Talk:Counter-Maniera

[Untitled]

This is just a start. Valueyou (talk) 14:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

DYK views

3461 Johnbod (talk) 14:29, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Improvements

These need to be made:

• rather wider = wider
• remove unneeded detail
• parallelism in "both": either "in both the dates and styles included" or "both in the dates and in the styles included"
• overlapping to a large degree == overlapping
• unneeded appositive, more direct statement
• comma usage
• more direct, encyclopedic tone
• unneeded lifespan
• refix spacing, thanks to poor use of blanket revert
• italics
• articles on an art topic, not on a term

See edit history. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:45, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Comments after dashes:

• remove unneeded detail - ??
• parallelism in "both": either "in both the dates and styles included" or "both in the dates and in the styles included" - huh?
• overlapping to a large degree == overlapping - similar but not the same
• more direct, encyclopedic tone - Like a telephone directory, apparently
• articles on an art topic, not on a term - no, as the term is not universally accepted, nor the existence of the topic, AS THE ARTICLE SAYS.

JHunterJ: you have your personal taste, others have theirs. You have reverted twice to impose your taste, but this will not prevail. Johnbod (talk) 17:19, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Re the "huh?" and "??", see the edit history differences for the items tagged with those edit summaries (rather than blanket reverting). You have reverted twice to impose your tastes, including throwing out obvious corrections. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:57, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I've asked for a third opinion, so fixing the problem with JohnBod's editing of my talk page comment above. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:17, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Why not ask at the relevant wikiproject? Johnbod (talk) 14:44, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Please do. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:38, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

You are the one with the problem(s) Johnbod (talk) 16:54, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Only if we assume that you're the gatekeeper for this article. So far, that's only your assumption. If you want to ask at the relevant wikiproject, please do. If I want to ask for a third opinion using the third opinion mechanism, I've done so. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:52, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Third opinion

A third opinion has been requested at the third opinion noticeboard. I see that there has been some disagreement, but the issues appear to be complex, as is the general subject matter. I won't be offering a third opinion, but I concur with the suggestion to invite more editors via WikiProject Visual Arts. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:33, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I would be happy to give a third opinion. It looks to me as though there are a series of disputed minor wording changes. As a start I suggest that you deal withem one at a time. I would be happy to give an opion on each if wanted. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:46, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, after the initial blanket reversion by the gatekeeper, I made the changes individually to make it easier to identify the problem areas, only to be blanket-reverted again, and so placed them in the bullet list above, but the gatekeeper has only demanded that I find additional hoops to jump through, rather than discuss. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:46, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I gave comments above on the ones I understood, which have not been responded to. The bullet list is a good example of how JHunterJ's preference for extremely Spartan prose easily lapses into incomprehensibility. Arguably that approach has some merit in his normal habitat as the Great Overlord of disambiguation, but is not very helpful in articles such as this. Johnbod (talk) 15:18, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

If you'll review, you'll find your extremely Spartan comments above lapsed into incomprehensibility. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:53, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I can only suggest that the changes are made one at a time and each change is discussed here before the next one is made. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:42, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Trend or term for the trend

I've made the change to correct the lede, showing that the topic of this article is the trend even if the name for or existence of the trend is not universally accepted. Per the edit summary: "This article is about the trend, not about the term, even if the term (and existence of the trend) is disputed. The section "scope" may be about the term, but the section "Influences" is not about the influences of the term, for example" -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:53, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

If it is agreed that "the name for or existence of the trend is not universally accepted" then surely you can see that it makes more sense to make the subject of the article the term, and the meaning assigned to it, as I did. For one thing, this avoids the need to cover as fully, for the sake of WP:N, the very complicated other interpretations of the period, which I have no more intention of going into than you do. Surely you can see this? You are not "correcting" anything, and it is unhelpful to pretend you are. Why are you so certain that "the topic of this article is the trend"? How do you know? The concept or term needs to be expained as those who use it would do, noting that the matter remains controversial. Johnbod (talk) 00:43, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Shotgunning questions doesn't make your position stronger. Is your position is that the "Influences" section is about the influences of the term? Not about the influences of the trend? The article is about the trend, and many Wikipedia articles address non-universally accepted topics without pretending that the topic is the name of the topic rather than the topic itself. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:48, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

