This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Baconian theory of Shakespeare authorship 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, 3, 4 |
|
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article triggers a lot of concerns for me, but particularly that it contains original research, and appears to possibly be a POV fork on the Shakespeare authorship question, designed to get into the reputable public domain, via WP, material that should not properly be presented as having the level of shcolarly support that the framing of this article appears to imply. I will put some tags on it and take it to GAR. For the record, I have come to this as an uninvolved editor who stumbled across issues at Shakespeare authorship question. I don't have a view about the authorship thing - but i do have views about the quality of sources and how sources are presented in any debate. hamiltonstone ( talk) 03:48, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
I am triggering the GAR process here, having come across this article largely by accident. To pre-empt a few possible charges: I am an uninvolved editor in the content area; I have no view about the so called Shakespearean authorship question; and I am an experienced GA editor, having done over 80 of these things in the last two years.
Now to the GA guidelines: 1.Well-written: (a) the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct; and
(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2.Factually accurate and verifiable: (a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout; (b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines; and
(c) it contains no original research.
3.Broad in its coverage: (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
4.Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.
5.Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute
I will leave a week for editors to respond, but it will take a great amount of revision for this article to maintain GA status. hamiltonstone ( talk) 04:45, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Here's the diff between when it was rated and now. Not much difference that I can see. Tom Reedy ( talk) 16:21, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Mr.Stone writes:"After a diligent deciphering of the Elizabethan handwriting in Francis Bacon's wastebook, the Promus of Formularies and Elegancies, Constance Mary Fearon Pott (1833–1915) noted that many of the ideas and figures of speech in Bacon's book could also be found in the Shakespearean plays." This has no citation. The next sentence has a cite to a book by Potts, but she herself cannot be a citation for whether or not her work was "diligent" - this is original research (as may be the rest of the sentence). Mr.Stone, have you ever seen Mrs.Pott's edition of the Promus with preface by E.A.Abbott?Abbott was, after the death of James Spedding,the leading nineteenth century academic authority on Bacon and he was appropriately impressed by the magnitude of the task which Mrs.Pott had assumed.In fact transcribing an archaic manuscript of this length by hand and thereafter converting it into modern typescript is per se evidence of diligence. As for the lamentable state of the Shakespeare authorship page and all subjects pertaining thereto nothing better can be expected so long as Nishidami and Reedy systematically vandelize the citations of editors almost invariably more widely read than themselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charles Darnay ( talk • contribs) 21:07, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
This article quotes the well-known reference by Robert Greene to a "Shakes-scene", who Greene describes as a "Johannes factotum": it then explains the phrase thus: "(a "Jack-of-all-trades", a man able to feign skill)". A Jack-of-all-trades is not someone good at pretending to have skills that he doesn't have, but someone who is equally good at many things but not a master of of any one area. (Please excuse the gender bias in the previous sentence.) This definition strikes me as indisputably a piece of disingenuous POV editing, and accordingly I will strike it from the article. Generally speaking, this article is obviously the work of fans of the Baconian theory, is in numerous violations of NPOV, and needs serious editing. Lexo ( talk) 01:53, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Cut from the Bacon cipher article for possible future use here.
A further theory based on Bacon's cipher was published by Edward Clark
[1] referring to an inscription on
Shakespeare's funerary monument which used a mixture of letter-shapes. Unfortunately the stone had crumbled and been replaced more than half a century earlier, so Clark had to rely on copies. He was building on an article by Hugh Black
[2] suggesting that the inscription concealed the sentence, "FRA BA WRT EAR AY", an abbreviation of "Francis Bacon wrote Shakespeare's plays."
References
Shouldn't there be a section on objections to Bacon's authorship of Shakespeare? To think of just three:
- how on earth could he have found the time? Bacon was a very busy man, with all his legal and political work, not to mention his own (acknowledged) writing.
- Bacon's literary style is nothing like Shakespeare's.
