Talk:Robert Hooke/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Portrait probably Barrow's, not Hooke's

A professor of biology at Texas A&M, Lawrence Griffing, has claimed that the "Portrait of a mathematician" (ca. 1680) by Mary Beale is the fabled lost portrait of Hooke. This article is currently using that portrait in the infobox, based on Prof. Griffing's arguments. I think, though, that that portrait is almost certainly of Isaac Barrow. Please compare to the portrait of Barrow, also by Beale, used in the Wikipedia bio for Barrow. It shows an older and leaner man, but it really seems to me to be the same person. Interestingly, there's a well known engraving that purports to be of a young Isaac Newton, but which I think clearly shows the same sitter as in Beale's "Portrait of a mathematician", and is therefore probably Barrow as well. For a critique of Griffing's reasoning, including the claim that the disputed portrait may be of Barrow, see: Whittaker, C. A. "Unconvincing evidence that Beale's Mathematician is Robert Hooke". Journal of Microscopy. 282: 189–190. doi:10.1111/jmi.12987. - Eb.hoop2 (talk) 13:13, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

The infobox says that it is "conjectured" to be his portrait, not that it is his portrait. It would certainly be reasonable to add the Whittaker challenge. The current citation is formally just a letter to the Journal of Microscopy so not fully reliably sourced but Griffing is a creditable source so his conjecture is notable. The alternative is no portrait at all (please, let's not have the amateur hour 'portrait' back). IMO, we should let the current image stand, with suitable caveats. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:29, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

BTW, could you give us a summary of Whittaker's challenge, since it is not available to us mere mortals. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:31, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

In the light of the above, I have revised the caption so that it now reads c. 1680 Portrait of a Mathematician by Mary Beale conjectured to be Hooke but also conjectured to be of Isaac Barrow.. Is that a reasonable commpromise? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:39, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

References

Griffing isn't really a terribly creditable source on this matter, since he's a biologist with no obvious command of the history of the art or the mathematical sciences of the 16th century. His article was published, of all places, in the Journal of Microscopy. His arguments about how details of the portrait supposedly connect to Hooke's work seem to me rather far-fetched, and are connected in his mind to a conspiratorial interpretation of the relation with Newton. As far as I know, no historian has come out in support of Griffing's views about this portrait. Moreover, I think that it should be clear, to anyone who cares to compare them, that Beale's Mathematician really looks a lot like a younger and stouter version of her Doctor Barrow. I think that we can keep your compromise solution for now, at least until a historian weighs in in print. Whittaker's letter promises that the identity of the sitter may be clarified by the publication in 2022 of the notebooks of Beale's husband. Just be forewarned that I expect this article will probably have to go without a portrait. - Eb.hoop2 (talk) 01:09, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I accept that logic and its consequence when a more authoritative figure pronounces or a consensus emerges. Just so long as we don't reinstate the dreadful amateur effort that 'decorated' this article in the past (see 50 Remove the portrait in the talk page archive). BTW, Griffing's analysis was published in the Journal of Microscopy as a letter, which is not subject to peer review. I think the same is true of Whittaker's response? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:15, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

@Eb.hoop2: I've found Griffing's response to Whittaker. Only the abstract is available without subscription (until May?) but it seems to resolve to two points (a) the identity of the object in the background and (b) is the person in the disputed portrait the same sitter as that in another portrait explicitly of Barrow also by Mary Beale. Well to my untutored eye, advantage Professor Griffing.--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:15, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

I've read the response by Griffing. To me it seems almost obvious that it is the same person on both of the portraits by Beale, except that in the second the sitter has grown older and leaner. Personally, I don't think Griffing really knows what he's talking about in these matters. PS.: Perhaps this other bit of speculative portrait identification could interest you. - Eb.hoop2 (talk) 09:14, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

We shall wait for the expert consensus then. I wonder if someone might deploy that police tool where, given a picture of someone at an arbitrary age, it can produce a convincing extrapolated image of the person at any other arbitrary age. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 09:24, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

It obviously isn't Hooke, and using the portrait here makes little to no sense, even with that 'caveat.' Why is it valid to use a portrait that is clearly not off Hooke just because one person makes a terrible argument saying so, but to not use it requires 'expert consensus?' Shouldn't the claim being established have the burden of proof? I cannot make ridiculous claims and then say, "Well, guess you'll have to wait for a consensus of experts to disprove me!"

