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)

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."

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. Joja lozzo  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)