Talk:Military art

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Definition[edit]

There does not seem to be a solid definition for "Military art" other than it is another name for Military science[1]. Since this seems to be a modern neologism for a whole field of military themed art I have tagged it as such. The article was expanded recently with a series of un-referenced sections that seem to describe War art, history painting, and a few thing in between[2]. I have rm'ed it for future restoration with reference. Ohioartdude2 (talk) 15:17, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The term is not a neologism. For example, a citation showing its usage in 1861 was found:
"British painters have never fully grappled with military art, they have only hovered around the edges, touching and trimming. -- William Michael Rossetti<;ref>Hichberger, pp. 68-69., p. 68, at Google Books</ref>
I did not find "military art" in in the "M" section of my 1933 OED; but that doesn't mean the term is undefined. In any case, Ohioartdude2's use of the phrase "military themed art" is a good step in a constructive direction. --Tenmei (talk) 19:35, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the current version of this article here, the following notes are explicitly on-point:
  • 4. ^ Sullivan, A.E. (1958). "Military Art and Artists," Army Quarterly and Defence Journal, Vol. 76-77, pp. 235-236; excerpt, "A collaborator of Detaille, and like him a specialist in military art, was Alphonse de Neuville (1836-1885), who made his debut at the Salon in 1859 with a scene showing a French battery at Sebastapol."
  • 13. ^ Paret, Peter (1997). Imagined Battles. Reflections of War in European Art, p. 85. at Google Books, citing Charles Baudelaire. (1992). "The Salon of 1859," Selected Writings on Art and Literature, trans. P. E. Charvet, pp. 295, 297; excerpt, "In a section preceeding the discussion of military art in his articles on the Salon of 1859, Baudelaire discussed the advent of photography and its impact on art."
  • 14. ^ Hichberger, pp. 68-69. at Google Books; the term military art is not a neologism

Published work incorporating term "military art"[edit]

WP:V simplifies the issue at hand. It bears repeating that "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true."

Is it not self-evident that the appropriateness of an article about military art is validated by the books which incorporate the term "military art" in the title, e.g.,

  • Binek, Lynn K. and Walter A Van Horn. (1989). Drawing the Lines of Battle : Military Art of World War II Alaska. Anchorage, Alaska: Anchorage Museum of History and Art. OCLC 20830388
  • Huntingford, N. P. C. (1986). A Selection of South African Military Art, 1939-1945, 1975-1985. Pretoria : Military Art Advisory Board, Defence Headquarters. OCLC 79317946; also, please note that Huntingford's book was published by a public agency which incorporated the term "military art" in its official title.

I hope this short list helps to sharpen issues which may need further development. --Tenmei (talk) 16:56, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Problematic edits[edit]

A. It is difficult to discern a justification for Ohioartdude2 edit here (January 28, 2010).

Look up disingenuous in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

B. It is disingenuous to note in an edit summary that this article is unreferenced when the references were in fact deleted only the day before here (January 27, 2010).

C. There is no context in which it is justified to remove inline citations with an embedded link to the online text of a book, e.g.,

Military art is a sub genre of art that depicts (usually realistic) war and military subjects. The works cover a broad range of subject matter and styles and include painting (as a sub-type of history painting),<:ref>J. W. M. Hichberger, Images of the Army: The Military in British Art, 1815-1914, page 12</ref> sculpture, and other artistic media.

D. Other inline citations were also deleted here (January 27, 2010), e.g.,

The works cover a broad range of subject matter including first hand or historical documentation of battles, memorial art, war protest, and propaganda art.<:ref>Laura Brandon, Art and war, page 3</ref>. Military art as an art historical genre is defined by subject matter it depicts rather any styles or materials used.<:ref>Laura Brandon, Art and war, page 4</ref>

E. No rationale is presented which explains removing the following external links:

  • Army art of World War I. U.S. Army Center of Military History : Smithsonian Institution, National Museum of American History. 1993.Prints available online through the Washington State Library's Classics in Washington History collection
  • War Art, 1500 New Zealand art works online