I honestly do not understand how anyone in their right mind can seriously claim this is a portrait of Hooke; it seems disingenuous, bordering on malicious. | | skubb | | 07:15, 24 June 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pyropulse (talk • contribs)

No, that is "a disingenuous and borderline malicious" misrepresention of the content of the article. The caption says Portrait of a Mathematician by Mary Beale, conjectured to be of Hooke but also conjectured to be of Isaac Barrow. Nowhere does it say that it is a portrait of Hooke, but only that it is conjectured to be such. And that statement is immediately accompanied by an opposing conjecture. It is not a caveat. The article has other conjectured portraits of Hooke that were subsequently declared by subject experts to misattributed and so moved down to the body. [Best to draw a veil over the embarassing presence for years in the article of an amateur 'reenvisioning'.]

In the absence of an RS, you have no basis other than your personal opinion to assert that "it obviously isn't Hooke" or that it is "a terrible argument". The article does not make any assertion that carries the burden of proof other than that a conjecture has been made and a citation has been provided for it. An expert at Tate Britain has examined the portrait, attributed to Mary Beale but has declined to speculate on its subject. For us as editors, the only valid challenge is wp:FRINGE: is the conjecture so off the wall as to not merit any space in the article? Well enough media sources took it seriously enough to report it. So the WP:ONUS is on you to demonstrate that it is indeed fringe. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:16, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 10 October 2022

The sentence "Expected to join the church, Robert, too, would become a staunch monarchist" needs a citation. I think I know the source of this view, but as far as I know it is not general. Steve 1635 (talk) 13:39, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

@Steve 1635:, welcome to Wikipedia. This could be a great article with more citations so if you can helpbat all, please do. (And feel free to rewrite that mangled "sentence".) --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 18:26, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

I guess that since I have not yet made ten edits I have to do this via requests? Steve 1635 (talk) 09:38, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

@Steve 1635: For the moment, yes as this article has suffered from disruption in the past and so is semi-protected. (You may freely edit most articles.) So if you write the replacement text here, I will copy it into the article giving you the credit. You can just do the citation in freeform and I will adapt it. (If you fancy doing the citation in Wikipedia metadata markup, feel free but be aware that it can be rather frustrating until you get the hang of it.) --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:46, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

I should have said that if an assertion has no WP:reliable source to support it, it must be deleted. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:54, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

I have tagged it for now, pending your revisions. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:02, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

 Note: Procedurally marking edit request as answered since user input is needed to proceed. —Sirdog (talk) 09:38, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

I suggest the following revision: replace

"A royalist, John Hooke likely was among a group that went to pay respects to Charles I as he escaped to the Isle of Wight. Expected to join the church,[citation needed] Robert, too, would become a staunch monarchist.[citation needed]"

with

"Robert was brought up in a royalist tradition: his father was taken into the household of a leading local royalist, and his future headmaster was an unapologetic royalist." Steve 1635 (talk) 09:19, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 22 November 2022

I suggest remove "also a Royalist, and "

from the sentence 

"Wilkins was also a Royalist, and acutely conscious of the turmoil and uncertainty of the times." I think the original is inconsistent with the Wikipedia entry on Wilkins, which contains: Wilkins lived in a period of great political and religious controversy, yet managed to remain on working terms with men of all political stripes; and Although he was a supporter of Oliver Cromwell, Royalists placed their sons in his charge. Steve 1635 (talk) 09:41, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

 Done The whole sentence was redundant in this article, so I have deleted it. (I noted a couple of other statements nearby that need citation support, if you can help?) --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:24, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Wadham?

The article is a bit confused as it stands. In one place in the Oxford section, it says [with citation] that H secured a chorister's place at CC, but elsewhere in that section we have Wadham was then under the guidance of John Wilkins. So what? The DNB entry for H doesn't even mention Wadham. Delete? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:31, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Problem solved by rewording so that the emphasis is on Wilkins and the Oxford Philosophical Club rather than the College. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:58, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Addressing arguments against portrait

The caption for the main image mentions a argument opposing the identification of the portrait of Hooke. However, the specifics of that argument aren’t mentioned. I unfortunately can’t access the article myself, but to anyone who can, could they write about them in the likeness section? Thank you. Leevine65 (talk) 19:49, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

@Leevine65:, for this and a tonne of other reasons, you really need to sign up the Wikipedia Library, which gives you free access to a vast collection of resources, (notably JSTOR and Oxford Journals, which are heavily cited in Wikipedia (perhaps for this reason). Using the search box, I typed Portrait of Robert Hooke and immediately got access to both Griffing's original conjecture and Whittaker's rebuttal.

As far as inclusion in the article is concerned, we have a problem. Both papers are presented as "Letter to the Editor": they are not peer-reviewed, so we can't really say much more about them than is given in the caption. But do please read the letters and see if you can propose anything based on them. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 23:13, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

You will also need to read Comments on Dr Whittaker's letter and the article, which is Griffing's counterargument. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 23:19, 16 September 2023 (UTC)