOV. The source the IP added was not a particularly good one. --John (talk) 19:04, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
- How is Irish-born British NPOV? There is nothing wrong with that source. 89.100.150.198 (talk) 19:26, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
- Irish-born British seems to perfectly capture that he was born in Ireland and was British. We would need valid references that he considered himself to be Irish to call him Irish. I don't think those exist, so I am fine with leaving it like this. An alternative would be to remove all mention of his nationality from the lede para; I could also live with that. --John (talk) 01:24, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- I could live with the lede having no mention of nationality. But why on earth would we need reference to a self description to call him Irish but not to call him British? 89.100.150.198 (talk) 13:38, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
- Apart from whatever relevant guidelines have to say, it would be an endless battle keeping it out of the lead, as people expect (rightly imo) something in the first sentence. Johnbod (talk) 15:33, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
- How about "British [painter] from Ireland...", as at C S Lewis? JonCTalk 11:33, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- Rather odd as a description of Lewis (from a classic Ulster Protestant background), but might work for Bacon. Worth a try. Johnbod (talk) 15:33, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
- What would be your preferred wording for Mr Lewis? He was born pre-partition, so any mention of Northern Ireland's out of the question, and – as the IP above keeps so keenly pointing out – ethnicity aren't supposed to be emphasised in the lead, so we can't have Ulster-Scot, Ulster Prod, etc. JonCTalk 08:18, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
- Well, I suppose we are stuck with an odd wording in the lead - it won't be the first time. Can one mention Ulster - very much the term in his childhood years? Or "British writer from an Irish Protestant background"? Johnbod (talk) 14:17, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
- I agree that it's not ideal. I wouldn't have a problem with mentioning Ulster or his background in the lead, but we should take this to the appropriate talk page if you want to press on. JonCTalk 14:35, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
- Well, I suppose we are stuck with an odd wording in the lead - it won't be the first time. Can one mention Ulster - very much the term in his childhood years? Or "British writer from an Irish Protestant background"? Johnbod (talk) 14:17, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
- What would be your preferred wording for Mr Lewis? He was born pre-partition, so any mention of Northern Ireland's out of the question, and – as the IP above keeps so keenly pointing out – ethnicity aren't supposed to be emphasised in the lead, so we can't have Ulster-Scot, Ulster Prod, etc. JonCTalk 08:18, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
- Rather odd as a description of Lewis (from a classic Ulster Protestant background), but might work for Bacon. Worth a try. Johnbod (talk) 15:33, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
- The current wording " Irish-born British" sounds right to me. (or British painter from Ireland.) Though he as born in Dublin, his career does not seem to have any Irish influences whatsoever. "Anglo-Irish " implies an Irish component to his work, & I do not think this has been claimed by anyone. DGG ( talk ) 07:39, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
- In Ireland & the UK, Anglo-Irish also has a particular implication of belonging to the former Ascendency Protestant ruling class (see also Anglo-Indian for another "special" case) & is treated as an ethnicity on WP (rather dubiously imo). Bacon was not Anglo-Irish in this sense, though paradoxically if he had chosen to live his adult life in Ireland, he might arguably have become Anglo-Irish eventually.
- "Irish-born British" seems fine, or "British artist born in Ireland" (or, really, "British" or "Irish"). Far more of a problem is the apparently un-sourced:
A sickly child with asthma and a violent allergy to dogs and horses, Francis was often given morphine to ease his suffering during attacks. Despite his condition, Captain Bacon would continue to force Francis on hunting excursions, in attempt to build his "sissy" son into the masculine archetype. Young Francis once slept aside a dog, to which he was deeply allergic, just to avoid the hunt the following morning. These countless ordeals with asthma explain his reserves of stoicism, most famously exampled on the day of the suicide of his past lover, George Dyer, where despite knowledge of Dyer's death, Bacon continued to show great restraint in dealing with various journalists and the day's press activities. Additionally, his case of asthma can give reason to the constant "optimistic about nothing" ethos, which he sporadically though reverently spoke about to journalists. This attitude can be understood more entirely in the context of his permanent struggle with asthma, and the fact, that unlike most, he valued entirely such a seemingly trivial thing as breathing. The family shifted houses often, moving back and forth between Ireland and England several times during this period, leading to a feeling of displacement that would remain with the artist throughout his life.
