Talk:Le Musée français

Untitled
I do not know where to reply to questions raised about my submission on a page called Le Musee royal (not my title).

I have reedited in order to try to accomodate concerns about scholarly references and referencing. The questions suggest misunderstadning of references which I orginially made. The clarification requires a lot of words ... which I put at a page called Teahouse, where I was told that no one will read it because it has a lot of words. Thanks a lot ...

Let me post them again here. I hope people who question the scholarly status of the references in this article will choose to consider this clarification:

My use of the term “brilliance” is a conventional characterization of the information conveyed by the lumoinosity of a traditional, successful burin engraving.

The tone of superlative accomplishment is an important feature of this subject – e.g. why else would Napoleon recognize the publication with an act of state (see note 2)? -- this event alone would seem to establish the subject’s historical interest.

I suppose all of my references to journalism of the period can be verified in Retronews.

The comment that the article lacks authoritative references has been addressed by adding references ... I hope, without confusing the reader. Please advise if there need to be further private exchanges on this subject. While there’s obviously not sufficient interest to publish a complete bibliography in Wikipedia, I’ve added a reference to the very thorough one compiled by Peter Fuhring. In any case, the references originally provided carry historical authority. The journal Les Nouvelles de l’estampe (note 2) is an official outlet for scholarship of the National Library of France – and the principal French outlet for scholarship in the field of print history; the cited article deals with the publication and its official reception in detail. The journal Gazette des Beaux-Arts was, in its day, the leading international journal for art historical scholarship of French art. There’s also Weissert’s book, which is quite scholarly, and the extensive discussion of the subject in Sgarbi’s publication. Why have reviewers disregarded the standing of these sources in their preoccupation with the inclusion of an exceptional masters thesis?

And why is this masters thesis so different from others? To begin with, it is the only cited reference for further information in the library cataloguing of the Musée français at the Royal Academy in London, as noted in the article, and also in the catalogue of the National Library of France: ; likewise, it is noted at the head of all other references in the art historical resource begun by Fritz Lugt in the 1920’s and continued today by the Fondation Custodia, Les Marques de collections de dessins et d’estampes . If good enough for these institutions, why would Wikipedia have problems with it? Evidently, the thesis is regarded as important for understanding and consulting the publication. The thesis’ circulation in recent scholarship is more difficult to trace – two important recent examples in English: Sarah Betzer, “Ingres Shadows,” Art Bulletin, 95 (2013): 78-101 (“instrumental to my discussion”); and Susanne Anderson-Riedel, “A French Raphael ...” Art in print, 6 (May-June 2016), pp. 17-30. Also, it is referenced, of course, in McKee’s additional publications on the subject in the Revue de l’art (no. 98) (the officially sponsored successor to the Gazette de Beaux-Arts for authoritative discussion of French Art History) and the Revue du Louvre (déc. 1995) (the official scholarly outlet of the National Museums of France).

George-Amherst (talk) 20:10, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Titles and volumes?
From looking at refs #1 and #2, it appears (?) that Musee francais consisted of four volumes published over a time period 1803 to 1809. Musee Napolean an unspecificed number of volumes started in 1812, and Musee Royal two volumes published 1816-1818. If there is confirmation of this (including Napolean details) that should be in the article. David notMD (talk) 00:48, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Regarding the title Le Musée français, I wonder if the title should be capitalised “Le Musée Français” per the sources such as The Royal Academy and British Museum ? Theroadislong (talk) 17:37, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * , I never know what we should be doing about this; I often stick to the native-language capitalisation out of some kind of respect – who are we to know better? But if there's support from the sources for capitalisation then that's probably what we should do. It's a minefield – the British Library downcases 'français' but not 'Royal'., do you have any thoughts on this? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:52, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm an American, biocehmist by trade, what do I know? David notMD (talk) 18:26, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Maybe Wkipedia.en needs a style sheet. Anglo-American library practice does not capitalize -- nor do most bibliographic citation rules, as I recall. Evidently, the RA libary is a bit of an outlyer. My preference is probably already evident. But maybe capitalization should occur when the phrase appears in the position of a title. George-Amherst (talk) 19:27, 4 February 2022 (UTC) Let me add, the British Museum reference is to their general catalogue of the collection -- doesn't seem to me as authoritative for this kind of question as the practice of the Museum's library -- which does not capitalize trailing terms of this kind. George-Amherst (talk) 19:47, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * What,, some kind of summary of the Manual of Style? Maybe so, but I'm not seeing any clear guidance there on this. The BNF has 'Le musée français', 'Le Musée français' and 'Le Musée Français' fairly indiscriminately. How does Brunet list it? (it'd be helpful if you could link to the edition you consulted; by the way, it's Manuel du libraire ..., not ... du librarie ...). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:07, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * OK ... so I found this "Capitalization in foreign-language titles varies, even over time within the same language. Retain the style of the original for modern works." Thanks for correction of Brunet title.  I'll look for links. George-Amherst (talk) 23:46, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * , that passage continues "For historical works, follow the dominant usage in modern, English-language, reliable sources". That seems to be the case here, so I propose a(nother) move to Le Musée Français. Any objections? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:12, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Your example of "dominant usage" being the RA library ? -- did you check Worldcat?  I'm quite surprised at the actual notion of a "dominant usage" of this title in English. Don't you suppose that phrasing was meant for instances where a publication is actually discussed in English? E.g. Betzer's article in the Art Bulletin uses Musee francais. ... Whatever works ... Here's a related question: when discussing the publication in the text of the article, should the expression be Le Musee francais or the Musee francais? — Preceding unsigned comment added by George-Amherst (talk • contribs) 17:26, 5 February 2022 (UTC) Thanks George-Amherst (talk) 18:06, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Theroadislong (talk) 11:15, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * WorldCat.org actually uses both versions on their page here Theroadislong (talk) 18:11, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I think WorldCat simply aggregates entries from libraries round the world, and is no more a reliable source than Google. In our article the word 'français', whether capitalised or not, should always be written with, not with ut, the cedilla. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:47, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