- Bacon was a learned scholar and historian. The author of Shakespeare clearly wasn't - his works are littered with historical errors and anachronisms. How could a scholar like Bacon have lowered himself to writing such a historical farrago as Titus Andronicus? 86.148.134.136 ( talk) 09:39, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
My edit to change "It would be surprising had he not attended the local grammar school..." to "Stratfordians assert he very likely attended the local grammar school..." was reverted with the comment that "It's a summary of just that mainstream view". By my reading, this use of the passive voice implies that the opinion is Wikipedia's not the mainstream one. Joja lozzo 02:05, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
The problem is that no one really knows what a Baconian Theory is.
To outwit those who have a fondness for themselves is to be one but not quite so devote but well-versed.
That is my theory.
However, with the timing I do not see how it could be so readily discounted.
I of course have no been involved in the discussion and the evidence my seem circumstantial. And, perhaps, it would be considered works that would compromise the integrity of the name.
However, it seems to me that there is no way to know everything nor a way to revisit the past to be sure about anything.
And, there are those to whom others may so closely follow that it would be too damaging or impossible to get full merit.
However, not all Bacon's practice all that is Bacon. However, it has seemed to me that some would sacrifice all for one when is comes to Bacon.
Lately, I find the fat not useful. I also prefer Canadian bacon on my pizza. After all, delta is the only constant, no? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.245.55.214 ( talk) 09:14, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
I really don't get why this page exists at all. What a foolish bunch of nonsense given credibility for no good reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.251.59.232 ( talk) 04:12, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Is this text worth mentioning? Is it worth more than one sentence? The quoted objection that "certain stars shot madly from their spheres" (Shakespeare) "was not in accordance with the then-accepted Greek astronomical belief that the stars all occupied the same sphere" (WP article) is nonsensical. Has no one heard of "shooting stars"? Either this misrepresents Asimov's argument, or it is too silly for WP. Instead, give more attention to the Friedmans' book. Zaslav ( talk) 07:06, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Baconian theory of Shakespeare authorship 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, 3, 4 |
|
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article triggers a lot of concerns for me, but particularly that it contains original research, and appears to possibly be a POV fork on the Shakespeare authorship question, designed to get into the reputable public domain, via WP, material that should not properly be presented as having the level of shcolarly support that the framing of this article appears to imply. I will put some tags on it and take it to GAR. For the record, I have come to this as an uninvolved editor who stumbled across issues at Shakespeare authorship question. I don't have a view about the authorship thing - but i do have views about the quality of sources and how sources are presented in any debate. hamiltonstone ( talk) 03:48, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
I am triggering the GAR process here, having come across this article largely by accident. To pre-empt a few possible charges: I am an uninvolved editor in the content area; I have no view about the so called Shakespearean authorship question; and I am an experienced GA editor, having done over 80 of these things in the last two years.
Now to the GA guidelines: 1.Well-written: (a) the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct; and
(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2.Factually accurate and verifiable: (a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout; (b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines; and
(c) it contains no original research.
3.Broad in its coverage: (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
4.Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.