You've obviously not read it. It is about the influences upon the art covered by the term. The point is that anyone familiar with the subject who reads your opening: "Counter-Maniera or Counter-Mannerism (variously capitalized and part-italicized) is a trend in 16th-century Italian painting" is going to immediately go "hmmm" because that's such an overemphatic statement, which many won't agree with. It just won't do, and your reasons for making such a fuss over this point remain mysterious. Johnbod (talk) 13:29, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

And there we are in perfect agreement. As with the influences upon the art covered by the term (not the influence upon the term), just so the article about the art covered by the term. Not about the term itself, although the controversy, if any, around the term can certainly be covered by the article. Your reasons for insisting on your opening remain more mysterious. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:35, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I've explained them more than once. It just isn't correct. Johnbod (talk) 13:43, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Claiming that the article about the trend is about the term just isn't correct. If the lede will make anyone familiar with it go hmmm, then the lede can be improved without making it wrong. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:07, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Well your attempts have not managed that. Johnbod (talk) 23:01, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I notice btw, that the main text uses "term" 16 times, plus one in the notes. "Trend" is used twice, and "painting" is only used 7 times, excluding book titles. Johnbod (talk) 01:15, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Confused third opinion

Another request for a third opinion was made at the third opinion noticeboard. "Is the article about the term or about the trend?" The article should be about the trend. The term should be discussed, but only briefly, because the article should be about the trend. What I see here is two editors who have a somewhat rough and harsh interaction with each other. As noted previously, it would be useful to get a third editor into this article, probably from the Visual Arts project. I agree that the lede sentence, as it is, is very off-putting. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:05, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'm qualified to give a third opinion but I will anyway. I think that the sentence

The term was devised by the art historian Sydney Joseph Freedberg (1914–1997), and has gained
a good degree of acceptance, although it is by no means universally adopted by other art historians. 

needs to be moved out of the first paragraph. Counter-Maniera starts with the the Council of Trent, not with Sydney Freedberg, even if he was the first person to name it. I would move this sentence to the start of the second paragraph. Change "trend" to "disputed trend" in the first sentence if you feel the existence of this trend is in dispute. I assume the term is not in dispute. If it was then there would be an alternative name which you would have listed.

Hope this helps. filceolaire (talk) 22:51, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

This rather goes to the heart of the only substantive issue. It would be very wrong to "assume the term is not in dispute" - it is. But that is not to say there is an alternative term for the same same thing - many art historians would dispute that there is anything that needs a specific name. So I think you need to start the article with Freedberg, and treat it as about the term, as well as what the term covers. Johnbod (talk) 22:57, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I removed this from the third opinion noticeboard because several opinions have already been given. If there is still a dispute here, consider opening a thread at the dispute resolution noticeboard. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 00:19, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Sometimes a term is better described as a term. This is true of Neo-romanticism, which has several meanings; Tubism, which is notable mainly as a journalist's flip remark; Outsider art, a fairly recent coinage that is loosely defined and overlaps with both Art brut and the older category Naive art (a controversial term); Degenerate Art, which describes work that upset Hitler (whose opinions should not be honored by treating Degenerate Art as a real thing rather than an infamous slander); Fin de siècle, which can hardly be described except as a term—try to rewrite the lead of that article without using "term" or a synonym and see what you get.

We see here that Raffaello Borghini counted Santi di Tito and Federico Barocci as examples of anti-Mannerism; Freedburg, who coined the term Counter-Maniera and so perhaps should be allowed to define it, does not think these two artists are part of the trend. If the article should be about the trend not the term, we need first to identify a trend. As already noted by several editors, the matter is complicated; the answer is not to rewrite the lead as though it were simple. The subject of Italian art after the Council of Trent is covered in Roman_Catholic_art#Council_of_Trent and Roman_Catholic_art#Baroque_art, and also at Counter-Reformation#Baroque_art, but the present article is about a particular (disputed) term.

Two editors answered the call for a third opinion. Both expressed reluctance to comment. Filceolaire offers the sensible advice to "change "trend" to "disputed trend" in the first sentence if you feel the existence of this trend is in dispute", which would be better than the current version but seems less satisfactory than the wording that remained nearly unchanged between the article's inception in 2009 and May 22, 2015. Robert McClenon's suggestion that the article should be about the trend not the term is problematical as has been explained; he also says that "it would be useful to get a third editor into this article, probably from the Visual Arts project." It was Johnbod's notice at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts that drew me to this page, so we should be well on the way to a consensus.

