Talk:David (Donatello, marble)

Oh dear...

as I feared. Let us know when you have finished. Johnbod (talk) 03:59, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

@Johnbod: Genuinely, what is your problem? "Let us know when you have finished." You do realize that you, or anyone else, can edit the article too? I don't own it. Soulbust (talk) 05:28, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

I just don't want us tripping over each other's feet. Have you in fact finished editing it? Johnbod (talk) 12:46, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

I said I was going to continue to make edits to it over time, so no I have not "in fact finished editing it". I will be largely busy today, but regardless of that you can obviously make edits whenever you'd like to. Even if I weren't busy (or later in the week when I have more time to edit Wikipedia), I doubt we'll get into any real-time edit conflicts, but your initial "as I feared" is not very welcoming/reassuring and gives me the impression you maybe perhaps thinking about undoing my contributions. To that end, I am asking what edits have I made that made you feel the need to open a topic on this talk page under the header "Oh dear..."? Soulbust (talk) 13:52, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Location

User:MenkinAlRire, or anyone, the article currently says:

• "In 1416, the Signoria of Florence commanded that the David be sent to the Palazzo della Signoria (also known as Palazzo dei Priori and now known as the Palazzo Vecchio); the statue was installed there in September, in the "Hall of the Clock". Against a backdrop of lilies, a Florentine insignia, the marble piece stood in front of the Palazzo Vecchio, specifically in the Medici's private courtyard."

- the last sentence referenced to Smarthistory, which does indeed say: "Donatello’s marble David had been on display in front of the Palazzo dei Priori since 1416 against a backdrop of lilies, an insignia of Florence. By placing this civic hero in their private courtyard, the Medici claimed for themselves this state symbol, making David a Medici emblem as well as a Florentine one."

- but this is confusing the bronze David (the actual subject of her article) with the marble one, isn't it? It was the bronze one that was firstly in the Medici Palace courtyard (in fact the courtyards of the Old and then the New palaces) and then, only after the Medici were expelled, outside the Palazzo Vecchio/Palazzo della Signoria/Palazzo dei Priori, while the marble one was inside in the Sala dell'Orologio the whole time. Isn't that right? Johnbod (talk) 02:05, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Heather Graham's article is sloppily written and should not be cited. A cursory reading shows that she says David's father offered him armor to wear when facing Goliath, rather than Saul, the king, arming David with his armor. The too informal tone of her writing is a big red flag. I would not consider Smarthistory a reliable source in any case. Carlstak (talk) 03:01, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Ok, I'll cut it, or the last bit - the lilies are correct. Thanks. Johnbod (talk) 03:17, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that you would not consider Smarthistory a reliable source. We are happy to explain our editorial process and discuss the considerable expertise of those who write for Smarthistory. 158.222.239.61 (talk) 18:05, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

So you're not interested in addressing the points raised here, 'face to face', but you are happy to "explain" your editorial process to us unenlightened ones and to discuss the awesome expertise of your writers. This attitude speaks volumes. Carlstak (talk) 19:00, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I edit video game articles a lot and the video game WikiProject has a reliable source listing (WP:VG/RS), including links to discussions on what they consider reliable/unreliable, and reasoning for that. Does the art history WikiProject have something for that? I would probably suggest Smarthistory not get lumped into those sources considered unreliable, considering they have many different writers and as such, probably would be situationally reliable (at worst?) as a result. Having their editorial process explained is actually a positive thing in this context imo, as having clear editorial processes, policies, staff, oversight is often listed in notes on the aforementioned WP:VG/RS listing. Soulbust (talk) 07:40, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

@Johnbod Exactly as you say. It would be good to inform Smarthistory, too, since it contradicts their name and credibility/citabilty. (You may also reduce the list of akas of the Plzo della Signoria,) MenkinAlRire 08:13, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Carlstak may be right (I read his comment just now). I would never use it as a source, but it certainly suggests itself to users with google as go to for sources. MenkinAlRire 08:21, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks both - I'll send them an email. Usually I find their entries ok for "further reading" etc, as well-illustrated & at a decent length. They are normally written by proper, if young, art historians. Johnbod (talk) 15:27, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Well, they came back to me (see also the ip above) very quickly, & say they have changed the bit about the armour (now "While the biblical account (1 Samuel 17) does note that David chose not to face Goliath wearing the armor offered to him by the king..." on the site). But we still seem to have a problem over agreeing the marble inside/bronze outside issue, and they are peeved at being thought unreliable ("I would respectfully ask that those engaged in this conversation reconsider these incorrect and disrespectful and uninformed conclusions"). Johnbod (talk) 18:28, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Hahaha, that's hilarious. How pompous and cowardly. What a farce. Carlstak (talk) 19:00, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Smarthistory is an unreliable source as it demonstrably lacks robust editorial oversight, so I've removed cites of Graham's article. Carlstak (talk) 19:06, 1 October 2024 (UTC)