5.Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute
I will leave a week for editors to respond, but it will take a great amount of revision for this article to maintain GA status. hamiltonstone ( talk) 04:45, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Here's the diff between when it was rated and now. Not much difference that I can see. Tom Reedy ( talk) 16:21, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Mr.Stone writes:"After a diligent deciphering of the Elizabethan handwriting in Francis Bacon's wastebook, the Promus of Formularies and Elegancies, Constance Mary Fearon Pott (1833–1915) noted that many of the ideas and figures of speech in Bacon's book could also be found in the Shakespearean plays." This has no citation. The next sentence has a cite to a book by Potts, but she herself cannot be a citation for whether or not her work was "diligent" - this is original research (as may be the rest of the sentence). Mr.Stone, have you ever seen Mrs.Pott's edition of the Promus with preface by E.A.Abbott?Abbott was, after the death of James Spedding,the leading nineteenth century academic authority on Bacon and he was appropriately impressed by the magnitude of the task which Mrs.Pott had assumed.In fact transcribing an archaic manuscript of this length by hand and thereafter converting it into modern typescript is per se evidence of diligence. As for the lamentable state of the Shakespeare authorship page and all subjects pertaining thereto nothing better can be expected so long as Nishidami and Reedy systematically vandelize the citations of editors almost invariably more widely read than themselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charles Darnay ( talk • contribs) 21:07, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
This article quotes the well-known reference by Robert Greene to a "Shakes-scene", who Greene describes as a "Johannes factotum": it then explains the phrase thus: "(a "Jack-of-all-trades", a man able to feign skill)". A Jack-of-all-trades is not someone good at pretending to have skills that he doesn't have, but someone who is equally good at many things but not a master of of any one area. (Please excuse the gender bias in the previous sentence.) This definition strikes me as indisputably a piece of disingenuous POV editing, and accordingly I will strike it from the article. Generally speaking, this article is obviously the work of fans of the Baconian theory, is in numerous violations of NPOV, and needs serious editing. Lexo ( talk) 01:53, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Cut from the Bacon cipher article for possible future use here.
A further theory based on Bacon's cipher was published by Edward Clark
[1] referring to an inscription on
Shakespeare's funerary monument which used a mixture of letter-shapes. Unfortunately the stone had crumbled and been replaced more than half a century earlier, so Clark had to rely on copies. He was building on an article by Hugh Black
[2] suggesting that the inscription concealed the sentence, "FRA BA WRT EAR AY", an abbreviation of "Francis Bacon wrote Shakespeare's plays."
References
Shouldn't there be a section on objections to Bacon's authorship of Shakespeare? To think of just three:
- how on earth could he have found the time? Bacon was a very busy man, with all his legal and political work, not to mention his own (acknowledged) writing.
- Bacon's literary style is nothing like Shakespeare's.
- Bacon was a learned scholar and historian. The author of Shakespeare clearly wasn't - his works are littered with historical errors and anachronisms. How could a scholar like Bacon have lowered himself to writing such a historical farrago as Titus Andronicus? 86.148.134.136 ( talk) 09:39, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
My edit to change "It would be surprising had he not attended the local grammar school..." to "Stratfordians assert he very likely attended the local grammar school..." was reverted with the comment that "It's a summary of just that mainstream view". By my reading, this use of the passive voice implies that the opinion is Wikipedia's not the mainstream one. Joja lozzo 02:05, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
The problem is that no one really knows what a Baconian Theory is.
To outwit those who have a fondness for themselves is to be one but not quite so devote but well-versed.
That is my theory.
However, with the timing I do not see how it could be so readily discounted.
I of course have no been involved in the discussion and the evidence my seem circumstantial. And, perhaps, it would be considered works that would compromise the integrity of the name.
However, it seems to me that there is no way to know everything nor a way to revisit the past to be sure about anything.
And, there are those to whom others may so closely follow that it would be too damaging or impossible to get full merit.
However, not all Bacon's practice all that is Bacon. However, it has seemed to me that some would sacrifice all for one when is comes to Bacon.
Lately, I find the fat not useful. I also prefer Canadian bacon on my pizza. After all, delta is the only constant, no? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.245.55.214 ( talk) 09:14, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
I really don't get why this page exists at all. What a foolish bunch of nonsense given credibility for no good reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.251.59.232 ( talk) 04:12, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Is this text worth mentioning? Is it worth more than one sentence? The quoted objection that "certain stars shot madly from their spheres" (Shakespeare) "was not in accordance with the then-accepted Greek astronomical belief that the stars all occupied the same sphere" (WP article) is nonsensical. Has no one heard of "shooting stars"? Either this misrepresents Asimov's argument, or it is too silly for WP. Instead, give more attention to the Friedmans' book. Zaslav ( talk) 07:06, 17 January 2021 (UTC)