Here's the lead sentence as it was: "Counter-Maniera or Counter-Mannerism (variously capitalized and part-italicized) is a term in art history for a trend in 16th-century Italian painting that forms a sub-category or phase of Mannerism, the dominant movement in Italian art between about 1530 and 1590." I think this is fine, although the objection that it is off-putting has some merit; we're writing for the general reader. Would "Counter-Maniera or Counter-Mannerism (variously capitalized and part-italicized) describes a trend in 16th-century Italian painting (...etc.)" be acceptable? Our article's second sentence already fills in the details; perhaps the reader will understand. I prefer the explicit version but I'm trying to determine where the remaining objection is. Ewulp (talk) 03:58, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Lead too long

On another issue; I think the lead is too long. I would move everything except the first paragraph into a separate general section after the table of contents - or maybe have a short second para in the lead with just the Freedberg sentence. filceolaire (talk) 22:51, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Then it would be too short; most Wikipedia leads are far too short, which WP:LEAD does not support. Johnbod (talk) 22:58, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Birth and death years about people not the topic

Since we must go through these one by one: I removed birth and death dates from a linked individual. Birth and death dates are not needed for encyclopedic coverage of this topic, and are available on the linked article (along with the rest of the details about that person). -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:11, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Ho Ho, you are kidding! You are showing your true misguided fanatic character now. Does anyone else agree? Does anything in any quideline support this view? I wish I could find that discussion where you insisted, against a mountain of other people, that only notable people should ever be mentioned at all in articles. Do you remember where that was? Johnbod (talk) 14:08, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Ho, ho, I'm not! You are continuing to show your ownership of the article text and your inability to focus on the article instead of the editors. Does anything in any guideline support your view? And no, I don't remember the insistence, since it seems likely you've made it up based on some misremembered argument that you didn't understand. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:53, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Ho, ho, ho. No, I remember it very well. You are removing content, you need a guideline to justify that. Johnbod (talk) 15:32, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Ho, ho, ho. WP:INDISCRIMINATE. You need a guideline before throwing the kitchen sink into an article. Or shall we add birth and death dates to all of the people mentioned in every article? -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:08, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Ah, here we are. The discussion was so extraordinary I kept a link. Johnbod (talk) 15:43, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, that would be an argument that you didn't understand, if you generated "that only notable people should ever be mentioned at all in articles" as the point there. But even with that tangential comment, your counterpoint would be the self-contradictory "people who don't merit noting merit noting"? -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:08, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Anyone interested will be able to read that discussion and draw their own conclusions. The counterpoint is that "there are some people (like the parents of the notable) who should be mentioned in articles, but not redlinked or included in dab pages". Strangely, everyone editing Wikipedia except for User:JHunterJ believes this. Johnbod (talk) 16:16, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Happily, your "strangely' conclusion doesn't agree with the consensus, since it isn't just me who understands that disambiguation pages are there to aid the readers' navigation. Your tale makes for a good narrative, but remains fiction. Here's a quotation from that discussion: "I agree with JHunterJ." Let me know how you align that with your claim that no one agreed with me. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:49, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure she was agreeing with that exact point, but I make it 9 people there who didn't agree with you, which of course you completely brushed aside. Johnbod (talk) 17:49, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

And I make it other people who didn't agree with you, which of course you completely brushed aside. I know, so strange to find disagreements on Wikipedia. It seems that you track editors who disagree with you, rather than focusing on improving the encyclopedia. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:03, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

No, it's just that you really stand out among all the editors I've encountered in my 140K+ edits, 250 DYKs, 14 FAs etc. I expect others who read this page will understand how. Johnbod (talk) 20:24, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Now it seems you're just trying to incorporate as many debate fallacies as possible into your position. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:03, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Back to the matter at hand. You can't seriously be suggesting the dates come under WP:INDISCRIMINATE? The time of his life and career is clearly highly relevant to the timing of the history of the term. Your lack of familiarity with what is normal is articles is clear. Of course, I wouldn't insist that the dates are added in such a case, if they are not there, but to insist that they are removed is clearly wrong and unreasonable. Johnbod (talk) 17:49, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I can seriously suggest that putting the birth and death dates of a person on an article not about that person is indiscriminate. Please do add the relevant information to the article, since the parenthetical years do not make the relevance clear. Your lack of distinction between encyclopedic content vs content appropriate for an art history textbook is clear. And yes, you have been insisting that your addition of the dates be kept. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:03, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I have been insisting, and will continue to do so, that the cranky personal preferences of one drive-by editor should not imposed on this article. I have accepted a number of sensible changes, by you and other editors, as I always will. But when it comes to matters that are well within the range of personal preference I see no reason to allow myself to be bullied by an editor with very eccentric attidudes to some of these issues (a fact he refuses to recognize). Johnbod (talk) 20:20, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