Summary restatement: The growth of Military art article will be better served if the deleted text and references are restored; and this can become the subject of a talk page discussion. --Tenmei (talk) 20:52, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sentences which were removed from the restored text include:
With appropriate citation support, there is no reason that these sentences could not be tweaked and restored to the article. --Tenmei (talk) 04:22, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Re these edits - I would note that the first definition sentence in this article is not supported by the reference it cites[3] and we are going down hill from there. The rest of the introduction to this article is WP:OR, for the most part Wikipedia:Synthesis. ref #2 is about War art, not Military art[4]. Dito for ref #3[5]. Ref #4 does not support its statement, nether subject is mentioned by name or defined and the reference is not a reliable source[6]. Ref #5 has the same problem. Ref #6 is strictly original research - it is direct observation of a painting, not a quote from any reliable source[7]. If no reliable sources are found for these statements I will probably revert the article to its stub form.Ohioartdude2 (talk) 20:38, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In this context, blanket reverts are disfavored. Talk page discussion offers a better path towards consensus. --Tenmei (talk) 22:27, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but we are 16 paragraphs re:this version before we get past direct observation of source material i.e. WP:OR. That's just too much. We have the version at that link if we want to reference back to it but this isn't even close to WP:V and am reverting it as such. This is a case for WP:PROVEIT before it can be added again. Ohioartdude2 (talk) 22:48, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I liked the direction those edits were going; but as he says, you can't do your own research, there have to be sources that are already saying this. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 23:45, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Summary deletions[edit]

There is no explanation for the summary deletions which are questioned in the beginning of this thread. If Ohioartdude2 were more forthcoming, we would have a better foundation from which to build. --Tenmei (talk) 09:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently you don't read talk pages. Try reading WP:V. Ohioartdude2 (talk) 23:48, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what you mean. I'm trying to construe these words in relation to your deletions in January? Please help me understand your point of view. Perhaps if I understood what you were thinking earlier in the year, it would aid me in finding some points of agreement? --Tenmei (talk) 04:00, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
These two sentences were ironic or sarcastic. Neither are helpful; and the only correct response is no response.
However, in this instance, a non-response will not lead towards a constructive end to disagreement.
Without intending to be provocative, nor confrontational, nor inflammatory, I wonder if one or more of the following questions may be on-point? These questions are paraphrases of text at Wikipedia:Disruptive editing.
Signs of disruptive editing?
  • Is it arguably shown that Ohioartdude2 continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from one or more other editors?
  • Tendentious editing does not consist only of adding material.
  • A variant of tendentious editing involves engaging in disruptive deletions.
  • Is it arguably shown that Ohioartdude2 repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits?
  • Is it arguably revealed that Ohioartdude2 repeatedly disregards other editors' explanations for their edits?
  • Is it arguably demonstrated that Ohioartdude2 resists requests for comment?
  • Is it arguably possible that Ohioartdude2 exhausts the patience of productive rule-abiding editors?
In sum, my two sentences beg the question, "If not, why not?"
  1. There is no explanation for the summary deletions which are questioned in the beginning of this thread.
  2. If Ohioartdude2 were more forthcoming, we would have a better foundation from which to build.
What's next? --Tenmei (talk) 15:25, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per your voluminous post I will try to give simple answers. I am not being flippant. You need to read talk pages and understand Wikipedia policy.
  • TALK PAGES:User Pharring put up an unreferenced article[8] making it essentially an essay. User Pharring has gone dormant as an editor, and with no reply and no forthcoming references[9] I removed the essay to talk[10].
  • WIKIPEDIA POLICY:Per whats wrong I will point out a few problems in editing style since you seem to be asking me directly. Your edits seem to show a miss-understand of the basic premise of Wikipedia. You have posted large sections of talk trying to establish a definition, content, and scope of article topics. Wikipedia editors do not establish definition, content, or scope, those are already established by published reliable secondary sources that specifically outline definition, content, scope of a topic. If there are few or no published reliable secondary sources that specifically outline definition, content, or scope directly related to a topic it is a sign that the topic may not be encyclopedic. The current lead of this article points to the other problem[11]. "is a term" - Wikipedia does not define terms, that is the job of a dictionary WP:NOTDICDEF. If this is a term then the article needs to be moved to the Wiktionary. We establish that artist A, B, and C produced military themed art (probably don't need to cite that) and a ref that they exhibited in a salon. None of this supports the statement "established military genre". Nowhere in the intro is the definition of "Military art" ever referenced.
Will, as always, put up modifications with justifications in the near future. Ohioartdude2 (talk) 16:36, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for these thoughtful comments. This diff deserves an immediate acknowledgment. Your words do provide a better foundation from which to build.

