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)

There's no good reason to use abbreviated Smarthistory articles as sources when more scholarly and more closely edited monographs, essays, and volumes are available. It's not our job to vette their publications, and shouldn't be; that's better left to academic editors with credentials in the subjects being written about and who have published in the field themselves. Carlstak (talk) 12:21, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, there's no such list for art, & given the vastness of the field and the literature I think it would be impossible/too much work to compile one. The quality of the publisher or journal counts for a lot, and the notability of the scholar. Dead tree sources, or JSTOR, are ge3nerally preferred. Johnbod (talk) 22:04, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes I figured that and I tried to use the smarthistory source in less areas than the Trachtenberg and Leach sources I found once I started editing the article. The Trachtenberg source for example, I did find on JSTOR.

I agree with your comment below that the "By placing this civic hero..." sentence could be made clearer. Soulbust (talk) 04:23, 3 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)

• Ok, further changes made. The SH page now says:

By the time the bronze David was created, the hero was already a symbol of the Florentine Republic. Donatello’s marble David had been on display inside 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.

-So the main point has been corrected, with "inside of" replacing "in front of". They say the 2nd sentence ("By placing this civic hero in their private courtyard...") "clearly" refers to the bronze David, but that wasn't clear to Soulbust, or me; personally I think this could easily be made clearer. The courtyard location for the bronze had been covered much higher up. They have actually been pretty quick correcting this; I've long experience of contacting big museums etc with corrections, & a rapid response like this is rare. The author of this page Heather Graham is amply qualified in the area. On Wikipedia we of all people should be aware that mistakes do creep in when there is a large amount of material; the main thing is that they can be corrected when pointed out. Dr Beth Harris says they & Dr Graham are "grateful for the correction". Johnbod (talk) 21:57, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I never thought Graham herself was unqualified; I read her profile right away. The editorial team or fact-checkers (if they have any) at Smarthistory should have caught these errors. Her material itself is okay, but her presentation is a bit smarmy in my opinion ("Who’s the naked guy?" "So . . . why is he naked?" "But . . . isn’t he a little too sexy?" "David for the win" Ugh.). Perhaps it's a matter of taste. I must say your admonishing tone here is quite different from that of the amazingly shrill comments you left on Soulbust's talk page.;-) It speaks well of Graham and of Beth Harris that they expressed gratitude for the correction. Carlstak (talk) 00:39, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I usually come across so many "Dr"s, only when I visit a medical institution, these titles appear fishy, if they seem to need it. Although Graham is involved in Renaissance studies, she is specialized in something like medical or psycho-history, where pieces of art are used as source. (How deep she is involved with sculpture, I can't see, since I didn't manage to open her bibliography, because too many scripts are in place (not very smart, at least not low threshold)). Anyway Smarthistory is a Reader's Digest, and they won't have an "editorial team or fact-checkers", it's certainly not journalistic entity. It would be difficult to check, and it editors are too expensive for an enterprise like this, the "Dr" prefix must suffice.

They don't really claim to have fact-checkers, but a peer review process. But these are extremely variable and erratic in quality. They were keen to give more info on their editorial process, & as I say, were very responsive to my email. Johnbod (talk) 13:40, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Reading her text, it sounds good, but "Spinario...Filippo Brunelleschi and Lorenzo Ghiberti who both riffed upon the figure in their respective bronze panels displaying the Sacrifice of Isaac" is another falsehood, only Bruneleschi copied him. Then she claims Piero della Francesca's Flagellation of Christ is a fresco, which certainly borders on negligence and proofs that there are no editors (since the caption of the reproduction is right). The text as a whole has a single footnote, and only a list of sources, not following scientific or WP standards. It doesn't need to, but one has to be beware of the consequences (even someone so cosmoplitan as @Johnbod with his "big museums" he is used to correct,-) MenkinAlRire 09:28, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Haha. I thought the same thing when I saw the profusion of "Dr."s. Even the suggested citation for the article begins "Dr. Heather Graham, "Donatello, David," in Smarthistory....". This emphasis is not usual in reputable scholarship. I agree with your assessment of Smarthistory as a "Reader's Digest"—that's a very good comparison. This is a lame source and we should not degrade our article by using it as a reference. Carlstak (talk) 12:42, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

PS: I don't understand why anyone would want to cite Smarthistory in the first place when so many first-rate and comprehensive academic sources of exemplary scholarship are available. Carlstak (talk) 13:31, 3 October 2024 (UTC)