Talk:The Embrace

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Embrace article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

A fact from The Embrace appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 16 March 2023 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that The Embrace, a monument to Martin Luther King Jr. and Coretta Scott King, was deemed phallic?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2023/March. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Embrace.

Wikipedia

Sculpture

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sculpture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sculpture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SculptureWikipedia:WikiProject SculptureTemplate:WikiProject Sculpturesculpture articles

United States: Massachusetts / Boston Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Massachusetts portal This article is supported by WikiProject Massachusetts.
	Massachusetts portal This article is supported by WikiProject Massachusetts - Boston.

Visual arts: Public art

	Visual arts portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts articles
	This article is supported by the public art task force.

Daily pageviews of this article

A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

Independent art critics?[edit]

Can anyone find reviews of this sculpture by independent art critics? (That is, professional critics who were not involved in commissioning the statue nor associated with the artist.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:48, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not so far, but here is a newspaper article that is less one-sided than the ones quoted in the article. https://www.bostonglobe.com/2023/01/16/metro/marveling-embrace-bostonians-celebrate-superhero-martin-luther-king-jr-day/ Dirca palustris (talk) 02:24, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mention of "penis" resemblance in "Reception"?[edit]

Various sources (as well as plenty of online discourse, but I know we stick with reliable sources) mention people have compared the statue from certain angles to a penis. 2803:4600:1116:12E7:250F:EC4F:BDAF:438E (talk) 20:32, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Responses mostly negative, mixed, or too soon to say?[edit]

From here, I'd say it's mostly negative. Especially on Black Twitter and in Black media. The criticism is frank and brutal. Almost no one is liking this thing. The King Center is totally silent. I guess the wording here is going to shift over the coming days and weeks, depending on spin control and who gets the shiniest sources to say what. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 22:47, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should stay mixed for now, simply because we are not far enough away from the raft of positive reviews in big outlets. Several art critics did like it, and a handful of members of the King family did speak positively about it. Unless a tranche of really positive reviews come out in the next few weeks though, then it should change to negative, but should probably have some clarifying language re: the split in the extended King family. But I doubt those reviews will come (and if they do, they would likely be inorganic, mostly focused on the conceptual aspects of the work, framed around "public backlash as censorship," and probably written thanks to some big string-pulling from his gallerists). 19h00s (talk) 22:57, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK taking back my first point about critics, even the Times piece is written by a news staffer. Yeah it's getting panned, I'm with y'all on the wording. 19h00s (talk) 23:03, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, what "handful" of the family? One of the couple's children, and his teenage kid attended. That's it, afaik. Unless I've missed something, loud silence from the rest of the family, notably from Bernice King, the couple's daughter who inherited the leadership of the King Center from Coretta Scott King. I just find this whole thing sad and disturbing. Like, why didn't anyone step up during the process... (sorry, won't derail any more). - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 23:09, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Truth be told I just considered two people to be a handful but I guess that is in fact only two people. My numerical failings aside though, I can't help but agree with you there, even if it is a derailing conversation to get into the emotions of it all.

A contextually important note for the coming weeks though, as reviews do come in/reactions come out from the art world and beyond: Thomas just joined Pace, which is going to be working overtime on narrative control: ArtNews --19h00s (talk) 00:06, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was physically at the Embrace on Memorial Day and I didn't encounter any negative opinions from the crowds going through and taking photos. I will admit that it looks much better in person than it appears in photographs. But it's a wonderful statue in person and a joy to walk through. The last sentence of the first paragraph is unwarranted based on my first-hand experiences on site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FB91:F6C:41C0:55B1:FCFD:D9D6:FD2B (talk) 01:58, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination[edit]

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 Cielquiparle (talk) 12:57, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that The Embrace, a monument to Martin Luther King Jr. and Coretta Scott King, was deemed phallic? Source: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jan/19/martin-luther-king-sculptor-boston-hank-willis-thomas/
- Reviewed:

Created by MagicatthemovieS (talk) and Another Believer (talk). Nominated by MagicatthemovieS (talk) at 15:50, 18 January 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Article is new, long enough, well sourced. Hook is short enough, and appropriately "surprising" to gain attention. Article just needs a little work to check that citations match statements, e.g. the Boston Globe source does not seem to support the preceding statement about walking under the arms of the sculpture. – Fayenatic London 16:57, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I removed that sentence.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 23:35, 18 January 2023 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS[reply]
  - Ummm, I don't love that we're using Newsweek and the New York Post as reliable sources here? I don't think we should be trusting them for American social politics... theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 00:49, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - Are these sources banned on this website?MagicatthemovieS (talk) 04:33, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      - WP:RSP may be of interest here, specifically the mentions about Newsweek and the New York Post. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 07:27, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        There are several reputable sources cited in the article that relay the exact same information. It would be pretty easy to just swap the sources. 19h00s (talk) 18:17, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
MagicatthemovieS, status update? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 00:46, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I removed the inflammatory sources except for the one place I felt Newsweek was needed. is that alright?MagicatthemovieS (talk) 03:30, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - @MagicatthemovieS: where did you feel it was needed? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 21:21, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - The first sentence of the "Reception" section.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 21:23, 9 February 2023 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS[reply]
      - Oh my – I'm fairly sure that Newsweek is not a reliable enough source to make those assertions. See WP:DUE. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 21:28, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        Are you aware of a better article I can use?MagicatthemovieS (talk) 21:30, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        @MagicatthemovieS: it's better that the content not be in the article than rely on that source. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 21:57, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        So you are unaware of a better source with the same info?MagicatthemovieS (talk) 21:58, 9 February 2023 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS[reply]
        I'm not going looking, it's not my article – it's on you to either find a better source or cut the info. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 22:20, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        Fixed.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 03:35, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        @MagicatthemovieS: and the New York Post? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 10:17, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        RemovedMagicatthemovieS (talk) 16:40, 13 February 2023 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS[reply]
Coolcool. Back to you, Fayenatic london! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 23:21, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Apologies for the delay, as it would have been timely to release this sooner. (I had not realised that it was down to me to follow up after my initial assessment, and was assuming that another DYK regular would follow up this nomination before now.) I have reviewed the current version of the article, removed one factoid that I did not find cited, moved a couple of sentences, and reused a citation. I cannot access all the sources in the UK, but accept in good faith that they now support the adjacent statements. As far as I am concerned, this is now OK to go ahead. – Fayenatic London 15:38, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Guardian Interview with Thomas & Seneca Scott[edit]

The artist, along with Seneca Scott, were interviewed by The Guardian this week, their answers definitely complicate a bit of the narrative. Don't know how this should be incorporated, flagging for review. Article 19h00s (talk) 17:52, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Improved image for The Embrace[edit]

I noticed that the image for this article is perhaps unnecessarily dark and pixelated. While still following fair-use procedure, I believe that this image could provide a meaningful improvement to the article. Tyxcho (talk) 15:40, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's a kinder angle, as well. I would support, um, swapping their positions in the article. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 00:01, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I have changed the image from the Wikimedia version (due to be deleted as it is a non-free image) to the Wikipedia version (allowed under fair use). Tyxcho (talk) 12:59, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why only arms?[edit]

The article rightly includes criticism of the sculpture being of arms only, but doesn't say why the unusual decision to make the statue that way was reached. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 12:36, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weight[edit]

weight listed under weight is 400000 lbs. Under description it says 19 tons. 19 tons ≠ 400000 lbs 2601:197:B80:33F0:FCCE:D55F:8B78:7225 (talk) 13:22, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so change the weight and cite a source! 19h00s (talk) 14:15, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]