Please allow me some time do develop an similarly thoughtful responsive comment. --Tenmei (talk) 20:13, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Restoration[edit]

Restatement. It bears repeating in this context that blanket reverts are disfavored. Talk page discussion offers a better path towards consensus.

This article includes 31 specific inline citations and 38 bibligraphic reference citations -- far too many to be summarily dismissed with cursory derision. Full discussion will create conditions which lead to the improvement of this article. --Tenmei 10:22, 10 August 2010

Bayeux tapestry[edit]

This sub-section has been moved from User talk:Jmh649#Bayeux tapestry. This content-related material belongs in a venue where a range of interested editors can contribute in a process consensus-building. It was out-of-place there.

The words in the sentence drafted by Pharring in January here are unchanged. This sentence was fine when it was first posted. The words were fine when the sentence was deleted without explanation by Ohioartdude2 in January. The sentence was still okay when I restored it the first time; and the words stand unedited as I restore them yet again today.

As a nod to Ohioartdude2, I added a citation to the restored Pharring sentence. Frankly, I don't understand Ohioartdude2's complaint. The UNESCO source has been expanded with more words; but this kind of extreme specificity is non-standard, e.g.,

"For example, the Bayeux Tapestry is a linear panoramic narrative of the events surrounding the Norman Conquest and the Battle of Hastings in 1066."
Inline citation support>>>UNESCO, Bayeaux tapestry, Nomination Form, p. 4; excerpt,"... it is an established fact that it recounts a military triumph: the conquest of England by William the Conqueror"; Nomination Form, pp. 5-6; excerpt, "This large-scale textile work of the 11th century is, to our knowledge, the only one of its kind to have survived to the present day. The Tapestry is an almost contemporary visual record of the event it depicts, one of the most significant events of Medieval times. It tells of the beginnings of the Norman Conquest; the landing of Norman and French troops in England and the Battle of Hastings"</ref>

Why was it necessary or reasonable for me to pick out these specific sentences from the site?

This expanded explanation of a single inline citation is a gesture which may help us move towards consensus. It is also an object lesson in the value of discussion. There are 30 other inline citations and there are 38 bibliographic reference source citations; and this is only one illustrative example.

I hope this is interpreted as a demonstration of something constructive? --Tenmei (talk) 01:35, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Pharring sentence[edit]

This sub-thread can become a "roadmap" to consensus. This sub-thread is devoted exclusively to a single sentence written by Pharring. From an objective point-of-view, there is potentially helpful text at Wikipedia:Tendentious editing#How to pull back from the brink.

FACT: Ohioartdude2 rejects each and every sentence written by Pharring.

Paraphrasing a pattern of words which have been endorsed by consensus: I observe that Ohioartdude2 finds something problematic about all the diffs of Pharring.

  • A. This causes me to ask a direct question in an open and non-confrontational way.
Ohioartdude2 -- According to UNESCO, the following is the case: "... the Bayeux Tapestry is a linear panoramic narrative of the events surrounding the Norman Conquest and the Battle of Hastings in 1066." You have disputed this sentence. How do you think we should express this assertion?
  • B. Ohioartdude2's reply to this explicit question may clarify that the problem is simply one of ambiguity or phrasing.
  • C. Ohioartdude2 reply may reveal that we have a hill to climb and that we will need to work together with other editors to find a compromise.

Do we not agree that the goal is to develop compromise text which will be defended by all parties and is far less likely to be skewed by future edits? --Tenmei (talk) 15:25, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lieutenant-General Mateparae[edit]

This sub-section has been moved from User talk:Jmh649#Lieutenant General Mateparae. This content-related material belongs in a venue where a range of interested editors can contribute in a process consensus-building. It was out-of-place there.