I've received the following comment on this article from the retired Keeper of Prints at the British Museum: "Congratulations! I’ve looked at both the entries, and they are admirable – succinct and informative. I don’t think anyone will have difficulty in finding their way to or through it. I’ll put a note on their existence on the BM database, and with luck that will alert some more readers to your texts ..." With thanks again for editorial assistance which I hope I may call upon again in the future. George-Amherst (talk) 18:44, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Which would suggest that you have an undisclosed conflict of interest? Theroadislong (talk) 18:48, 14 February 2022 (UTC) ??? George-Amherst (talk) 23:39, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Table of engravings
This table is really NOT needed, it can easily be replaced with an external link to in the external links section. Theroadislong (talk) 17:57, 8 March 2022 (UTC)


 * This is not true, you are very mistaken. The presentation you have noted is incomplete (!) -- lacks an entire volume.   Also it is rife with error.  Also it is not useable in identifying the contributors to the publication because it is not sorted, and for this reason lacks any means of internal reference.  Also, it has no information about dates of publication of the individual engravings.  And it has no information about the dimensions of the engravings.  Choose the name of any engraver from my table and spend all afternoon trying to find this artist's plates inb the INHA presnetation-- and you still won't know if you've found them all !  Do you think I created this table and its concordance because it's redundant?  Please restore it. George-Amherst (talk) 20:52, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Another user removed it, it does seem to be over egging the pudding somewhat. Theroadislong (talk) 21:03, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * , you did not create that table, it was added to the article by, who has only two edits to this project. I note that you have made liberal use here of a master's thesis by one George McKee; that is not a WP:RS – per WP:SCHOLARSHIP, careful limited use may be made of a doctoral thesis, but that's it. Just idly wondering: do you have some connection to McKee? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:12, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Practice2learn obviously assisted me to post the table. The Master's thesis you mention has been authoritatively cited in bibliography and in cataloging -- e.g. the V & A, as was noted in the article -- also Bibliotheque national de France cataloging cites it.  What does "idle wondering" have to do with these questions?  Whether or not McKee is me, the thesis is the only catalogue of all of these engravings and the only means of systematic reference to them.  Why not let the users of Wikipedia upgrade it, if there's upgrading to be done?  In the meantime, this table will draw people to the subject and guide them to the very incomplete resources concerning it that are currently available (INHA, British Museum, V&A ... ) George-Amherst (talk) 21:48, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Not at all over-egging ... the INHA presentation is just a serendipidous bunch of pictures without this systematic reference, not useful -- merely the display of a curiousity.  The table provides intellectual access to the images presented at INHA, as well as basic information about what they represent, actual engravings.. The labelling at INHA is simply copied from binding information and is not even accurate as a means of indentification ... and it's unordered.  The table makes the images at INHA actually useful.  How do I dialogue with the "other user" who has the prerogative to simply remove valuable infomration? George-Amherst (talk) 21:28, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

The complaints about my recent posting on “Le Musée français” belie a level of mistrust that is not justified. There are too many complaints; and each time I answer one, you create another – rather than respond to my reply.

Most recently, you claim that that I’m self-promoting because I cite my own publications. However, you have already accepted the article itself – are you now going to remove it? If not, then why not? If this article really embodies what your policies intend to exclude, then remove it! However, the article doesn’t embody these excesses. My publications are cited to document facts relating to a subject that is not often explored, and my authorship is remarked along with others without self-promotion, because it is appropriate to do so. And the article is a positive contribution to Wikipedia.

