Talk:The Rape of the Sabine Women

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Rape of the Sabine Women article.
Article policies
The Rape of the Sabine Women is within the scope of WikiProject Italy, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Italy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Template:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome

This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B Class: This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.

Contents

[edit] Page move

Hi all. I've moved the main article from Rape of the Sabine Women (Giambologna) to The Rape of the Sabine Women per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (definite and indefinite articles at beginning of name)#Titles of works. The name of the sculpture isn't ambiguous so no need for the brackets on the main article, and it should keep its 'The' at the beginning. Rape of the Sabine Women (Giambologna) now redirects here, and I've fixed all the double redirects created ~ Veledan • Talk 16:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Oh, and in case any of the authors see this note, cheers for the interesting article :-) I saw and admired this sculpture only last year but knew nothing of its background so I'm glad I stopped by ~ Veledan • Talk 16:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

What about the painting... is there going to be a different page for that? AB

  • I didn't know there was a painting. That article could have the name of the painter in brackets, and have a link added to the disambiguation line at the top of this article, or alternatively my page move could be undone by an admin and this page could be converted to a disambiguation page. ~ Veledan • Talk 14:59, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Story

(Regarding my minor edit to the Story section.) In deference to the extensive work of those who've preceded me please feel free to reject my small change. However, I've made an attempt to improve the style: I've always recoiled from that graceless, baffling term, "pre-existing." The word itself seems redundant: In essence, the root, "existing," means the same thing. Further, in this context, citing the Sabines implies their existence.

Fagiolonero 07:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow, good point about the word "pre-existing." Never occurred to me before, but of course you're correct! 71.235.81.186 07:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Picture substitution

the former image ( Image:Giambologna sabine.jpg ) is not so impressive IMO. regardsTetraktys-English 04:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Concern tags

I have placed concern tags on this article. I think it's a well written essay, but it appears to have developed into an original research essay by synthesizing various fragments related to the article name. There is the mythical incident (which is dealt with briefly in Sabine), there is the significant sculpture by Giambologna, which - for a long time - was the proper topic for this article. And there are other works of art with the same name and theme. The article has developed so that now it attempts to cover all three subjects under the same umbrella - along with fragments from the Bible. There is, of course, a recent film with the title, and - no doubt - that will eventually find it's way in here. There isn't a readily available independent reliable source for the range of this article which appears to take the idea of the original myth and explore it's representation through art. The article began solid enough, but has been allowed to drift into its current state. Nice article, but this is not the place for it. I am proposing that the article is returned to its original title of Rape of the Sabine Women (Giambologna), that the Roman myth section is merged into Sabine, and that the other artist's sections are merged into their appropriate artist articles. A List created called List of artistic representations of the rape of the Sabine women which would hold links to the appropriate sections within existing articles, and any other items that seem appropriate, such as the new film. This article will then be turned into a Disambiguation page leading to Rape of the Sabine Women (Giambologna), Sabine, and List of artistic representations of the Rape of the Sabine Women. Objections, support and discussion welcome. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 14:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I am at a loss to understand your argument. When the concept of an "essay" is used, this usually means that the article is essentially the work of one contributor who is putting forward an argument or making a particular case. This is essentially series of vignettes in the history of the story of the Sabine women. If you check the edit history you will see that they have been added by a number of different editors who are clearly not working together to create a particular "thesis" about the subject. Also, I don't think that the notion of original synthesis applies here. That again usually refers to an attempt to create a new claim or argument that is not represented in sources - by sourcing fact 'a' and fact 'b' along, with theory 'c', to prove some new claim. But no new claims are being made here. It simply brings together well established material on the same subject. That's not an original synthesis as envisaged in the policy. The examples given of inappropriate synthesis in the WP:OR policy statement concern the creation of new conclusions or theories, not the simple combining of established material into an article on a notable topic. Indeed, that's what all WP articles do. Paul B 15:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
An essay, same as an article, can be written by more than one person. The collective spirit of wikipedia allows for such a thing. Original Research, which is defined as "any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position," does not stipulate that the essay/article be written by one or multiple editors. The thinking is that "any facts, opinions, interpretations, definitions, and arguments published by Wikipedia must already have g", which is not the case here. Because that is not the case, what has happened is that editors have started to formulate an essay based an original research because the concept has appealed to them. I'll admit that when I started to read the article I was entranced. Both the concept and the execution are well done. But as I read on I realised that this was against one of the founding principles of Wikipedia. And I understand why. Wiki is not the place to be expounding original thought and research. Wiki is the access point to existing verifiable and sound academic thought and research. I am not proposing that we delete the information and research that has been done here. Simply present it in a way that is acceptable to the principles of Wikipedia, and doesn't leave us open to criticism. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 19:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Your reply does not even address the points I made. Firstly, I already stated "If you check the edit history you will see that they have been added by a number of different editors who are clearly not working together to create a particular "thesis" about the subject." You don't seem to have understood the second part of the sentence. And of course the article has to be coherent, as all articles do. I know perfectly well what the definition of original research is. Again, I don't think you understand the very policy you quote, which states "any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position". There is no attempt to 'advance' any position here. I'm confident that all facts and opinions here have been published before. Certainly the art-historical material is unexceptionable. There is no rule that the entire article has to regurgitate a book or other source written on the entire topic. There does not have to be a single source written about - say - carnations that contains all the information written about carnations in the article. Paul B 19:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

