Talk:The Destroying Angel and Daemons of Evil Interrupting the Orgies of the Vicious and Intemperate

Passing comment

I don't want to commit right now to reviewing this (though I may later), but as a quick comment- Burnage et. al. is an edited collection, and so you should really be citing each contribution separately. The words you're citing are not by the editors (unless you're citing one of the editors' contributions) but by the author of the contribution. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:21, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I've double checked; every page in the book cited in this article is to a section written by Sarah Burnage, other than reference 1 which is to a chronology of Etty's life credited jointly to Sarah Burnage and Beatrice Bertram. (This reference serves only to reference one of the alternative titles for the work, and the dates Etty was in France, and not for any substantive commentary.) In the body text, I attribute comments to Burnage alone, but the book itself credits all three as editors on the cover and copyright page. Other than treating each section as a separate work for referencing purposes, there doesn't appear to be an obvious way around this. – iridescent 22:51, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I'm suggesting that you treat each section as a separate work, which is pretty standard practice in the kinds of academic texts I'm familiar with. You're currently using {{cite book}}- this already has parameters for chapter=, author=, (as opposed to editor=, which you already use) and pages=. If you look at the template documentation page, there's an example listed showing how to cite "a chapter in a book with different authors for different chapters and an editor" (or, as books of this sort will usually be, edited collections or anthologies). Josh Milburn (talk) 09:52, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm aware that {{cite book}} can treat individually authored chapters in a book as separate entities, but I strongly question whether there's any necessity to follow it in these particular circumstances, given that it will create half-a-dozen identical bibliography entries for "Burnage, 2011". The purpose of Wikipedia referencing is to indicate to readers where information came from and to help them locate the original, not as a means of giving credit, and for these purposes the book title and editors are sufficient since that's what it will be catalogued under in libraries and shops. A quick skim through Wikipedia:Featured articles#Art, architecture, and archaeology searching for "eds." in the bibliography shows no tradition of treating each chapter as a separate work on visual arts articles at FA level—The Blind Leading the Blind, Campbell's Soup Cans, Drowning Girl, Las Meninas and September Morn (as well as The Sirens and Ulysses) all treat edited books as a single entity in the bibliography and references, with Nativity (Christus) as the sole exception treating the chapters as separate works. VAMOS is silent on the matter; Johnbod, Victoriaearle, Eric Corbett, Ceoil, do you have any thoughts on this? – iridescent 13:23, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I do, which is that I always do as Josh Milburn suggests if I'm citing an edited collection of contributions by various authors. Eric Corbett 13:49, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Had a similar issue with Portrait of Monsieur Bertin, and ended up citing each individual chapter eg [Rosenblum, Robert. "Ingres's Portraits and their Muses". In: Tinterow, Gary; Conisbee, Philip (eds). Portraits by Ingres: Image of an Epoch. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1999]. Not something I would loose sleep over, though. Ceoil (talk) 14:43, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Iridescent: "The purpose of Wikipedia referencing is to indicate to readers where information came from and to help them locate the original, not as a means of giving credit". I'm not sure I agree with you, there. I don't see why we should think the role of citations on Wikipedia are any different from the role of citations elsewhere, and that's certainly not the sole purpose of citations in academic work generally. WP:WHYCITE, part of a content guideline, identifies several reasons to cite. Would "Journal of Stuff, 5:1, p. 78" be a good citation? It's better than nothing, certainly, and it would seem to be completely sufficient by to "indicate to readers where information came from", but I think it would, quite rightly, be open to challenge and criticised at FAC. As a general note (which may or may not apply here), edited collections, by their nature, contain a variety of views and perspectives. As such, both parties (not to mention our readers) might have good reason to be upset to see the work of article authors being implicitly credited to the book editors. (As a final note, I am aware that, occasionally, published works do follow the style that is employed here, and cite edited collections/anthologies as a single work. As such, if the article authors are definitely attached to it, I suppose it's OK per WP:CITESTYLE. The choice, though, has its problems, and, in my necessarily-limited experience, is not at all the norm.) Josh Milburn (talk) 15:04, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I didn't make that up out of thin air: the purpose of citations on Wikipedia isn't to give credit, it's to enable users to verify that the information given is supported by reliable sources, thus improving the credibility of Wikipedia while showing that the content is not original research. You also help users find additional information on the subject; and you avoid plagiarising the source of your words or ideas by giving attribution. and to identify the source, assist readers in finding it, and (in the case of inline citations) indicate the place in the source where the information is to be found. Whether this is what Wikipedia's policy ought to be is debatable—Wikipedia referencing is all about verification not credit, a relic of the early days when Jimmy and Larry's main concern was proving that the authors weren't just making things up—but the place to have that discussion is WT:Citing sources. – iridescent 15:48, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

