Talk:Romano Romanelli

I am worried the new revisions of this article are downplaying the extensive collaboration by Romanelli with the fascist government.Rococo1700 (talk) 18:26, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

On reversions of copy editing
Toma4 please do not revert without justifying your edits. I will revert those passage that have citations which I added in. If you revert those, then we may have to open discussion elsewhere about this article.Rococo1700 (talk) 06:15, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Revision of introductory paragraphs
The prior version introduced by Toma4 stated:

''Romano Romanelli ... was an Italian artist who excelled as a sculptor but also as a polymath, painter, erudite writer, naval officer, sportsman, intellectual, and socially accomplished. A Renaissance man of his time...Professor Romanelli Romanelli was born in Florence,''
 * Let me start with the easy stuff: Romanelli was not born a Professor. Romanelli was born then became a professor. (don't see your point here, you're not born a president, but when you have achieved that rank you're called President so and so…).
 * Again, it is best to say Abraham Lincoln was born in Kentucky; president Lincoln ran for re-election.


 * The introductory lead should indicate why a person is notable, and I would avoid using the term excelled, since that typically goes with the territory of being notable. Notable sculptors are typically either influential or admired in some way. So one could say he was an artist who was a sculptor, but not excelled as a sculptor. (I think you need to improve the depth of your knowledge here. He was an acclaimed sculptor, with commissions worldwide for the leading personalities of his time, participated in numerous exhibitions, was written about extensively, was a ember of the Fine Arts academy etc…)
 * Again, I refer you to Manual of Style/Words to watch; in the subsection on "peacock words" it states:"''Words such as these are often used without attribution to promote the subject of an article, while neither imparting nor plainly summarizing verifiable information. They are known as 'peacock terms' by Wikipedia contributors. Instead of making unprovable proclamations about a subject's importance, use facts and attribution to demonstrate that importance."


 * I would apply the same criticism to the excess use of titles and words such as "excelled" as a sculptor, when this is the very fact that led him to notability. I would maintain attributes in lead, if they contribute substantially to his notability.


 * I prefer to say he was a sculptor only, and not a painter, since I could find no citations relative to the notability of his paintings. To say he was a painter also, I think is not appropriate, in the same way that I would not say that George W. Bush was a President and a painter. He is not notable for the latter. (There are numerous paintings by him, although he was know as a sculptor and focused on this art form. This is only underlying his talents)
 * I think all sculptors are artists, so there is some redundancy to call him an artist. I tend to use the term artist in categories, when I have works that do not shoehorn well into known artist categories, for example, ribbon making or making statues for a nativity scene.
 * The phrase: A Renaissance man of his time is not appropriate, it is an overused trite hagiographic description. The same applies to the term polymath. Again, that might be true if you could show he had notable contributions in many fields. (hagiographic: were not talking about saints here, only sculptors)
 * To call someone a Renaissance man of his time is the secular equivalent of hagiography. It has no place in this article. Please just the facts.


 * I would delete writer, since I find no evidence he was he a notable author? Michelangelo for example is listed as a poet, but his poetry has generated interest by scholars, and been reprinted. Romanelli's book on sculpture Alcune riflessioni sulla scultura (1930) or his Romanticismo velico: ricordi di guerra, di mare e di caccia (1940) is a title seemingly ebullient about war, and I do not think it echoes with subsequent generations in the same way the writing of Primo Levi after the war have. (HAve you read any of his texts? Seems not, so you maybe should before you comment, or just base your assertions on your feelings)
 * Whether I read them or not, makes no difference, the importance is whether he is notable or not. I am sorry to disappoint you but Wikipedia is not the site to educate others about unknown writers who you (or I) feel have great skill. Again how has his skill impacted the larger world around him, and how can you demonstrably show this by the effects on uninterested third parties..


 * I would delete the naval officer comment? was he a decorated naval officer? It is appropriate to say, for example, that Romanelli served in the navy as an officer, but I would only place this in the lead, if it could have made him notable by itself. (He was decorated by the French, Italian and British…list to come as I update it)
 * Again, the many armies give many medals. I do not think every medal winner is notable enough to have a Wikipedia page. For example, in the United States, Medal of Honor recipients do likely merit Wikipedia pages merely for this award, but, for example, not purple heart recipients (of which there are thousands, given for various reasons). Now if a notable person gains a purple heart, and he has a Wikpedia biography, this is certainly worth noting in his biography. It is always notable in his life, but may not make his life notable in the grander world.


 * I have no idea how you measure "socially accomplished". Does this mean that he sucked up to Mussolini, or that he was a ladies man? Again where can you find citations for all this as notable. Romanelli is mainly notable for his sculpture. I think the lead, as it stands before, distracts from that fact. (It seems that you have an axe to grind… Yes he was socially accomplished, being very close to the Italian royal family, the italian high society, and the leading thinkers of his time) Maybe you should read the letter from Cristina Acidini, Soprintendente per il Patrimonio Storico, Artistico e Etnoantropologico e per il Polo Museale della Città di Firenze l'ha definita: "La rilevanza della donazione è eccezionale, data la posizione che Romanelli e i suoi discendenti occupano nella storia artistica di Firenze e non soltanto. Di padre in figlio i Romanelli hanno portato ad un altissimo livello l'arte della scultura, attraverso innovazioni e perfezionamento dell'abilità tecnica. La loro e la sua storia diventano quindi ad un tempo documento e supporto per la cultura fiorentina tra il XIX ed il XX secolo, intrecciandosi come è naturale, alle vicende ed ai ricordi familiari." (Lettera di ringraziamento del 30 novembre 2012, Prot. 12287-342510)
 * You lose me here. Being friends of the highfalutin is not an act of notability. It can be both famous or infamous, noble or nefarious. My reply is that look at the Wikipedia biographies of 100 "famous" persons of your choosing, then tell me how many of them garner this adjective. Nearly all of them could be said to meet parameters close to your description. Let me give you a contemporary example:"George Timothy Clooney (born May 6, 1961) is an American actor, screenwriter, producer, director, and activist." Now I am sure Clooney has met many world leaders, leading thinkers of his time, and Hollywood society (gee his aunt was Hollywood royalty). But his lead does not say he is socially accomplished whatever that means. Again, in fact this is not an adjective used much in Wikepedia. Finally, you quote a letter from someone thanking the descendants of the artist for a donation. That item of notability maybe belongs in the entry for the collection displaying the items, but it does not quite give unbiased notability to the donor. It is not exactly unbiased.


