Talk:Francis Bacon (artist)

"Irish-born British" RfC

I agree that the description is nonsensical, but only because it is quite confusing and implies that he was an Irishman who later emigrated to England. Francis Bacon was never an Irish citizen, and never possessed any citizenship other than that of the United Kingdom. He simply happened to be born in Dublin to his British parents. Neither his parents nor he considered themselves in any way Irish. The description can be easily compared to Wikipedia's treatment of John Singer Sargent, who was born in Florence. Wikipedia does not describe him as 'Italian-born American artist'. A simple solution would be 'British artist/painter born in Dublin, Ireland'. That exactly contains the different perspectives that seem to be held on this talk page!

The description is nonsensical, as is a separate thread dealing with this ("Nobody would call Doris Lessing Iranian because she was born in Iran") etc. If Bacon was born in Ireland, he was Irish by birth, irrespective of parentage. The Ernest Shackleton entry went through precisely the same problems before an RfC for concensus. The conclusion reached was that by virtue of his birth in Ireland, Shackleton was Irish (it helps that Shackleton himself frequently made this claim). Can I suggest something along the lines of "was an Irish-born artist who spent most of his career in Britain" or whatever. But "Irish-born British" has to go. Hanoi Road (talk) 20:07, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Have you read the RfC to which you appear to be referring? Or are you calling for an RfC, but are unaware of the prior one? You might also care to peruse Archive 1 of this talk page, about half of which is taken up with a heated discussion of this point.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:22, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Hadn't seen that. Am requesting an RfC based on the 'Shackleton Precedent', for want of a better description. The wording here is wrong. That much is clear. It needs to be tidied up. There is no such thing as an "Irish-born British person". Call him British and have done with it. Hanoi Road (talk) 21:27, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Or "was a British artist". Then somewhere in the lede explain the circumstance of his birth in Dublin and early departure from Ireland. Surely that solves the problem. Option B. is to simply describe him as "Irish born" and let the rest of the article speak for itself. Hanoi Road (talk) 22:14, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

@Hanoi Road: I would remind you not to log out to edit. DuncanHill (talk) 19:42, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

"There is no such thing as an "Irish-born British person"" - one imagines the Duke of Wellington would disagree, and I know for a fact that there are many Irish-born people nowadays who are also British. You have a history of bad faith and disruption in these issues and I think it would be best if you a) stopped editing while logged-out, and b) actually withdrew from the issue. Your behaviour on Shackleton was atrocious. DuncanHill (talk) 19:46, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Dude, this thread is almost a year old. Do you really have nothing better to do? Get a grip. Hanoi Road (talk) 19:59, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I hadn't noticed that instead of starting a new thread at the bottom of the page today as you should have done you had instead commented in one that was two years old at the top. DuncanHill (talk) 20:03, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Hmmm. Seems to be a slight "overlap of interest" here with the WP:SPA anon TalkTalk IP editor from Edinburgh? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:15, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Same person, same problem indenting, same rhetorical approach, same dishonest edit-summaries, same anti-British sentiment. Caused a lot of disruption on Ernest Shackleton. DuncanHill (talk) 20:19, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

God, how tedious you are. Same person. Same (baseless) assumptions. Same fetish for "indentation". Same troll-like tendency to exhume dead issues.

Same bore.

Get a hobby. And I don't mean this. Hanoi Road (talk) 22:20, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Hanoi Road, don't you think that what you just wrote looks very much like a personal attack against another editor? Perhaps you'd like to strike it out or remove it? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:27, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

As an Irishman myself, I can understand Hanoi's frustration, and the "personal attack" is small beans, though if you could cool it Hanoi, that would be nice. I admit I also first came to this page, back in 2005, wanting to right great wrongs, but the fact of the matter is that he was born in Kildare to a recently arrived British couple. And he got the hell out of there for Berlin as soon as he could, and never returned to IRL. Although his descendants would now be welcome to join the current Irish soccer team, his "irishness" is a technicality, and in no way reflects his blood or heritage. So support current wording. Ceoil (talk) 16:10, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Ceoil. No issues with this. Just dislike being relentlessly pursued by Trolls. And he is one. Hill is a guy who self-importantly stated on the Shackleton issue (and I quote) "I want as little to do with you as possible". However, like all closet stalkers, he can't get enough of me. 😀

An tuiginn tú? Hanoi Road (talk) 23:37, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Tuigim, but best way to loose heat is not be so abrasive in argument. I see a lot of your contributions to articles are very good, but you are a bit excitable on talk pages...that invites bite back, here as in real life. Maybe choose and approach your battles more carefully, rather than nihilistly insult all and sundry. Also, you have few edits yet, so contribute more to build up credibility before taking on old hands like Duncan. Again, that's how it works in real life also...gotta pay your dues. Anyways, talk later...if you cop on and don't get blocked, ha ha. Ceoil (talk) 23:55, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm not certain that being an "old hand" builds up "greater credibility". This isn't the Princeton faculty lounge where we know who won a Nobel and who didn't. It's a collaborative project run by anonymous volunteers. The fact that you've been "at it" - so to speak - for longer than someone else isn't exactly a recommendation. PS: I've been blocked before. Water off a duck's back. Hanoi Road (talk) 23:17, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Wow. So much arguing with little of anything being said other than "my perspective is Y and I disagree with X". Irish-born British wins on a technicality then? Should something be placed at the top of the talk page? (Oh well, at least you aren't some "Irish" American telling me I'm wrong to disregard the 1/16th Irish ancestry of my mixed-race children...lol). --Trans-Neptunian object (talk) 20:19, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Infobox