SilkTork, I share your desire to break this article up but the Wikipedia policy you invoke doesn't put the finger on the problem. It's not that disparate nuggets of information have been cajoled together to make a point that wasn't in the original source, as there isn't any discernible argument to the article (I refer you to everything Paul B has just said). It's more that the article is trying to be too many things at once – giving an overview of the subject and going into depth about each artwork on the subject and more besides. As I see it, the problem is not that such an 'original synthesis' hasn't been done before; rather it's that the constituent parts of the article don't synthesise very well.

I agree that the text in the Giambologna section should return to being a self-contained article under the title Rape of the Sabine Women (Giambologna). (There is scope for the sections on the Poussin and David paintings to become articles of their own as well.) Your suggestion of making The Rape of the Sabine Women into a disambiguation page has a precedent in The Birth of Venus, so that could indeed be an option. Another possibility is to make that the page that deals with the Rape as a subject for works of art, which is what I'm inclined towards at the moment. An example of what I have in mind is at Venus Anadyomene, which does a good job of following a particular subject through the history of Western art. Ham 21:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


The point or position that I see as being advanced in this article is the representation of the myth of the Rape of the Sabine Women through art. Such a concept gradually evolved in the article and now appears to be an accepted notion. But where are the sources for such a topic? The Last Supper has been dealt with as a disambiguation page, though there are probably good sources for that as a article topic. Because this current article now exists, it appears to people as though the concept of a deliberate and researched study of the representation of the myth of the Rape of the Sabine Women through art exists - yet, in reality, it only appears to exist here on Wiki. The position has been advanced in an essay, albeit not deliberately, and not by a single mind, but nevertheless by a synthesis of existing concepts, and we have accepted that notion because it is an attractive and plausible one. However, as we know, such original concepts are against the principles of Wiki - and for the very reason that we are having this discussion: because a well written and attractively presented article on Wiki can be very convincing. However, this article, though dealing with High Culture, and being nicely written, is yet another In Popular Culture type article, though without the name!
Ham, I understand what you are saying - however, I feel that Venus Anadyomene is possibly another original Wiki creation that might need looking at. The way the subject matter is dealt with at Venus (mythology) appears to me to be more appropriate: a neutral grouping and listing of the representations without the editorial comment and drawn conclusions presented as authoritative fact that mars Venus Anadyomene. (The crude pun is deliberate!) SilkTork *SilkyTalk 22:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
If anyone thinks that the individual works of art here are better dealt with as separate articles, then they may spin off such articles of course, but creating a series of stubs seems to me to be pointless. The reason the Last Supper was (in September) a disambiguation page is that there are separate articles on the event and on the Leonardo painting. The synthesis argument should not be taken to such extremes, IMO, as it will destroy any chance of writing an excyclopedia which does not simply repeat what a single source says. All articles synthesise sources. That's the nature of the project. The Carnation article that I mentioned above list both botanical and cultural significance of the carnation. Yes there is no single book on the subject that unites the two - at least not one that is cited in the article. This is repeated throughout Wikipedia. I see no advance here, just tagging. Paul B (talk) 10:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Paul here. It's a fine article as it stands. Going around and tagging good articles based on anal retentive interpretations of wiki rules isn't any more useful than tagging a wall with graffiti. Keith Henson (talk) 02:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


Looking at the end of the article, I'd say that there are probably no firm grounds for the speculation that this kind of abduction was a widespread feature of Mediterranean culture. The more narrow claim that it may have been a common motif in mythical histories is more realistic. 66.135.106.50 (talk) 16:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC) Cy