User talk:Bgillesp/Stuart Prince (French portrait)

Neutrality
This looks like an essay arguing in favour of a particular identification of the portrait. StAnselm (talk) 01:19, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I have made modifications to the text to remove bias.

Further references are to be made to documentary research, which is ongoing, but far from complete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bgillesp (talk • contribs) 07:48, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

29/8/2012 Article considerably shortened and all polemic issues removed. Only factual information kept. Should meet guidelines now. Possibly shall link to an external web page containing research details-to be created. '''If OK please now remove page comments. Thank you.'Italic text'' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.224.8.57 (talk) 08:23, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Why does this page not meet guidelines? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.30.240.41 (talk) 07:12, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Please explain which elements do not now meet guidelines, and we shall correct them. Thank you.
 * The page is a lot better - it might be easier if I just tag the individual statements that I see left. StAnselm (talk) 07:31, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Super: thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bgillesp (talk • contribs) 07:33, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for this; I shall make changes to the text and add references. However, some of the statements you have marked are based on e-mail correspondence with a recognised expert, who is cited below as an author. I cannot reasonably publish our e-mails. So what do I do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bgillesp (talk • contribs) 07:54, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Email correspondence is not allowed on wikipedia. If this author has published the material, you cite the published material - if he or she has not, then you must not include it in the article. See Identifying reliable sources and No original research. I must say, I was wondering who it was that thought the painting was of BPC. StAnselm (talk) 08:05, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I think the structure of the article needs to be as follows: I don't think we need the historical context. Do we have any published sources concerning the identity of the sitter? Do we have any evidence anywhere of what the painting has been called? StAnselm (talk) 08:39, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Lead: Bonnie Prince Charlie is an 18th century portrait that is currently in the __________. Although the identity of the sitter is unknown, Professor X has suggested that it is Bonnie Prince Charlies, due to ______________ and _____________.
 * Features: Here we have the undisputed facts of the painting, such as physical features. E. g. "The frame appears to be of cherry wood gilded with a recurring tête-bêche, ermine motif." Also, a bit about The Order of the Holy Spirit.
 * Bonnie Prince Charlie hypothesis

I propose to change the structure last as it's a big job and we need to sort out the content first. I have no agreement from the expert who has helped us through the analysis to quote his name, however his authoritativeness is absolutely not in question and material to the content of the article. In to-day's correction, the French expert is cited and a link is made to the internet document where he claims a Suart Prince. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bgillesp (talk • contribs) 08:53, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Right. I would say that without the name of the expert, and a published source, there is no hope for this article. StAnselm (talk) 08:56, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

For the published source: http://www.aguttes.com/flash/index.jsp?id=13422&idCp=78&lng=fr Lot 29 Bgillesp (talk) 09:55, 5 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bgillesp (talk • contribs) 09:08, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

The expert who claims that this is a Stuart Prince is Stéphane Pinta of "Cabinet Turquin:" http://www.turquin.fr/ — Bgillesp (talk) 09:55, 5 September 2012 (UTC)Preceding unsigned comment added by Bgillesp (talk • contribs) 09:38, 5 September 2012 (UTC) I shall amend the article to quote this source.Bgillesp (talk) 09:55, 5 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bgillesp (talk • contribs) 09:41, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Extensive rewrite: should meet all guidelines.Bgillesp (talk) 14:24, 5 September 2012 (UTC)