Talk:Veiled Vestal

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 (talk) 03:41, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

The Veiled Vestal

• ... that when the sculpture Veiled Vestal (pictured) featured in the 2005 Pride & Prejudice film, one critic considered that the figure's sacred flame represented Elizabeth Bennet's "virginal sexual desire"? "Monti's Veiled Vestal functions doubly, or perhaps triply, as Elizabeth's reflection: her virginal sexual desire is figured as the flame the Vestal holds ..." from: Felleman, Susan (2014). Real Objects in Unreal Situations: Modern Art in Fiction Films. Bristol, UK: Intellect Books. p. 167. ISBN 978-1-78320-250-8.
  • ALT1:... that despite becoming a popular commercial artist after his 1847 Veiled Vestal (pictured), Rafaelle Monti ended his career in debt and had to sell his sculpting tools? "the veiled virgin became his signature motif, a parlor trick for the elite to display in their homes as conversation pieces ... Monti was established in London as something of a commercial artist ... He was in his 60s and deeply in debt. He reportedly never went out after dark, fearing he would encounter someone he owed ... He had sold his carving tools." from: Gihring, Tim. "Secrets of the veiled lady: The passion and politics behind Mia's marble masterpiece". Minneapolis Institute of Art. Retrieved 2 January 2021.

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Happy Man Tree

Moved to mainspace by Dumelow (talk). Self-nominated at 11:01, 2 January 2021 (UTC).

• Article is new, long enough, neutral and generally adequately sourced inline to reliable sources. One minor problem is that there's reference to the film itself as a source (Ref. 7); I think this is ok if it just represents the action on screen, without interpretation, but even so it probably needs the timings noting for the scene. I don't think the Chatsworth website is enormously reliable, but it is probably adequate for the use being made of it here.

On a sources spotcheck, I thought the material based on the Chatsworth page on the statue[1] could benefit from moving further from the original. For example: "The 6th Duke of Devonshire visited the sculptor's studio in Milan, Italy, on 12 October 1846 on his way to Naples. He ordered the marble sculpture on 18 October, placing a £60 deposit on the following day. The sculpture was ready to be dispatched to England in April 1847, and the Duke appears to have displayed it in Chiswick House, west of London." (source) vs "William Cavendish, 6th Duke of Devonshire visited Rafaelle Monti's studio in Milan on 12 October 1846, during a trip to Naples.[1] ... Cavendish returned to the studio on 18 October to place an order, making a £60 deposit (equivalent to £5853 today) the next day.[3][1] The sculpture was complete by April 1847 and seems to have been displayed by Cavendish at Chiswick House in West London.[1]" (article)

Also, the book by Susan Felleman "Elizabeth Bennet, touring Pemberley with her aunt and uncle" (source) vs "Elizabeth takes a tour of the house with her aunt and uncle." (article). In the Google preview I can't read two pages of this section so there might be more here.

And possibly also from Minneapolis Institute of Art[2]: "In 1848, a year after sending the duke his prize, Monti joined the revolt against Austria. When the Italians lost an early battle, Monti left for London, never to return. And there the veiled virgin became his signature motif, a parlor trick for the elite to display in their homes as conversation pieces. Indeed, he helped inspire a whole cottage industry of veiled women, mostly carved by Italians, who made of these anonymous, virtuous women a subtle symbol of patriotism." (source) vs "After joining the failed 1848 revolutions against Austrian rule, he moved to London where the Veiled Vestal became his signature work. He recreated it in many forms and helped to inspire a cottage industry for this type of figure.[3] " (article)

I haven't checked out all the sources in detail, so there might possibly be other instances.

Earwig found a few short repeated phrases from the Chatsworth source,[3] which would benefit from rephrasing.

Image is attractive at size, and used in the article. I think the copyright status is fine, though I'm not an expert in this area (sculptor died >100 years ago, but is Chatsworth counted as a premise permanently open to the public?). Slightly more concerned about the drawing, also in the article; the artist is not given and the source is an unspecified 1848 book. Obviously it will not still be in copyright at that date, but more details for the attribution are probably needed.

Hooks are interesting, neutral, and don't relate to the living. I find the Pride and Prejudice one more intriguing, but that might just be personal bias; that hook just squeezes under the 200 limit when the pictured is excluded and might benefit from shortening slightly; the other is concise. Both hooks check out from a reliable source.