But part of the reliability issue lies in knowing who wrote something, not who the editors of a book are. Eric Corbett 16:15, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Eric, and add that knowing who wrote the piece (especially in the days of institutional databases, personal websites, academia.edu and email addresses) can be very helpful in locating the original. I also note that we avoid plagiarism (something specifically mentioned on WP:WHYCITE) precisely by giving credit (see WP:PLAGIARISM- the idea of "giving credit" is referred to repeatedly). We can argue about what constitutes appropriate credit, but that's a separate issue- my point is that referencing, even on Wikipedia, does have something to do with giving credit, not merely helping readers locate the source. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:45, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

If the chapters have different authors, then I create separate bib entries. The Ainsworth sources in Nativity (Christus) were honestly copy-pasted from elsewhere, where I did use various author/chapter combinations, but not sure it's warranted in that article. Sometimes I think it's a judgment call; Cambridge and Oxford Companions always need to be split by author. If most the material cited here is written by Bernage, then it's probably fine to cite to Bernage. I confess that I've not looked closely. Victoria (tk) 17:40, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

It still seems a fairly pointless exercise to have a long list of chapters all by the same person being treated as seperate works and overwhelming the bibliography, but since there seems a fairly clear consensus here I've split it. – iridescent 09:23, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Blockquotes

I've undone this edit as I think putting two reviews as blockquotes while leaving the rest in the body text gives them undue weight. Yes, I'm aware the review from The Library of Fine Arts is still highlighted and given more weight than the rest of the review section, but that's a significant source in the context of how a painting was received. Neither The Times nor Fraser's Magazine have any particular relevance to the visual arts, and their reviews are only included as representative examples of coverage of Etty in the mainstream press; I don't feel it's appropriate to give their comments such increased prominence in the reception section over those from other sources. – iridescent 09:27, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I added the blockquotes not to highlight those excerpts but because they are quite long - if The Times does not warrant such weight perhaps we should consider trimming that quote somewhat? Nikkimaria (talk) 11:55, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

There's no obvious point at which to trim them. The first Times quote (We do not profess to understand…) is already a short excerpt from a longer review. The "we do not profess…" is necessary for context for the later comment about not understanding his language. The second Times quotes are necessary to show that, despite the criticisms, this wasn't in fact a negative review. When giving 18th and 19th press reaction to events in England, the Times and Observer are IMO the best ones to quote; they have the two major advantages of (1) being well known enough that most modern readers are aware that they were generally respected newspapers, not penny dreadfuls or scandal-sheets and (2) both having their archives available for free online to British residents which makes it much easier for readers either to fact-check, or to read the full article if they're interested. I don't think either the Times or the Fraser's quote are unduly long in context. – iridescent 08:56, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

lead compromise

As my removal of a few lines in the lead resulted in a revert (talk page would have been nicer), I have removed far less this time, in the spirit of compromise. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 11:39, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

As I've already explained on my talkpage: None of "tastelessness, indecency and a lack of creativity" is in any way controversial, since those are the three things for which Etty was famous, and they're directly relevant here since TDA was an explicit attempt to be tasteful, an explicit (albeit questionably successful) attempt to show nudes in a non-indecent manner, and painted from imagination explicitly to address concerns about his lack of creativity. Removing this would remove the context as to why he painted a work which is significantly different from his other work.

Your removal seems to be based on a misunderstanding of who William Etty was. It's not inappropriate to explain that he was accused of tastelessness, indecency and a lack of creativity, since his entire career was based on pornography, and on attempts (such as this one) to refute the accusation that was uncreative and couldn't paint non-pornographic works. This isn't something on which to "compromise", since removing "tastelessness, indecency and a lack of creativity" removes the (well-documented) reason he created the painting in the first place. ‑ Iridescent 11:55, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

As I've already explained, I don't need to know anything about Etty to edit this article. I'm coming at it from the perspective of a wikipedia reader. (as we all should, when editing wikipedia) - I respect that you have your strong opinions here, but in order to get some form of consensus, surely we have to reach a compromise that we can all accept, rather than one person constantly reverting while shouting I don't like your edit! - I'm here to discuss things, I would prefer discussion than just watching my edits getting reverted. Thanks Spacecowboy420 (talk) 11:59, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I've reverted again. There's been a lengthy discussion on Iridescent's talk page, and the referencing is in place. Johnbod (talk) 13:51, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Destroying Angel and Daemons of Evil Interrupting the Orgies of the Vicious and Intemperate. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150211024806/http://www.manchestergalleries.org/salvaged/the-painting/about-the-artist/index.html to http://www.manchestergalleries.org/salvaged/the-painting/about-the-artist/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:07, 19 May 2017 (UTC)