Talk:Scuola Grande di San Giovanni Evangelista

Relics
Could do with some input from Vendramin. The Scuola still have the reliquary I think - someone does. Whatever Mr McGregor says, sects and confraternities are not hard to distinguish from each other, with the scuoli clearly the latter. Johnbod (talk) 00:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Johnbod, thanks for your input and comments. I'm certainly looking to further develop this article, particularly once I get access to further offline sources. The scoula does still house the relic (in the Oratory) but perhaps the text should make that clearer. I'll also look at incorporating some Vendramin information - thanks for highlighting it. Nick Ottery (talk) 10:07, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality
I find the neutrality of the Scuola Grande di San Giovanni Evangelista rather doubtful now. It claims as fact that a "relic of the true cross" brought the scuola prosperity--a rather extraordinary claim--and that this cross hovered over the water. It may be true that it is referenced--I have not seen the original source--but surely the law of gravity is also referenced. Ucucha 15:03, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * There is nothing extraordinary about the prestige of the relic bringing in wealthy and powerful members to the confraternity, with their donations and bequests - that is how these things work. As to the miracle, it is as well documented as anything in 14th century Venice, and I don't think the text as it stood (copied from Vendramin in fact, which I should have said, where it has been for ages without objection) amounts to an endorsement of the factual nature, but I have added an "according to ...". This should be at article talk, where I will copy it.  Johnbod (talk) 16:57, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. Yes, there are two possible interpretations of that sentence--one is that the relic itself in some magical way brought about the scuola's prosperity, the other that the prestige associated with its presence was the cause. The second interpretation is the more conservative one; perhaps the relevant sentence should be rephrased to make clear that that is intended?
 * I have no further problems with the "Miracle" section. Ucucha 17:18, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, apologies Ucucha, the second interpretation of the sentence is the one I (based on the source) was after! I'll tweak it to expand upon that meaning. Thanks for taking a look at it for DYK.
 * I'm also tweaking the Miracle section - firstly I don't think it fits in Interior and secondly some of it doesn't really make sense, nor does it gel with the rest of the article as it stands. Any comments on the changes or further tweaks are more than welcome. Nick Ottery (talk) 17:37, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec) I have added "bringing in wealthy and powerful members to the confraternity, with their donations and bequests", before the ref, which I have not seen, but I hope is consistent with it. Nick O, perhaps you could kindly confirm? Johnbod (talk) 17:39, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the further fixes. Johnbod, I like your rephrasing of the sentence (although it should of course be consistent with the ref). Great to see the article improve now. Ucucha 17:44, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the account of the miracle should come somewhere before the list of paintings, some of which depict it - then the reader of the list will know what is meant by the titles instread of finding out later. Perhaps the history section is the most logical place? The miracles also contributed to the prestige of the schuola. Johnbod (talk) 17:45, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed - I've started to incorporate the miracle section into the history section. I think we also need to explain the relevance of the Titian painting now shown in that section. Nick Ottery (talk) 18:03, 20 December 2009 (UTC)