Sorry for the length, hope this helps. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:19, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Espresso Addict, thanks for your detailed review. I'll take a look at the prose later today but to address the copyright issue. Under British law freedom of panorama extends to "sculptures, models for buildings and works of artistic craftsmanship, if permanently situated in a public place or in premises open to the public". The standard work on Copyright in the UK (Garnett, Kevin M.; James, Jonathan Rayner; Copinger, Walter Arthur; Davies, Gillian. Copinger and Skone James on Copyright. Sweet & Maxwell. p. 553. ISBN 978-0-421-58910-0.) states "The expression 'open to the public' presumably extends the section to premises to which the public are admitted only on licence or on payment". Not an expert, but even if it was not exempt I presume copyright would revert to the sculptor who, having died in 1881, would have long since lost any claim to it. The uploader of the 1848 drawing has long since ceased contributing to Commons. I have no reason to doubt their upload and the style of the drawing certainly dates from that period, if necessary I can remove it from the article - Dumelow (talk) 07:00, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

@Dumelow: I live in the UK, but I've had photos of sculptures rejected by Commons because they were taken in the grounds of private houses, that were only open to the public under some form of non-permanent conditions. Also it clearly isn't permanently situated at Chatsworth, as it went off to the States. I suspect you are right, however, that it is the licensing that is at fault, not the actual copyright situation.

With the drawing, I think we are required to state as many details as are reasonably available for proper attribution, aren't we? I've uploaded plenty of uncredited artwork from long-ooc books but always at least with the full details of the book it was published in. Otherwise we are relying on the skills of the uploader, and the copyright status can't readily be verified. Espresso Addict (talk) 07:14, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Espresso Addict, I've removed the drawing from the article. I think the photograph is fine. Looking at it again, the freedom of panorama doesn't really matter as the sculpture itself is PD by virtue of its age. I've rewritten the article prose to bring it a little further away from the source - Dumelow (talk) 10:58, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

@Dumelow: Thanks for the rewriting, looks much improved and Earwig is satisfied. Outstanding points (the first I think necessary, the other two perhaps less so)...

• Timings for film source; can't quickly find chapter & verse for necessity, but seems analogous to page numbers.
• Prefer rewording signature work and cottage industry; the latter in particular is, I think, not actually literal, so should probably be rephrased, or perhaps just quoted.
• I'd suggest shortening the P&P hook (my preferred); it's compliant but a bit verbose. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:35, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Espresso Addict, I don't have a copy of the film so can't add timings. Clips of the scene are widely available online eg on YouTube and I don't think a statement of what happens is controversial. It strikes me as similar to how we don't require citations for plot summaries. I've reworded the bits about signature work and cottage industry and put the latter in quotation marks, I've linked cottage industry so the reader can see what was being alluded to (though, as you say it was probably not meant literally). I've shortened the hook, below but had to cut a lot out. Open to suggestions - Dumelow (talk) 11:25, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

• ALT2: ... that the sacred flame carried by the Veiled Vestal (pictured) has been described as representing Elizabeth Bennet's "virginal sexual desire" in Pride & Prejudice?

Hi Dumelow. Sadly I don't have the film either, or I'd have checked it for you. I've been thinking about this and you have a point that it is essentially a plot summary that would not necessarily need a source; I agree it isn't controversial. The Felleman chapter also looked to describe the scene in detail, so perhaps could be added as a source? Unfortunately in the Google preview I can't access p. 166 which is where most of the scene description looks to fall.

I think with the hook the happy medium might fall in between the two; I hesitate to suggest an alt formally lest a new review is needed but at minimum it needs to mention the word "film", as the book doesn't have any sculptures (and although the book also doesn't have the ampersand, most readers won't notice that). Perhaps ...in the 2005 film, Pride & Prejudice, the sacred flame carried by the Veiled Vestal (pictured) has been described as representing Elizabeth Bennet's "virginal sexual desire"? Espresso Addict (talk) 13:27, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Alas page 166 only describes the preceding scene (Elizabeth in the Painted Hall). Fellemen does describe some of the sculpture scene on 167, so I've added additional citations to her. With regards the hook, I agree and propose the below (I've brought the link to the article forwards a bit) - Dumelow (talk) 15:39, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

• ALT3: ... the sacred flame carried by the Veiled Vestal (pictured) in the 2005 film Pride & Prejudice has been described as representing Elizabeth Bennet's "virginal sexual desire"?

Espresso Addict, I forgot to ping you above - Dumelow (talk) 15:40, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for all your work on this, Dumelow! I've added a missing space to Alt3 and struck variant hooks. Either Alt3 (my preferred) or Alt1 is fine. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:19, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

UNDUE

The inclusion, in the lead no less, of a spicy titbit related to an unnamed critic's whimsical erotic speculation about the appearance in a film of a nearly 200 year old statue by an acclaimed sculptor, is pretty much the definition of WP:UNDUE and it's unbecoming of an encyclopedia that it featured on Main page. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:43, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Agree; and of course the sculpture post dates the book. The "unnamed critic's whimsical erotic speculation" (love that phrase) is probably baseless: I've seen the original at Chatsworth and I think it far more likely that the filmmakers saw it when they were looking for backdrops and context and then - how could they NOT include it? Cross Reference (talk) 14:10, 13 April 2021 (UTC)