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The infobox I had added back in April [1] has been removed in early September by Jip Orlando [2] on procedural grounds. So here I am: is there consensus for the reintroduction of the infobox? What are the arguments against its introduction? JBchrch talk 03:46, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, JBchrch for the ping. For anyone else reading, the editnote requiring discussion of an infobox was added here: [3], with the edsum: remove infobox added with no discussion recently. What a surprise that this has caused edit-warring! There is an inconclusive discussion in talk archive 1, but a consensus is needed. Bound to be problematic here. There appears to be no current consensus either for or against an infobox. The tangential discussion I referenced in my edsum took place briefly in Archive 2. Also, per this: [4], infoboxes are neither required nor prohibited. So, here are my thoughts on an infobox for this article:

• Oppose - comparing the current revision: [5] to the most recent one with an infobox: [6]:

1. An infobox shrinks the image too much. The px parameter can be modified, but I think that doing so makes the infobox intrusive into the text.
2. Duplication of info- His born and death dates are in the lead, along with his notable work.
3. The controversy over "British" versus "Irish-born British." "British," in the previous infobox, had redirected to British Nationality Law, which has nothing in it regarding "Irish-born British." This is a dangerous omission based on the controversy that litters the talk page and its archives.
4. Lack of nuance- his style is identified as Figurative art and the movement as Abstract Expressionism. But his output encompassed more than a single style and movement. As the lead says: "His output can be broadly described as sequences or variations on single motifs; including the 1930s Picasso-influenced bio-morphs... the 1950s 'screaming popes' ... and the cooler, more technical 1980s paintings."

This final argument is most important in my opinion- we shouldn't do the reader a disservice by presenting things as a list that have better nuance written as prose. Jip Orlando (talk) 14:28, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose - per above and before. We have enough trouble with the first line - a box would only increase this. Johnbod (talk) 14:36, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support, as proposer. An infobox serves readers. It allows them to immediately identify the relevant time period, the relevant geographic area, the relevant medium, and other relevant information that allows them, in a few seconds, to know who the subject is. Changes to the content of the infobox can be made, discussions can take place and consensus can be met, so the argument that "my" infobox was wrong (which I'm happy to accept) is not really a good argument again the introduction of an infobox at all. I would also like to point out that pretty much all the articles about 20th-century painters have an infobox: Pablo Picasso, Jackson Pollock, Cy Twombly, Marc Chagall, Willem de Kooning, Mark Rothko, Amedeo Modigliani, Roy Lichtenstein, Andy Warhol, Jean-Michel Basquiat, David Hockney, Robert Rauschenberg... Is there anything specific to Bacon such that an infobox could not be created? Finally, regarding the Irish/English controversy, I note that at least two editors who have been involved in this controversy have been blocked indefinitely, so it's not like this debate involved constructive, good-faith editors in good standing. It was just one example of the project-wide, longstanding edit-warring between different nationalisms. This should not distract us from our primary function, which is to serve readers. JBchrch talk 14:59, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per discussion. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:29, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. Pointing to the existence of IBs in other articles is a WP:OTHERCONTENT argument that has no force against local consensus. Nationality disputes are among the most intractable and I doubt that we've seen the last of this one despite any user blocks. Agree with Jip Orlando. Ewulp (talk) 04:21, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

WP:AADP is rarely useful as an essay, because you can extract pretty much anything from it. In this particular case, the section you cited states While these comparisons are not a conclusive test, they may form part of a cogent argument; an entire comment should not be dismissed because it includes a comparative statement like this. Besides, there is no prior consensus: we are forming the consensus right now. JBchrch talk 14:05, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose, as somebody that is not opposed to infoboxes per se,[7] but Bacon is singularly unsuited to categorisation, and say this having been married to a librarian who spent 10 years documenting and categorising artifacts, so understand the urge. But...for eg describing him as an Abstract Expressionist is way off the mark / cringe worthy and a good eg of the issues likely to be brought up in this case (he was not part of any movement, and conversely there is no "school of Bacon"), to say nothing of the torture that a one/two word infobox description of his nationality would reign down on this page, for years and years. Ceoil (talk) 01:33, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Notes

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Additional sources

This entire journal issue is devoted to [this particular] Francis Bacon, with 7 articles & 3 reviews:

• Visual Culture in Britain, vol. 10, no. 3 (2009) [8], URL access: subscription (to get more than abstracts).

 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:20, 22 July 2023 (UTC)