- Rich Farmbrough, 14:29, 21 October 2011 (UTC).
- And indeed this seems lifted from Francis Bacon: Anatomy of an Enigma. Removing as a copyvio. Rich Farmbrough, 14:35, 21 October 2011 (UTC).
- And indeed this seems lifted from Francis Bacon: Anatomy of an Enigma. Removing as a copyvio. Rich Farmbrough, 14:35, 21 October 2011 (UTC).
It says he was born in Georgian Dublin, so I think his Georgian heritage should be emphasised. (this is a joke btw, for those who are veterans of this argument from years gone by) 89.100.251.145 (talk) 15:05, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Date of death
I remember in the days following his death there was colossal confusion in the press about exactly which date he died on. And it seems to be continuing here.
The lede says unambiguously he died 28 April. But later on we have this:
- On the [sic] 28 April 1992, at 4.17 pm, Francis Bacon was admitted to the Handmaids of Maria, a private clinic in Madrid, where he had been holidaying. ... He died of cardiac arrest at 9.00 am the following morning, attempts to resuscitate him having failed.
Unless I'm insane, that means he died on 29 April. Either that, or someone's royally stuffed up the datesin this section of the article.
What's it to be, folks? Even the Irish can't have it both ways. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:12, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
- He. The 28th is generally accepted, but I think there is confusion because he knew he was dying and wanted to keep it quite. Also he was traveling to spain to meet a young boyfrined, and that would not have been something to publicise at the time. He was nursed by nuns in the last few days, which was the realisation of his greatest fear. As an Irishman, I can understand that aversion. A lot of the Slyvester interviews are very bleak and he says that that after death there is nothing, and didn't wanted to be mourned. Paraphrasing but a quote runs along the lines of "after my death I just want to dissapear and never be though of again", But we know that is not true because his paintings deliberately set themselves against the old masters, esp Goya and Velasquez. Ceoil (talk) 20:46, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
- That may all be true, but it is totally inconsistent with what we're currently saying. I tried to edit out the 4:17 pm admission time, but that wasn't acceptable. So we work with that. This means that he was in the clinic for the grand total of 16 hours and 43 minutes before dying, not "nursed by nuns in the last few days" you claim. We can't have him dying on 28 April in the lede, but at 9am on 29 April in the text. It won't do at all, at all. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 21:12, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
- I'm SOO sorry. I'll just go off now and kill myself. Sorry world. Ceoil (talk) 22:10, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
- No need for that. I'm just trying to establish exactly when he died. And if that's not possible, I'm trying to ensure the article is internally consistent on this matter. That's not an unreasonable or unachievable goal, and we need live people to help reach it. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 23:19, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
- Phrases like "It won't do at all, at all" wont get you very far with that. Ceoil (talk) 01:48, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- I was just trying to be a little humorous there, and I'm very sorry if it caused any offence.
- But my point remains: In the lede we say he died 28 April, but later on we say something quite contrary, that he died at 9 am 29 April. We just can't have that conflict in a supposedly good quality article like this. We can't speak with forked tongue. We have to fix it. But we need good information in order to do that, and I don't have it. Do you? -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 02:04, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- Ok I take it was meant in good humour, sorry for being over sensitive. He died on the 28 the statement quoted above is incorrect. Thanks for spotting Jack. Ceoil (talk) 05:32, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- I fear you're toying with me. That link was to a search for "francis bacon triptych born", nothing to do with when died. But even so, a simple google search is not going to resolve this issue. We have two competing dates for his death, and we need some way of knowing that one of them is definitely correct and the other one is just as definitely incorrect. For now, I'm going to change the death date in the lede to 29 April 1992, and see if that gets anyone's attention. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 06:42, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- Im exhaused by people like you. If you want to somehow score points by referring to a very old passage in the article body above text I wrote and stand over, and revert me on it, then all I can say is; hope you never darken this page again and enjoy your [3]. Ceoil (talk) 11:22, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- I honestly have no idea what you're talking about, and I really resent your vitriol and your volatility. I cannot tell by reading the article which editor wrote which bits of it, and I have no idea how much or how little credit is attributable to you. What is the "very old passage" you refer to? What is the "text [you] wrote and stand over"? I haven't reverted anybody on anything. I have simply made the article not say 2 things that cannot possibly both be true. You have changed it back, and we're back to square one, problem unresolved, and we look complete idiots for saying 2 contradictory things. Is that the outcome you actually want? Referring me to google searches is going to cut no ice in a situation like this, I'm afraid, because all you get is what we currently have - some say 28 April, some say 29 April. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 11:36, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- No you tool, we have facts one side and a prick gamely siding on ignorance and wiki self referencing on the other. No matter what obtuse games you play. That you dont take my word or refereces is clear and understood, so in kind, fuck you you prick. Its such a dry and easily found fact that I can only concude that you are here to antoganise me because you are a friend of Johcappel and your real intention is to wear me down, bait me, have me blocked, and place a brit stamp on the page. You might at least have the balls to say that without all this time sink wankery. I seriously disrespect you, I think you are dishonest at best, and dissapointed in myself that I did not suss you earlier. Ceoil (talk) 13:15, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- Just cool it with the personal attacks, OK. Your "conclusions" are completely wrong. I have never heard of Johcappel, whoever that is. I work alone, not in concert with any other editors. My wiki-credentials are impeccable. I've been here for close to 8 years, created 839 articles and other pages, never been even remotely close to even having my wrist slapped, let alone being blocked. Courtesy and good grace are my friends. Your behaviour here, on the other hand, speaks for itself - ill-mannered and now plainly abusive. We clearly live in different worlds, so it's no wonder we've never crossed paths till now. I am here to help improve this article, that's all, yet despite my best efforts, what I see is obstruction from you. It pains me to see us keeping two sets of words that say contradictory things, particularly about such a basic matter as the subject's precise date of death. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 19:12, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- I have now corrected the offending text. If anyone reverts my change, your issue will be with them, not with me. Thank you. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 19:24, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- He means me. I've never had any interaction with Jack of Oz, but I suppose it's nice to see that your sulky, petulant, completely out of line name-calling when you're challenged on something isn't limited to me. If this is the way you always behave on here, it's probably best if you do retire rather than just threatening to. JonCTalk 09:11, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- Some self awarness please. I met both of ye, and its just the circular, hands over ears, know nothing about the subject, pig headness that gets me rilled. I'm usually an ok person, but this endless bullshit from ye. Eug. If I do leave, it certainly wont be over a light-weight POV warrior prick like you. Ceoil (talk) 22:39, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
- More personal abuse. Keep on that track and the question of whether you're still on WP will be taken out of your hands. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 23:36, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
- Just cool it with the personal attacks, OK. Your "conclusions" are completely wrong. I have never heard of Johcappel, whoever that is. I work alone, not in concert with any other editors. My wiki-credentials are impeccable. I've been here for close to 8 years, created 839 articles and other pages, never been even remotely close to even having my wrist slapped, let alone being blocked. Courtesy and good grace are my friends. Your behaviour here, on the other hand, speaks for itself - ill-mannered and now plainly abusive. We clearly live in different worlds, so it's no wonder we've never crossed paths till now. I am here to help improve this article, that's all, yet despite my best efforts, what I see is obstruction from you. It pains me to see us keeping two sets of words that say contradictory things, particularly about such a basic matter as the subject's precise date of death. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 19:12, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- No you tool, we have facts one side and a prick gamely siding on ignorance and wiki self referencing on the other. No matter what obtuse games you play. That you dont take my word or refereces is clear and understood, so in kind, fuck you you prick. Its such a dry and easily found fact that I can only concude that you are here to antoganise me because you are a friend of Johcappel and your real intention is to wear me down, bait me, have me blocked, and place a brit stamp on the page. You might at least have the balls to say that without all this time sink wankery. I seriously disrespect you, I think you are dishonest at best, and dissapointed in myself that I did not suss you earlier. Ceoil (talk) 13:15, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- I honestly have no idea what you're talking about, and I really resent your vitriol and your volatility. I cannot tell by reading the article which editor wrote which bits of it, and I have no idea how much or how little credit is attributable to you. What is the "very old passage" you refer to? What is the "text [you] wrote and stand over"? I haven't reverted anybody on anything. I have simply made the article not say 2 things that cannot possibly both be true. You have changed it back, and we're back to square one, problem unresolved, and we look complete idiots for saying 2 contradictory things. Is that the outcome you actually want? Referring me to google searches is going to cut no ice in a situation like this, I'm afraid, because all you get is what we currently have - some say 28 April, some say 29 April. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 11:36, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- Im exhaused by people like you. If you want to somehow score points by referring to a very old passage in the article body above text I wrote and stand over, and revert me on it, then all I can say is; hope you never darken this page again and enjoy your [3]. Ceoil (talk) 11:22, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- I fear you're toying with me. That link was to a search for "francis bacon triptych born", nothing to do with when died. But even so, a simple google search is not going to resolve this issue. We have two competing dates for his death, and we need some way of knowing that one of them is definitely correct and the other one is just as definitely incorrect. For now, I'm going to change the death date in the lede to 29 April 1992, and see if that gets anyone's attention. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 06:42, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- Ok I take it was meant in good humour, sorry for being over sensitive. He died on the 28 the statement quoted above is incorrect. Thanks for spotting Jack. Ceoil (talk) 05:32, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- Phrases like "It won't do at all, at all" wont get you very far with that. Ceoil (talk) 01:48, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- No need for that. I'm just trying to establish exactly when he died. And if that's not possible, I'm trying to ensure the article is internally consistent on this matter. That's not an unreasonable or unachievable goal, and we need live people to help reach it. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 23:19, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
- He. The 28th is generally accepted, but I think there is confusion because he knew he was dying and wanted to keep it quite. Also he was traveling to spain to meet a young boyfrined, and that would not have been something to publicise at the time. He was nursed by nuns in the last few days, which was the realisation of his greatest fear. As an Irishman, I can understand that aversion. A lot of the Slyvester interviews are very bleak and he says that that after death there is nothing, and didn't wanted to be mourned. Paraphrasing but a quote runs along the lines of "after my death I just want to dissapear and never be though of again", But we know that is not true because his paintings deliberately set themselves against the old masters, esp Goya and Velasquez. Ceoil (talk) 20:46, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Something I noticed: the paragraph about Bacon's death is sourced to a book by someone named "Ficacci", but I cannot find the citation info for that source listed on the page. Can someone include and verify it? WesleyDodds (talk) 11:54, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- It should prob be removed. The article is v weak in general, which is why it pains me when people turn up citing text from way down as an aurtorative contraction to verified text in the lead. And can't be bothered to google to back the claim. "But wiki tells me so". This is circular, beyond lazy argumentative bullshit. Ceoil (talk) 12:00, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- It looks like the source is Francis Bacon 1909-1992 by Luigi Ficacci. Google Book gives you a bit of a peak if you good folks want to peruse it (I personally know nothing about whether or not this is decent source material). WesleyDodds (talk) 12:03, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- Sure Wesley and thanks for checking, but that dont mean he died on the 29th. If the book says so, and I really doubt it does, it just means the book is plain wrong. More likely is subtle vandelism. I know what I'm taking about and have two FAs on Bacon, and know an attack dog when I see one. Ceoil (talk) 13:06, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- It looks like the source is Francis Bacon 1909-1992 by Luigi Ficacci. Google Book gives you a bit of a peak if you good folks want to peruse it (I personally know nothing about whether or not this is decent source material). WesleyDodds (talk) 12:03, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Where was Francais Bacon actually born Some websites say Francais was born in England and he has no Irish blood ties.Bacon was a second name is english,Richard Bacon is a presenter in England.Francis Bacon was born on January 22nd, 1561, at York House, Strand, London http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Woody ty (talk • contribs) 18:15, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
- This is his article Francis Bacon, the wrong guy. Murry1975 (talk) 18:17, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
New external link
I would like to add a link to the Francis Bacon Opera, the libretto of which is a direct transcription of the South Bank Show mentioned in the article. Schmeditator (talk) 20:11, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
- B-Class LGBT articles
- WikiProject LGBT studies articles
- Wikipedia requested images of artists
- B-Class biography articles
- B-Class biography (arts and entertainment) articles
- Unknown-importance biography (arts and entertainment) articles
- Arts and entertainment work group articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- B-Class visual arts articles
- WikiProject Visual arts articles
- B-Class Ireland articles
- High-importance Ireland articles
- B-Class Ireland articles of High-importance
- All WikiProject Ireland pages
- B-Class England-related articles
- Unknown-importance England-related articles
- WikiProject England pages