"I have accepted" is part of the problem. You act as gatekeeper for this article, and end up violating WP:OWN. Your gracious acceptance of some of the changes that you deem sensible came only after the initial blanket reversions. And you continue to focus on editors rather than edits, and end up violating WP:NPA. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:03, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

If you look at the history, plenty of people have edited the article, without any previous reversions that I can see. I note that the article being about the term goes right back to the earliest edit, years before I touched the article. If a whole lot of edits, some of very minor benefit, but others more significant and unhelpful, it is perfectly reasonably to revert the lot with an edit summary explaining why, rather than have to pick through. Johnbod (talk) 12:52, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

To revert edits that in your opinion have very minor benefit, rather than pick through, is not reasonable, only lazy. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:43, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Florid prose

I removed florid prose that adds no meaning, undefined "a good degree of acceptance" -> "acceptance", "by no means" -> "not", "other art historians" -> "art historians". -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:47, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

I suggest you consult a dictionary as to the meanings of "florid" and "precise". More imposition of disambiguation page/phone directory style on an article. Johnbod (talk) 12:57, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

I suggest you identify precisely the information added by "a good degree of acceptance". Without actual information there identifying what that means, it's just fluff words, and we're not getting paid by the word. Then I suggest you consult a dictionary as to the meanings of "by no means" and explain precisely what the difference is between "by no means universally adopted" and "not universally adopted", other than the second form being better by being more WP:NEUTRAL in tone. And then explain precisely the added meanings for "not universally adopted by other art historians" and "not universally adopted by art historians". Is its lack of universal adoption different among "art historians including Freedberg" and "art historians excluding Freedberg"? I believe it lacks universal adoption among all art historians. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:05, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

"by no means" parallels "without a doubt" (MOS:OPED) and is idiomatic (WP:IDIOM). The unspecified degree of "a good degree" is weasel wording (WP:WEASEL). These are Wikipedia style guidelines, not disambiguation page style guidelines. So I am simply "imposing" encyclopedia style on an encyclopedia article. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:15, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

This edit falls in the same category. The resulting sentence conveys the same meaning without the weasel wording or the undefined vague degrees. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:55, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

unneeded appositive

I removed an unneeded appositive phrase. This article isn't about the textbook. If the phrase is supposed to improve this article on Counter-Maniera, please add text explaining it better. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:56, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Both the date and the fact that the book has been a standard textbook are clearly highly relevant to the subject (which is the term, remember). No further explanation is needed. A good example of how these changes remove meaning. Please let me know when these are finished - I'm not pursuaded by any of these changes so far. Johnbod (talk) 12:33, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

No, they are not clearly highly relevant. Please let me know when you are ready to discuss - I'm not persuaded by any of your hand-waving so far. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:00, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Or actually: please clarify your note above. As suggested by the third opinion sought above, I've been making the edits individually and raising each on the talk page here. Are you simply waiting until they are all done so that you can blanket revert them again? If so, I can speed up the process by not waiting for discussion between each edit, if it's not forthcoming. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:03, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Simplify prose in Hall example

I simplified the text for the example of the criticism of Hall. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:14, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, as usual by removing useful detail. When will you realize that an encyclopedia is not a phone book (or a disam page). Reverted. Johnbod (talk) 20:33, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

As usual by removing unneeded (not useful detail). When will you realize that you don't own this page? Restored. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:24, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Not letting your personal preferences, unsupported by any other editors (despite your efforts to find someone to agree with you), prevail against my personal preferences does not constitute "owning the page". I suggest you read WP:OWN. Johnbod (talk) 14:10, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

No one above agreed with you and at least two of the other opinions disagreed with you about the article being about the term, yet you included that in the blanket revert without discussion, continuing your role as gatekeeper, since your rationale when offered has been "I am unconvinced". I suggest you read WP:OWN. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:37, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Getting nowhere

Since we are, I have raised the matter at the Wikiproject, as suggested above, asking for comments here. Johnbod (talk) 14:03, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

The article is at least as much about the term as about the style; I'm in favor of making that plain in the lead sentence. The more loosely defined or controversial a classificatory name of an artistic tendency is, the more sense it makes to describe it first as a term. This issue does not arise with the Futurists, who gave themselves the name; at the opposite extreme is Degenerate Art.

