Talk:Baconian theory of Shakespeare authorship/Archive 3

Aristotle's interpretation
The point is that in the precise section where Aristotle mentions auditors - "Hence a young man is not a proper hearer of lectures on political science" - he chooses to use the term "political science" rather than "ethics" or "moral philosophy". Both Bacon and Shakespeare had the chance to follow Aristotle and use "political science" but they didn't - they used "moral philosophy". The point is as to the descriptive language used, not whether "political science" and "moral philosophy" are identical objects for description. (Puzzle Master 23:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC))

Raleigh addition
I recall the 10,000 crowns from a biography of Raleigh I once read. Macbeth appears to be the work of several authors and if the thane of Cawdor is Raleigh then it is likely that it was Thomas Middleton who made this alteration after Shakespeare's death. (Felsommerfeld 14:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC))

Bacon anagram
HONORIFICABILITUDINITATIBUS is proposed to be an anagram of the latin HI LUDI F. BACONIS NATI TUITI ORBIS which in English is 'these plays, F. Bacon's offspring, are preserved for the world'. However, an alternative is possible ABI INIVIT F. BACON HISTRIO LUDIT which means 'be off, F. Bacon, the actor has entered and is playing'. [Michell, J., Who Wrote Shakespeare? (Thames & Hudson: 1996), p.140-1] Seems that it tells us nothing. (Puzzle Master 21:28, 11 November 2007 (UTC))
 * The translation of the second Latin sentence would be better punctuated as "Be off! F Bacon, the actor, has entered and is playing."  However in any case the existence of alternate anagrams doesnt negate the meaning of the first one given.  I think this is actually quite good evidence for F Bacon's having been the author of at least some of the plays.  Soap Talk/Contributions 19:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree. The longer the letter string, the greater is the flexibility in interpretation ... and this is a very long letter string! (Puzzle Master (talk) 22:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC))


 * Comment: I think there should at least be some mention of the anagram mentioned in the Talk page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Baconian_theory#Bacon_anagram .  Without mention of that, it's not really giving the whole picture, it's just giving the particular "non-esoteric" Baconian theory that the article's primary author, User:Barryispuzzled, believes in.  I am the person who attempted to write the anagram into the article last year (I was under a different username then) and I gave up because I could see that it was just going to get reverted.  Soap Talk/Contributions 14:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm interested in why you're so obsessed with this particular interpretation of this anagram. John Michell in his book Who Wrote Shakespeare? (Thames and Hudson: 1996), p.141, fully explains why Sir Edward Durning-Lawrence's interpretation (which you favour) is not the only one. So because of the flexibility in interpretation it contributes nothing to the case for Bacon. My feeling is that you already know this and that you are trying to undermine the strength of the article by including an absurdity under the veil of completeness. Isn't this technically known as being a "troll"? I note your confession on the RHS of your user page "the user regrets having been a troll" and I also note the definition of "troll"  So you shall not succeed in eliciting any further response from me except a reversion where appropriate. Puzzle Master (talk) 18:32, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Reverting other people's comments on a talk page is not appropriate at any time, even if you feel they aren't relevant. I placed my comment under the GA section because it pertained to the GA review, not to the anagram discussion from a year ago.  And so I'm restoring it now in the place where I wrote it.  Now, regarding why I'm here: this article is supposed to educate people about the Baconian theory and show all aspects of it.  It's not supposed to convince them one way or another on whether to believe it.  Omitting a piece of evidence that you consider so weak as to actually weaken the argument is a means of hiding the truth and counterproductive to the purpose of the article.
 * Regarding the "troll" notice on my userpage: I put that there a year or so ago to keep myself humble and remind myself that yes, when I started out on Wikipedia in 2001 I was not on my best behavior. However, I've made 2000+ legitimate edits since then and I have thinking about removing that notice lately.  Soap Talk/Contributions 19:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmm, it sounds like this might be a good time to take a calming breath and remember to always assume good faith. There is no indication anyone here is trolling, so lets not assume bad faith. It might also be useful to re-read WP:POV, and examine our own arguments and positions to make sure we've not let any bias sneak in.
