Talk:Museo di Capodimonte
|WikiProject Museums||(Rated Start-class, High-importance)|
|Text from Museo di Capodimonte was copied or moved into Palace of Capodimonte with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists.|
I apologize. I thought my statements had been saved when I did my last deletion. I think to say that this entry has two statements that violate neutral point of view.
1) that this is the best collection of Neapolitan art 2) that Neapolitan art is under-appreciated
For the first statement, some other museum might claim they have "better paintings" by Neapolitan artists. I am not saying that many, if not most persons would agree with you; but this happens to be an opinion, regardless of its validity. If you could convert it into a factual statement: "So and So says this is the best collection" and this statement has notability. Or the Neapolitan museum has n (number) of paintings by So and So and So and So, and (footnote), this is more than Prado, Louvre, NGA, Uffizi, etc then you can say its collection is one the largest of masterworks.
The second statement is true but only relative to say Florentine art or Venetian art. And it is only true according to those who think Italian art has more merit, than say the art of Hungary or Nepal or Malawi. There are those that might way that Neapolitan art gets too much attention relative to the art of Inuits. Again it violates NPOV (neutral point of view) and is an opinion. I am not going to change it again. I tend to agree with you within the parameters stated above, but again, I also recognize it is my opinion. CARAVAGGISTI 20:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- Fair enough! I have certainly seen both statements in good sources, & the next time I spot them will change the text to reference them. I think "under-appreciated relative to other Italian schools" is understood - it does not say it is the only, or most, under-appreciated art. Johnbod 20:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Reversion on 28 July 09 to version of 15 July
I think this version is informative and comprehensible, and is better than the machine translation of the Italian page. It might well be worth introducing some of the information from that page, but with some understanding of what it means. I shall try to get round to that at some stage if I am not beaten to it. Grafen (talk) 23:10, 27 July 2009 (UTC)