Wikipedia's MOS (at MOS:FORLANG) provides this as a good example of a lead sentence: "Inuit (plural; the singular Inuk means "man" or "person") is a general term for a group of culturally similar indigenous peoples inhabiting the Arctic regions ..."

Oxford Art Online seems a good model of encyclopedic style in writing about art styles. Here are the first words of a few articles:

• Mannerism [It. maniera]. "Name given to the stylistic phase in the art of Europe..."
• Impressionism: "Term generally applied to a movement in art in France ... The primary use of the term Impressionist is for a group of French painters who worked between around 1860 and 1900..."
• Post-Impressionism. "Term applied to the reaction against Impressionism..."
• Art brut: "Term used from the mid-1940s to designate a type of art outside the fine art tradition."

but

• Expressionism: "International movement in art and architecture, which flourished between c. 1905 and c. 1920..."
• Futurism. "Italian movement, literary in origin,..."
• Pop art: "International movement in painting..."

For what it's worth, OAO has no article on Counter-Maniera, a result consistent with less-than-robust acceptance of the term.

It seems useful to explain up front that the term was invented in the 20th century, whether by restoring S.J. Freedberg's vital dates or by other means. Ewulp (talk) 03:14, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Ewulp. There is a section above, #Trend or term for the trend, that was started for this topic. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:39, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Re this edit summary: ""Degree" is explained in the same sentence ("it is not universally adopted"), and further explained in third para." See #Confused third opinion and #Florid prose above. The sentence loses nothing by removing the weasel wording, and at best is unharmed and at worst becomes weaselly with its addition. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:19, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

No consensus has been demonstrated on this page for the edit of the first sentence to remove the word "term", and no rebuttal has been given to my remarks concerning this. The Wikipedia MOS condones such wording where appropriate, as it is in this case. The word "term" appears 12 times in the body text of this rather brief article, which is sourced mainly to the historian who coined the term. Representative passage: "Deciding what characterizes a work in Counter-Mannerist style may not be straightforward; in the single brief passage mentioning the term in John Shearman's Mannerism (1967), he picks Santi di Tito's Vision of St Thomas Aquinas (1593, illustrated here, as in both books) as an example of it, but Freedberg excludes Santo's classicising naturalism from the style, though noting his similarities to it.[13] Shearman's other main example of Counter-Mannerism is Federigo Barocci, who Freedberg also excludes from his definition. [14]"

But even if our article were not mostly about the term, the wording in the status quo ante conforms to best standards; here are a few examples of first sentences from Featured Articles: "The hermeneutic style is the name given by historians to a style of Latin in the later Roman and early medieval periods..." (see the recent FAC here; the wording was uncontroversial). "Early Netherlandish painting refers to the work of artists, sometimes known as the Flemish Primitives..." "Operation Cobra was the codename for an offensive launched by the First United States Army seven weeks after the D-Day landings..." (surely this article is about the offensive, not the codename). "Kelpie, or water kelpie, is the Scots name given to a shape-shifting water spirit inhabiting the lochs and pools of Scotland." "Reactive attachment disorder (RAD) is described in clinical literature as a severe and relatively uncommon disorder that can affect children..." "'John' or 'John the bookmaker' is the name given to an Indian bookmaker who in 1994–95 gave money to Australian cricketers Mark Waugh and Shane Warne, in return for pitch and weather information" (John the bookmaker controversy). Ewulp (talk) 19:54, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

No consensus has been demonstrated on this page for the edit of the first sentence to include the word "term", and no rebuttal had been given to the earlier remarks from multiple editors to remove it. It's not appropriate in this case. Being able to find examples in FAs is no rebuttal. Please respond in the previous section rather than continuing this fork. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:31, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

The previous section is about the Hall example. But I'll be glad to paste this into whichever section you request. Ewulp (talk) 00:50, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Ewulp, the section header is instructive. You have better things to do than argue the toss with career naysayers like JHunterJ. Ceoil (talk) 00:40, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Admittedly a vice. Full speed ahead! Ewulp (talk) 00:50, 18 July 2015 (UTC)