 * Barry: Wikipedia is not the place to “contribute […] to the case for Bacon”, so unless that was merely an unfortunate formulation you may want to reexamine the question in the context of Wikipedia's goals and policies. The article should report the facts, and if the consensus among scholars, or a significant dissent, finds significance in this anagram then that should probably be noted; regardless of whether you personally find the theory convincing. Otherwise this whole article, and all other Authorship related articles, would be deleted since the current scholarly consensus is what I assume you would term Stratfordian. That doesn't mean fringe theories should be given undue weight, of course, but beware the subtle bias in excising mention of theories that you personally find unconvincing if they are reliably sourced.
 * Also, since you have written a book on the subject of Authorship you may want to familiarise yourself with the Conflict of Interest policy to avoid accidentally putting yourself in a position where you may get accused of violating it. Particularly on any point that is the least bit controversial, anyone with pride, reputation, or financial gain
 * ... before you get carried away, my book is non-profit making and my agenda is to uphold quality ... Puzzle Master (talk) 10:12, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * at stake would well advised to be very punctilious about adhering to it. Not because someone with a stake can't be neutral, but because doing so helps the editing be as smooth and constructive as possible.
 * Finally, I've not significantly looked at the anagram issue so please do not construe this as an argument either for or against its inclusion. --Xover (talk) 20:30, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * There are many examples of anagrams and ciphers that people purport to point to Bacon's authorship. Dr Owen wrote a 700 page book on them. We can include all of these if you wish for completeness and so undermine the quality of the article. However, I intend to resist this and intend to oppose the inclusion of this particular example (I have already cited a recent book that opposes it). The example he wishes to include is so ridiculously trivial that his persistence makes me believe he has a hidden agenda (and it has no bearing whatsoever on the GA issue). So, I reiterate that Soap is an attention-seeking agitator who is looking for someone who is stupid enough to take up his invitation to do battle and, to this end, he seeks to undermine the efforts of others (mainly myself and Robertson-Glasgow) to improve the article. Obviously, he is going to find support from those who are politically motivated to oppose articles of this nature. If someone wants to make a genuine contribution to the article balance and quality I shall be happy to cooperate. Puzzle Master (talk) 10:04, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Barry, please take a step back and reassess how best to deal with this situation. I see absolutely no indication that anyone is trolling or seeking attention. In particular, if “Dr Owen wrote a 700 page book on them” then that in itself is a strong argument to include mention of it in the article. Since you appear to be familiar with the topic, why not put that to use in making sure the discussion of it in the article is high quality and neutral, instead of digging your heels in to prevent its inclusion? You're failing to assume good faith on the part of other editors, and your comments of “he is going to find support from those who are politically motivated to oppose articles of this nature” borders on conspiracy theory. I'm sure you're genuinely interested in making the article be the best quality encyclopedic treatment of the topic that we can collectively achieve, but I think you're getting a little too invested in this discussion and seeing conflict and ulterior motives where none exist.
 * And please don't refactor other users' Talk page comments, or move review comments from GA-reviews. The reviewer thinks the missing information should be included in the article, and that's an entirely valid comment for GA-review. That doesn't mean the editors have to include it, and not including it does in no way mean the GA nomination will fail; the GA reviewer is entirely free to ignore such comments if that seems appropriate.