 * I also object to the highfalutin term "dynasty". I would place this entire idea in the final paragraph. A gallery run by his descendants appears to be a souvenir or antiquarian shop, and thus has little artistic notability. (there again you speak without knowledge, the Gallery is the old family studio originally Bartolini's, a unique repository of sculpture, where to this day, his descendants sculpt portraits and animals, and teach.)
 * To use the roles of that gallery in the lead, seems a little like an advertisement. There is a section called WP:PROMOTION, which heralds the notion that "Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion". To include this notion in the lead has a strong whiff of promotion. Again, saying this was originally Bartolini's has the same value as "Garibaldi slept here" in granting historical notability to a house in Italy.


 * Again, your arguments are not convincing enough. It could be appropriate to highlight his role as professor of the Academy since this was an influential role. Please do understand that I do have an axe to grind, in that I find that there are many prominent figures in Europe from the era between and during the war who strongly collaborated with fascist authorities and ideals, and who subsequently hide that collaboration. If uncovering that veil is an "axe to grind", I am guilty. For example, to say that the "Hercules and the Nemean Lion" statue only hearkens to noble Hellenic sculpture, overlooks the fact that Mussolini self-identified with Hercules, and that during an ambitious colonial expansionist period in Italy's history, this statue replaced that of an Italian patriot for democratic liberal ideals. The subjugation of a sub-human African beast would have meshed well with Mussolini's Abyssinia colonial policy and his dream of Italian subjugation of North East Africa. I think it would benefit Florence if such information were added to this monument, and all others like it, for purposes of transparency. Call that an "axe to grind", I view it more as a truth telling.

(I think you're barking at the wrong tree here and making up stories, this first work for Romanelli was created long before Mussolini was on the horizon, 1906-1910. It is the fruit of Romanelli interest in Classical Sculpture, and passion for the Greek masters of the Hellenic period. He enjoyed the myths and the history of the Magna Grecia tied to a strong and fruitful nature. Artistically fed by Trentacoste and Gemito, and influenced by Hildebrand, he defined this first work as much too difficult for his experience that he almost gave up "but the difficulty was the one that fired me, and made me determined to change life" (from being in the Navy) It was later 1930 purchased for Piazza Ognisanti by a Jewish gentleman Angelo Orvieto, a poet and publisher of a magazine called "Il Marzocco"… so much so for fact based truth telling.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toma4 (talk • contribs) 13:11, 10 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Again, the statue was installed in 1930 by fascist authorities, whether there was a Jewish patron or not, is meaningless since the racial statutes in Italy were not in play till 1938. The identification of Mussolini with Hercules is documented by Karl Meyer in April 1916, in an editorial in the New York Times, stating; Mussolini tended to proclaim bold projects that came to nothing: it was the splash that mattered. He once announced plans for a "Foro Mussolini," bigger than St. Peter's and the Colosseum, to be crowned with a huge bronze of Hercules, his arm raised in a Fascist salute, his face modeled on the Duce's. Also see the medallion for the Fascist Badge 5th V Campo Dux ONB Roma Opera Nazionale Balilla which shows the Duce with the Lion "hoodies", or pelts, used to depict Hercules the conquerer of the Nemean Lion,(also see the Roman Heracles and his child Telephus or Bust of Commodus as Hercules in Capitoline museum). Yes the statue was designed in 1905, but only gained its prominent position with Mussolini. Romanelli's rise to prominence as a fascist sculptor is undeniable.

Rococo1700 (talk) 06:44, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

On descendants of William the Conquerer
I do not believe a link to private geneology is valid confirmation that someone is the descendant, after 800 years of William the Conquerer. By my estimates, if you count 3 generations for century, that would 24 generations in between. While it is possible sometimes to attempt such links, the confirmation, at best many times is tenuous. In addition, do the math. Let us say, that each subsequent generation is twice as big as the prior. That is, that every descendant of William the Conquerer had two surviving children, each then having also two children. Now some would have more, some would have none. But if the math were true, then the 23rd generation would consist of 16 million descendants, almost the entire population of England in the 18th century. Obviously pedigrees are not exactly exponential, but even just 20 generations would be over a million descendants. Regardless, it is difficult to get very good records for the whole of the 11th through 13th centuries, or to trace to 1066. See Tracing Your [English} Ancestors from 1066 to 1837 By Dr Jonathan Oates (http://globalgenealogy.com/countries/england/resources/105063.htm)

I have thus removed again the reference to William the Conquer.Rococo1700 (talk) 03:31, 11 March 2016 (UTC)