Talk:Lady Justice

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Latin transcription is

Iustitita

I wonder if it is correct. Since English version is:

Justitia

Could someone competent check, please? Stan 15:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

J is simply long i. A matter of orthography rather than spelling.

"...the fact that blindfolds were commonly worn by the blind to cover their eyes..." This isn't why Justitia is blindfolded. Think of the theme of blindfolded Cupid. The blindfold simply shows that Justice is blind. Iconography, not daily life. --Wetman 18:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. But another question is that there are three T in Latin word and only two T in English. Stan 17:22, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] I was rather surprised

to find that my photo of Lady Justice had been removed. It was to be the begining of a gallery of Her as depicted in American art. However since you are one of the keepers of the page i certainly shall respect your move. Break a leg. Carptrash 14:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

It's not so much about seniority or ownership, dude. I just didn't see what your addition added. The point of a gallery is to show off multiple images in a seemly format. From what I now understand, you wanted to add one image at a time on no particular schedule. That's not how it works. Also, the image used wasn't exactly to the same quality as the main two. It was a partial shot leaving out the whole body and thus many details. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 19:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
"That's not how it works. " Sorry. I missed the part about where you make the rules. I'll be much more carefull in the future. Carptrash 19:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Okay, there's no need for that sarcasm. This isn't personal, and I'm hardly in a position to be a control freak with this article. However, a gallery is used to display multiple images from the get-go. You seem to be talking about adding images over time, which defeats the point of using a gallery. You'd only be displaying one image indefinitely and a single image can just be framed or thumbed. However, as I stated before, the other issue is the quality of the image. It's not unclean/unclear, but it lacks the same full-body view that the others have. Sorry. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 19:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Good point. I take back [if i can] the sacrasm and will replace it with a simple question. How is it that you can tell me "That's not how it works?" I have created many galleries one picture at a time. wikipedia is not, in my opinion, something that springs fully formed from Zeus's head but rather grows organically. As in one picture at a time. But you were here first, so I'll do it your way. Carptrash 20:10, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't think it's "my way". Straight from Wikipedia:Gallery tag: "This is an easy way of displaying a large number of images." (bolding by moi.) You see, while it's good for that purpose, it looks unseemly when only containing a single or even two images. I learnt that from personal experience. So, believe me, it's not a personal thing about me being right. Try not to look at it as me telling you what to do. Try looking at it as me trying to assist and explain. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 20:31, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
well, okay, I will wait until I have a large number of images before adding more. You have a fine looking edit history, to be sure. I wonder what mine looks like? I suppose that is what this "My Contributions" button is about? Carptrash 20:37, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Oh, thanks. And yeah, it is. I checked, and it turns out you've actually been here longer than me. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 20:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
And you were the one who started with, "It's not so much about seniority or ownership, dude. " So all is cool. Carptrash 21:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gallery

Well, looks like we're here again. Not to knock, but could we chill a bit with the gallery? I only created it to display the three sculpture images we already had. Those were and are great representations of Justice. These latest additions, however, aren't. We're getting into an excessive, unnecessary area that's led to many wholesale gallery removals. While I think we can make good fair use rationales for the three body sculptures, the thinly blindfeld head, group and slab are all more frivalous than we, as an encyclopedia, need. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 18:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this latest addition is a bit much. But it's not a fair use problem - these are all free content images. Sandstein 20:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Well they were all my images - and i'd have done a lot more too. Lady Justice is an interesting image to look at through the eyes of art history - but, obviously not here. Carptrash 20:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
I guess Shadow's point is that we are an encyclopedia, not a high-gloss magazine. Galleries are only useful insofar as they contribute to our understanding by enhancing the text - so a systematic gallery of selected images in relation to the text would be encyclopedic, but a random dump of pretty images is not. That's what the Commons link is for. Sandstein 20:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
a "random dump" is what the dog outside my window is doing. anyway, thanks for your guess as to what Shadow was trying to say. Carptrash 20:58, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to think I was pretty clear. Thank you, though, Sandy. Yes, I was in error bout the fair use thing. Anyway, Carp, while I appreciate all of the contributions, I just don't want it to go overboard. (I don't see it as a "random dump," either.) I like the selection we have now. They're all full body and very classic representations. Also, I've seen article galleries with better rationale—like a fictional character's various changes in appearance—get deleted due to policy and MOS restrictions. It's unfortunate, but Wikipedia just isn't the best place for truly awesome images collections. Feel free to add those images to WikiMedia Commons. They'll be much more appreciated there, I'm sure. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 21:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Since we are not going to use "pretty pictures" perhaps you fellows can use some of your pretty words to explain to and help those who are NOT People of the Book understand what the phrase Justice prepared to cut the baby in half is all about?