 * And the fact that you've published a book (even if it is self-published and “non-profit”) on the topic is clearly relevant to the conflict of interest policy. Even if one were to conclude you derive no financial profit from it, it indicates you have reputation at stake should the Wikipedia article disagree with your point of view. Again, that doesn't mean you can't be neutral or prevent you from editing, but it does mean that you need to be aware of Wikipedia policy on conflicts of interest and take extra care to adhere to it. In particular, it would probably be a good idea to keep engaging in good constructive discussions, with a goal of achieving consensus, on article Talk pages, rather than threatening to engage in edit warring. --Xover (talk) 11:28, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Who the hell do you think you are, addressing me with the assumption that you possess the moral high ground? You have earlier implied that I both make a profit from my book and that I assess all contributions to this article on that basis. I find that quite offensive. You could at least have done the requisite research to find out whether or not it was profit-making. You didn't. You prefer to make judgments based on your unverified assumptions. You also wade into an argument here without knowing anything about the issues involved or the history of them. I suggest you read the article and perhaps also research the issues before trying to act as judge and jury. You are an ordinary editor here like the rest of us so stop trying to act superior on issues you know nothing about. Puzzle Master (talk) 12:29, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * First of all, I was trying very hard to make sure I didn't in any way imply that your potential conflict of interest had in any way affected your “assessment of contributions”. If I failed in my attempt then I do apologise!
 * Second, I did in fact download the (free and gratis) PDF version of your book the other day, which was where I found out you had self-published it via Lulu. Now I'll grant I didn't go there to see what was charged for it and compare it to Lulu's price list to determine whether you were making any profit, but, again, that was because I had no reason to assume you were since the PDF version explicitly said you weren't. On the other hand, the relative profit you might conceivably make is, logically speaking, a strawman; the existence of the book, published by you, on the topic of this article, means that the conflict of interest policy applies.
 * Third, if you feel I am coming across as “superior” then I must again apologise: that is certainly not my intention! I am merely suggesting that the previous discussion is at an impasse, and that there may be more constructive ways to go about reaching consensus. No slight intended to either party. --Xover (talk) 13:15, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Mmm, it occurred to me that my charge of "unverified assumptions" was being naughtily turned back on me with your ironic revelation that you had realised it was non-profit making (and I have to take your word for that). But no ... I'm going to assume your goodwill here! By the way, I don't see how the "conflict of interest" charge can be rigorously applied because this would also include some of the published Stratfordians who contribute to the main Shakespeare articles. In my own case, the Baconian theory article does represent fairly the esoteric viewpoint with which I have no sympathy. You are evidently an intelligent man so ... perhaps you're just the man we need to advise how best to get this article to GA status (if you feel it deserves such)! I very much appreciate your considered response. Puzzle Master (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 15:10, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * As I hope I've managed to communicate clearly, my bringing up the CoI policy is not intended as an accusation (against you or anyone else). And note well, the Conflict of Interest policy does not prevent anyone with a conflict from participating as an editor! It just means they must hold themselves to a stricter standard of neutrality and reaching consensus. That would go equally for any Stratfordian editor with published work in the area too (but, of course, they'd have an easier time of it since theirs is the mainstream view).
 * I would gladly do anything I can to help improve this article, but I fear I'm not nearly sufficiently expert in Baconian theory to be much use. I could of course try to give general advise, but I suspect you wouldn't much like it; a quick scan suggests to me that the article needs some copyediting to better present the Stratfordian view (because it is the mainstream view) in the general text, rather than focus it in the Criticisms section. Right now the article reads too much like an essay to persuade the reader of the merits of Baconian theory, which doesn't fit well with the goals of WIkipedia. On that last point I think the low-hanging fruit is the Lead section; right now it's an introduction to the essay, but the lead should be a summary of the rest of the article. If the lead was rewritten to summarise the article I think the impression of imbalance to the reader would be much lessened.