This thread mentions a perceived problem with citing the official portrait of the top military officer in New Zealand. This is the disputed sentence with its inline citation support:

"For example, the official New Zealand army artist Matthew Gauldie created an portrait of Lieutenant-General Jerry Mateparae which depicts the Chief of the New Zealand Defence Force holding a Maori hand club."
Inline citation support>>>New Zealand Army, Chief of Defence Force. OH-08-0146-31.jpg</ref>

Please note that this is a New Zealand Army official website, and the hyperlink to this portrait is posted in the official Army Artist webpage of that website. I don't understand the problem in providing a hyperlink to a painting as support for a sentence describing the painting; but setting that aside for the moment, the specific sentence above is unclear, e.g.,

"I was referring to this edit[12] which added a statement of fact to the article intro but quoted no reliable secondary source, it simply went to a JPG image of an officer holding a Maori hand club."

Ohioartdude2 sentence neglects to acknowledge that this is an official New Zealand goverment website as contrasted, for example, with a Google image search page. To me, the fact that the nature of the website was unmentioned is not a trivial oversight. If there were a legitimate question, it not been tagged ... or perhaps a note on my talk page could have been posted?

One other factor cannot be ignored. The fact of the matter is that Wikipedia has an Anglo-American bias because of the demographic cohort which makes up its editors. The addition of a New Zealand illustrative example in the introduction of this article has a value which needs to be acknowledged. Also, as it happens, Lieutenant General Mateparae is the first Maori to be elevated to New Zealand's highest military office. This was a good editing decision on many levels; and it did not deserve derision or deletion.

It bears repeating that this expanded explanation of a two inline citations is a gesture which may help us move towards consensus. I hope this is interpreted as a something constructive? --Tenmei (talk) 01:35, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Tenmei sentence[edit]

This sub-thread can become a "roadmap" to consensus. This sub-thread is devoted exclusively to a single sentence written by me. From an objective point-of-view, there is potentially helpful text at Wikipedia:Tendentious editing#How to pull back from the brink.

FACT: Ohioartdude2 rejects each and every sentence written by me.

Paraphrasing a pattern of words which have been endorsed by consensus: I observe that Ohioartdude2 finds something problematic about all the diffs of mine.

  • A. This causes me to ask a direct question in an open and non-confrontational way.
Ohioartdude2 -- According to the New Zealand Army official website, the following is the case: "... the official New Zealand army artist Matthew Gauldie created an portrait of Lieutenant-General Jerry Mateparae which depicts the Chief of the New Zealand Defence Force holding a Maori hand club." You have disputed its addition. How do you think we should express this assertion?
  • B. Ohioartdude2's reply to this explicit question may clarify that the problem is simply one of ambiguity of phrasing.
  • C. Ohioartdude2 reply may reveal that we have a hill to climb and that we will need to work together with other editors to find a compromise.

Do we not agree that the goal is to develop compromise text which will be defended by all parties and is far less likely to be skewed by future edits? --Tenmei (talk) 15:25, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal[edit]

Diagram: The topic of War art is a sub-set of Military art.
  A: War art is a limited subject area
  B: Military art encompasses a comprehensive subject matter
  • Oppose -- Reasons for separate articles are:
A. The scholarly work which informs each of these articles use these specific terms -- some use the term Military art (see here) and some use the term War art (see here). Regardless of the reasons for the choices made by those whose published work becomes our reliable sources, the fact-of-the matter is that this is the explicit choice they have made. As a matter of general policy, our project follows the decision-making of those published writers who are considered experts. For this reason, the existence of two articles is justified. In other words, WP:V + WP:RS informs my opposition to the proposed change.
B. "Military art" is more broadly inclusive than "war art". For example, the humanitarian assistance offered by the US military after the earthquake and tsunami in Japan is a non-war mission. Another example which comes to mind is military portraiture which honor naval officers whose careers are distinguished by service outside the theatres of war. In other words, "war art" is a specific sub-set of "military art" -- see graphic at right.
C. The term "War artist" (and the corollary Australian official war artists, British official war artists, Canadian official war artists, etc.) also suggest that the context provided by a "war art" article is likely to be perceived as useful.
These are arguably relevant factors which are worth considering, and there may be other reasons for maintaining two articles on related, but distinct subjects. --Tenmei 19:18, 19 March 2011

