Talk:Baconian theory of Shakespeare authorship

Concerns

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)

The article dates back to 2006 (as opposed to 2002 for the main article). There's been more than one wave of merging and forking since then, so I don't know that trying to determine the "correctness" of the decision to fork will prove productive. To my mind, it's more important to address the WP:RS and WP:V issues that you present. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 04:07, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Probably. But I'm not here for the long haul. I'm going to deal with the main quality issue via GAR, and then stick to providing some outsider input at the main article. But thanks for the input. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:23, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Baconian theory/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

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

Yes, in general. But there are structural problems. For example, under the heading "History of Baconian theory", the WP article does not give a general introduction to Baconian theory at all, but launches straight into purported evidence in support of the theory.

(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

I'm not considering this criterion at present.

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

Not even close. This is an article about a highly contentious topic. Its sourcing is woefully inadequate, even to the extent of providing not one citation to the first paragraph characterising the mainstream view about Shakespeare. Other citations are not adequate or not sufficient for the facts in hand. One example: "In 1867, in the library of Northumberland House, one John Bruce happened upon a bundle of bound documents, some of whose sheets had been ripped away [cite]" links to some manuscript pages on some website. Then (and thereafter in that para) there are no cites to any reliable sources at all, and none therefore for the various facts and arguments made in the para. I did start to add some maintenance templates to identify issues, but instances of inadequate citation are too numerous to individually identify. Editors should approach the article on the principle that, as a contentious fringe theory, every claim and argument needs a citation, and it needs to be to a modern, reliable source.

(c) it contains no original research.

On the contrary, it appears to be littered with it, but it is a complex case, because that original research is disguised by the existence of citations to other works.

Example: "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).

Example: "Some time subsequent to Shakespeare's expiry, Jonson tackled the panoptic task of setting down the First Folio and casting away the originals. This was in 1623, when Bacon had lapsed into penury. Jonson would have been keen to allay his friend's straits, and the folio's yield would have fitted the bill nicely." This is a simple case, as it lacks any citations at all.

Example: "On November 1610, conscious that the criticisms of the returning colonists might jeopardise the recruitment of new settlers and investment, the Virginia Company published the propagandist True Declaration (TD) which was designed to confute “such scandalous reports as have tended to the disgrace of so worthy an enterprise” and was intended to “wash away those spots, which foul mouths (to justify their own disloyalty) have cast upon so fruitful, so fertile, and so excellent a country”." This is followed by a cite - but the cite is only the source for the material in quote marks. So the previous claims in the text such as "conscious that the criticisms of the returning colonists might jeopardise the recruitment of new settlers and investment" represent original research: an explanation by an author of the WP article that does not rely on the source.

Example: "There is an example in Troilus and Cressida (2.2.163) which shows that Bacon and Shakespeare shared the same interpretation of an Aristotelian view:..." there is no citation to a reliable secondary source for this claim that they share the world view. These are a few examples from a potentially very long list.

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).

Given that this is a fringe theory in the first place, and the extent of origial research, the article does not meet this criterion.

4.Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.

The article does not appear to sufficiently deal with the fact that this is a fringe theory, though this may be partly an impression given by the overly long and original research-littered central sections making the case for Bacon. Balance is also undermined by giving the fringe theorists a voice even in the section that is supposed to st out the mainstream view (see para beginning "Critics of the mainstream view have challenged most if not all of the above assertions...")

5.Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute

Judging by the talk pages, including Talk:Baconian theory/GA1, if there is any stability, it has been achieved through fatigue or lack of interest of editors. There does not appear to be a consensus around content. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:20, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

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)

I agree with every point of Hamiltonstone's assessment, save I think the prose is convoluted, fractured, and tortuously oblique in places. There are any number of reliable secondary sources on this topic, but their use in this article is perfunctory at best. In my opinion the article needs a complete rewrite using WP:RS secondary sources and conforming to WP:FRINGE guidelines. Tom Reedy (talk) 05:17, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I am aware that a related article, Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship has been proposed for merger with Shakespearean authorship question. The same may be about to be proposed for Baconian theory. I do not intend to engage with that issue here, although I note that effort made toward trying to improve an article that will then be merged (and possibly substantially altered in the merge process) could be frustrating for editors. That notwithstanding, my concern at present is with the quality rating this article has, which in my view it should not. hamiltonstone (talk) 05:30, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree, it should not. IMO if it is so fundamentally flawed as to require a rewrite (which it is), deletion is appropriate. There's no doubt it is notable and deserves mention—if not an article—in Wikipedia, but to my mind sponsoring a soapbox is worse than having no article at all. If not deletion, it should be cut down to a stub to foster an appropriately neutral article. Tom Reedy (talk) 13:13, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I haven't looked to see what the article looked like when it received Good Article status, but I don't think it deserves it currently. For example, structurally speaking, the critical response section has refutations of arguments regarding Shakespeare's education, but these arguments are not currently stated in the main body of the article. At least one reference tag is not a true reference, but rather an uncited footnote. I'm wary of the desire to delete the article, but rewriting is definitely in order. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 02:10, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Also, some of the word choices in the article are rather peculiar. I would not be surprised to find that some sections have been plagiarized. Sadly, these sections lack citations. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 02:26, 20 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)

• Delisting. Too far from GA and not readily addressed. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:01, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I cut the passage in the "Mainstream View" section that set out criticisms of the "Mainstream View", on the grounds that such criticisms were the subject of the rest of the article, and that WP encourages us to be bold in editing and not leave material in which we think is out of place or otherwise inappropriate. (I personally think that this article is too long and gives far too little space to the fact that the Baconian theory of Shakespeare's authorship is absolutely a fringe theory, with about as much credibility as flat earth theory and intelligent design.) Lexo (talk) 02:00, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

New comments

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)

I have formatted and moved your comments to its own section. Please learn how to use the Wikipedia interface. Do not indent as if you were using a typewriter. Use colons instead. The more colons, the more indentation.

Also please sign your contributions with 4 tildes. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:39, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect definition

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)

Leaving this here

Cut from the Bacon cipher article for possible future use here.

A further theory based on Bacon's cipher was published by Edward Clark 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 suggesting that the inscription concealed the sentence, "FRA BA WRT EAR AY", an abbreviation of "Francis Bacon wrote Shakespeare's plays."

References

Objections to Bacon's authorship

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)

"It would be surprising..." - to whom?

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. Jojalozzo 02:05, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Definition

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)

Existence

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)

Asimov's objection

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)