 * If you think that sort of advise would be helpful (even if terribly frustrating, I'm sure) I could try to do a more thorough review of the article and see if I have anything to contribute. The GA review should also give some suggestions for improvement, and there is also always the option of asking for peer review. --Xover (talk) 19:20, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * One further point I'd like to add. It's very difficult balancing this article because I only know of ONE reasonable counter argument against Bacon which was expounded by Sidney Lee: "... such authentic examples of Bacon's efforts to write verse as survive prove beyond all possibility of contradiction that, great as he was as a prose writer and a philosopher, he was incapable of penning any of the poetry assigned to Shakespeare." quoted in Bate, Jonathan, The Genius of Shakespeare, (Picador: 1997), p.88. Having read the 14 volumes of Bacon's Works and marvelled at Bacon's prowess with metaphor, I disagree, but maybe I'll put this in at some point. Puzzle Master (talk) 20:00, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

[OUTDENT] I think the anagram should be covered. Arguing that it shouldn't be here because it is a weak argument is to miss the point: to most scholars Baconianism itself is a weak argument. Part of the significance of the anagram is that the Baconian who proposed it did so with such certainty, and ended up with egg on his face. An encyclopedic discussion of Baconianism has to discuss its dead-ends and its eccentricities as well as discussing its validity as a serious point of view. It is inevitably one of wikipedia's weaknesses that articles will be written most passionately by the proponents of the subject matter rather than the critics of it, simply because those people are most interested: and that is not necessarily a bad thing. It is only Barryispuzzled's enthusiasm for this topic that has made it a GA candidate. I'll try to add something, using Michell as my source, that I don't think will upset anyone too much. AndyJones (talk) 07:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Quality Rating
cf. this edit; A-Class requires review by two independent editors, cf. the A-Class criteria. --Xover (talk) 16:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Xover, but this article is looking very good, now. Perhaps it is time to put it up for GA? AndyJones (talk) 16:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I read it through the other day and I agree with Andy that it looks very good. Just put it up for GA. (Bodleyman (talk) 12:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC))

good article or not
Is this article GA or not. As I read the history, Erik the Red nominated it, then withdrew his nomination after the sockpuppetry revelation. I delisted it, but I'm not sure if that was proper. Was it? Smatprt (talk) 03:13, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Eric the Red listed this as a GA after someone else nominated it. You do not delist an article by removing all evidence of the nomination. Gimmetrow 03:21, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * As long as it's at GA, it's a GA: see Good articles.  Erasing the articlehistory, which provides a record of article milestones, doesn't remove it from GA.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 03:50, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Smatprt, you said you delisted it, Gimmetrow fixed the articlehistory for you after your many reverts of articlehistory to reflect a delisting, but you still haven't delisted it; it's still listed at Good articles. Please either delist the GA as you said you did, or leave the correct articlehistory template on the talk page. GimmeBot only updates templates; it's your responsibility to either list or delist the GA as you said you did. It's GimmeBot's task to convert GA templates to articlehistory. Please decide. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 03:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Update: GimmeBot delisted it for you, although that isn't the bot responsibility. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 03:45, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Now looked over. Was passed properly as far as I can tell, and seems well-written enough for a GA. Gimmetrow 22:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Well done for protecting the article!
OK, I'm back following a commuted sentence after Smatprt's sockpuppet Xover got me banned. Myself (formerly barryispuzzled) and Robertson-Glasgow are the main authors of this article. I realised as soon as this article was up for GA status that Smatprt would try to stop it and the evidence now (see above) is that he unilaterally delisted it from GA status. It has now been restored by Gimmetrow. (So now I hope you'll understand why I took desperate measures to get this article protected!) I should like to ask every editor to be on guard against any edits that Smatprt makes to this article because his agenda is to undermine its quality and give it an Oxfordian slant wherever possible. This is what he has tried to do with other articles in the Shakespeare project. Thank you for your assistance. PuzzleMaster (talk) 14:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Puzzledbarry User Violation
Barry returns and makes a user violation and an unfounded attack. Accusations of sockpuppetry from a puppet master are amusing indeed. FYI - I delisted it because Barry broke every rule in getting it listed - ie-nominating it himself under another name! Anyhow - I have no problem with the article being GA (why would I have helped it achieve a higher quality, Barry??) now that the critical reception section has been restored. That and the mainstream section were added to make it better (in spite of Barry's attempts to remove all critical reception to the theory). But I expect his attacks will continue. And he is, no doubt, editing under several names, but I expect we all know that.Smatprt (talk) 15:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)