Meanwhile I'm re-shelving the books i had out to get my version of Lady Justice out there. Out here. Whatever.

  • Becker, Art for the People
  • Blashfield, Mural Painting in America
  • Clark, Art and Propaganda in the Twentieth Century
  • Cortissoz, The Works of Edwin Howland Blashfield
  • King, American Mural Painting
  • Michalski, Public Monuments: Art in political bondage 1870-1997
  • Soria, Perceptions and Evocations: the Art of Elihu Vedder
  • Speed Museum of Art, Nineteenth Century French Sculpture:Monuments for the Middle Class
  • Van Hook, "The Virgin & the Dynamo
  • Warner, Monuments and Maidens: The Allegory of the Female Form

Carptrash 22:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe it's about a classic story of duplicate claims where there should only be one. As the story goes, a baby was fought over by two families who both claimed to be the parents. Justice prepared to slice up the tod, but one family insisted that it go to the other if that were the only way it could be spared. Lady Just stopped and said that the family which are willing to see the child alive rather than dead must be the rightful parents. It's beem ripped-off homaged a bit in popular media since then. The best example that comes to mind in a Sienfeld ep, but I cannot remember the title. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 22:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Don't you think it's a bit odd that you're put here, taking the word over the image stance, when you don't even know what the words are referring to? Check out I Kings 3: 16 - 27. You are the guys doing the text thing. Don't you think that you should understand what it says? And perhaps explain it for everyone else who might end up here? For the record [and you can see it in the picture - which is NOT one of my "pretty ones"] Lady Justice is not in the picture errr . . . .... I mean the story, at all. Carptrash 00:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
a hint for those concerned with the text. Since Lady Justice does not appear in the cutting the baby in half story, well . . . . . . . ..... perhaps she should not be in the article either? After all, May I quote someone up there, we are an encyclopedia, not ....... . Carptrash 18:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
You're not making sense. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 19:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Ah yes, the difference between being subtle and being obscure. Okay the phrase " this is Blind Justice prepared to cut the baby in half" has nothing to do with Lady Justice. There is NO Lady Justice in the story [1Kings 3:16] about the baby. The women in the story are two harlots. That reference, in Sienfeld and elsewhere is about the Wisdom of Solomon. Carptrash 23:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC) Look at the picture I posted. See Solomon? See the baby? See the Sword? See Lady Justice? No, me either.
Okay. What is your point? Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 23:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
My point is that you fellows (gender nonspecific) who are concerned about the text of the article should fix it. It didn't take you long [a couple of hours?] to remove pictures that maybe didn't belong. Now it's taking you days to remove text that clearly does not belong. Carptrash 23:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Done. Sorry. I totally missed that. You didn't have to be so coy and snippy about it. Also, you could have corrected the article yourself. I really I hope you don't take the image removals personally. We're working on the article together and I'd hate to see the article suffer because of an unresolved disagreenent. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 23:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
. Sorry but i just am coy and snippy. In fact, have just added that to my CV. Thanks. Carptrash 13:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I just moved this sentence to discussion

However, this also leads to an interpretation held by some that Justice wears this blindfold to shield herself from atrocities committed in her name.

because it needs to be documented better. Or at all. Otherwise, " ideas held by some" it is too close to being weasel words. Carptrash 16:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The following passage

However, in the United Kingdom, Lady Justice is never shown with a blindfold as "Justice must be seen to be done". was recently added and then removed from the article. Here is a collage of pictures of British sculpture from the 19th and early 20th Century that help (opinion) resolve the issue. Carptrash 00:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

There is also a blindfolded Lady Justice pictured in Noszlopy's Public Sculpture of Birmingham. I suspect that someone in Britian did say this, but (opinion), more as a witticism than a public art policy. Carptrash

Why is there nothing about the book or the snake that she's usually standing on?