You have discredited the table I tried to post, (a) because someone else posted it for me (b) because it is not necessary (c) because it utilizes a Masters thesis and (d) because it is self-promoting. If there’s a problem with someone else posting something because I don’t know how to do it, then please allow me the opportunity to try to do it myself. The table is necessary to document the contents of the publication, to provide access to them, and to facilitate the use of existing resources, such as the cited website at INHA – resources which are practically useless without it, in fact. We discussed the exceptional Masters thesis when you accepted the article. If good enough for the RA, the BnF, and the Fondation Custodia in Paris, why not Wikipedia? If not good enough for Wikipedia, then shouldn’t you trash the article which also utilizes it? Do you really find my use of references to the Masters thesis to be self-promoting? – or is this merely a way for you to avoid dealing with a subject about which you simply don’t want to have to deal with positive information? Am I permitted to use the thesis, as was the case with the article, and not cite it? In noting a concordance between the thesis and the INHA website, aren’t I actually showing scholarly deference? I believe you can show more consideration ... George-Amherst (talk) 00:18, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Please see also the posting 26 January on this page: "And why is this masters thesis so different from others? To begin with, it is the only cited reference for further information in the library cataloguing of the Musée français at the Royal Academy in London, as noted in the article, and also in the catalogue of the National Library of France: ; likewise, it is noted at the head of all other references in the art historical resource begun by Fritz Lugt in the 1920’s and continued today by the Fondation Custodia, Les Marques de collections de dessins et d’estampes .  If good enough for these institutions, why would Wikipedia have problems with it?  Evidently, the thesis is regarded as important for understanding and consulting the publication. The thesis’ circulation in recent scholarship is more difficult to trace – two important recent examples in English: Sarah Betzer, “Ingres Shadows,” Art Bulletin, 95 (2013): 78-101 (“instrumental to my discussion”); and Susanne Anderson-Riedel, “A French Raphael ...” Art in print, 6 (May-June 2016), pp. 17-30. Also, it is referenced, of course, in McKee’s additional publications on the subject in the Revue de l’art (no. 98) (the officially sponsored successor to the Gazette de Beaux-Arts for authoritative discussion of French Art History) and the Revue du Louvre (déc. 1995) (the official scholarly outlet of the National Museums of France)." George-Amherst (talk) 00:55, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Template:Justlettersandnumbers Template:Theroadislong One of your colleagues doesn't seem to like my reference to the publication of Portalis and Beraldi in note 3 -- and removed it. Why? And why no explanation? Why this persecution? George-Amherst (talk) 03:04, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I see no consensus to include the table, which has been added to the article again. As far as I can see, only one user, with an apparent COI, has supported including this table. @George-Amherst, if you really believe you have a policy-based rationale for including the table, present it here, or take the steps outlined at WP:DR. Policy-based rationales do not include "it's hard to find this information elsewhere" or "other websites are incomplete unless this information is on Wikipedia". CodeTalker (talk) 02:58, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 * In view of the skepticism expressed toward the initial posting the article of the Musée français, it is not surprising the documentary elaboration contained in this table would be questioned.  It is justified by the content of the article, the claims made of the publication when it appeared, the infatuation it inspired in the immediately following generations, its influence in establishing an Art Historical canon, and its innumerable important artistic contributors in works which are not generally recognized – or even known of --- today and which it seems to me to be the purpose of an encyclopedic resource such as Wikipedia to establish and represent in fact.  My supposition has been that the anglophone version of this resource aspires to knowledge beyond the historical limitations of modern anglophone culture. Perhaps, instead, the table should appear in the francophone version of the article, a translation which has occurred and been posted without my prompting, independently of my so-called self-interest. Incidentally, please consider, if it is not already evident to you, that each of these 503 engravings now circulates as an independent art work, framed or unframed, in antique shops and flee markets, or in museum exhibitions ... Wikipedia can contribute to their identification or remain indifferent to it.George-Amherst (talk) 18:15, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia should absolutely remain indifferent to helping collectors identify pictures, that is not part of Wikipedias remit. Theroadislong (talk) 18:48, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's purpose is to summarize what reliable sources have previously published. It's purpose is definitely not to publish information that is unavailable elsewhere. If you believe that it would be useful for some people to have a resource that doesn't fit into this paradigm, you are of course free to publish it somewhere else. Wikipedia is not the only website on the Internet. You can start a website or blog and publish anything you want there. CodeTalker (talk) 19:24, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 * "To summarize what reliable sources have previously published" is precisely what this table does.. And what are the "reliable sources"? Well, of course, having read the presentation, you wouldn't need to be told this information, right?  The British Museum catalogue, the INHA website, Weissert's book, Mckee's widely cited thesis.  Also, the legal deposit record in Paris and the ournal La Bibliographie de la France.  Not to mention ... and other secondary srouces mentioned in passing in the article itself, which you've also bothered to read, right?
 * It is really discouraging to try to participate in a project which is so indifferently monitored. Previously, I believe you mentioned that the table seemed to lack "documentation."  FYI, the table IS documentation.  I don't understand why you presume even to comment on a subject of which you have shown so little interest or knowledge, let alone to condemn the entire presnetation.  It is certainly odd.  George-Amherst (talk) 18:07, 9 March 2023 (UTC)