As a context, it may be helpful to notice that opposition to the proposed merge is consistent with the editorial judgment of those responsible for the Oxford Companion to Military History, e.g., compare Julian Freeman, "War art," and Richard Woodward, "Military artists," in an online version of that book. --Tenmei (talk) 18:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously "War art" would continue to redirect here. The fact that there are two alternative terms is not a reason to have two articles, if the subject is the same. War art in fact goes out of its way to be inclusive, both historically and in terms of military activity, though excluding portraits I agree. It begins: "War art is considered a genre of art.[1] It is characterized by war, military subjects and war activities....", which would do almost equally well to define "Military art". In fact the major distinction between the two terms is one of date, as the 2nd para here explains - the term war artist was coined during WWI and war art followed as a term for art of that war, and then generally what war artists do. Previously the terms were "military art" and "battle painting" etc, and these continue to be the usual terms for older art. But neither article makes these, nor any adequate distinction between the two. "War art" is very short & pretty scrappy, & there is no reason to keep it separate. I would have no objection to a decent separate article on say Art of World War I or WWII, or even 20th century war art. But at present the very vague and short content does not justify a different article; the article text does not mention a single artist! I should add that Grove Art Online, the best and largest encyclopedia on art, now online, has only one article on the/either subject, called "Battle pictures and military scenes".
As regards argument C, normally "Foo artist" should either go to a "List of Foo artists", or redirect to "Foo art" as eg landscape artist does. In this case, because there are "official war artists" I agree a separate, listy, article is justified. But that does not affect the issue here. Johnbod (talk) 17:24, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On a further point, the whole concept of "war" is nowadays difficult - depending on how you look at it the US & UK have both been at "war" for either all of, or none of, the last 20 years. I see the US military seem to have switched from having "war artists" to "combat artists", presumably for just this reason, even though they rarely depict "combat" in the simplest sense nowadays. This actually takes us back to the situation of some centuries ago, both in the sense that much fighting then was not actually "war", but also in that military art that is not battle scenes stretches pretty seamlessly between scenes that definitely show war to ones that definitely don't, with a large middle ground where you can't actually tell - groups of soldiers marching, sitting around camp etc. When, as is usually the case in older art, there is no clear information as to the date, place etc, you can't hope to divide these into war and not-war. Johnbod (talk) 16:50, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Military art can be non-war-related, such as a sketch of a basic training scene. War art can be absent of military context, such as a civilian's rendering of a scene of destruction. Binksternet (talk) 02:53, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The first statement is correct, but "a scene of destruction" has a "military context" surely?? Most military art is by civilians, and much war art. There are no reasons to oppose the merge given here. Johnbod (talk) 04:28, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A sketch by a store owner of looters taking advantage of war confusion. Binksternet (talk) 13:54, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Does it have to be a war, or will a riot do? What if you don't know? Can you reference this distinction? Equally your "sketch of a basic training scene" is clearly war art on all available definitions if it is set during WWII say. The only reference I have seen that distinguishes between the two terms does so purely in terms of date (see above), which I think is actually correct, but not reflected in either article currently. You can't justify two articles like this. Johnbod (talk) 14:13, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fuller rationale In view of the above, I'd better restate the rationale. As Tenmei says above, "war art", however defined, is a subset of the larger topic of "military art" - everyone I think agrees that. So we need to establish if two articles are needed, in terms of the subjects themselves, and the two WP articles we currently have.
  1. A distinction between the two subjects is very hard to make for older art, where artists were less concerned with producing "documentary" images, and it is very often left unclear whether there is an actual war on - a necessary condition for "war art". Usage of the two terms (and "battle painting" and other alternatives) in specialist sources is inconsistent and often seems rather random.
  2. A distinction between the two has also proved very hard to reference to RS - see talk at War art and here; despite a considerable amount of research by various people no clear statement in a RS defining the difference between the two subject has been found, though "war art" is in practice clearly mainly used by RSs of the period from WWI onwards, when there were official "war artists". Avoiding OR attempts to produce a distinction, neither article clearly articulates what the difference is supposed to be between the two subjects, suggesting a merger is appropriate.
  3. In terms of the WP articles, Military art is far longer, and much more specific, than war art, which was historically an offshoot of war artist, which this proposal does not affect.
  4. There is a great deal of overlap between the two at present; the coverage of much of what Tenmei defines as "war art" is in fact already much fuller here.
  5. Combining the articles will therefore give the reader a much better view of the subject, and a continued second article on "war art" is not justified. Johnbod (talk) 13:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Images[edit]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Military art. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:31, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Military art. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:39, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Military_art&oldid=1204005255"