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.
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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject African diaspora, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of African diaspora 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.
A fact from The Old Plantation appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 23 March 2008, and was viewed approximately 1607 times (disclaimer)(check views). The text of the entry was as follows: "Did you know
Some of the material in these edits looks like it will be useful to add, but unfortunately they remove a lot of cited text and replace it with uncited text. We can discuss how best to work in the new material, but just removing what's already there isn't the way to go.--Cúchullaint/c 18:48, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
A new book was published in late 2010 describing the research the went into the identification of the artist of "The Old Plantation". When I submitted changes all my information came from this book which supercedes all previous research. My changes were overwritten by the old incorrect article. If I footnote each fact to a page in the following book will that be adequate? Or should I use the author's footnotes and document it back to the appropriate manuscript source?
As I said, the problem with your previous edit was that it removed a lot of well-cited information and replace it with uncited text. There should be no problem including new information from Shames, but we should not be removing what's there already, especially the parts that don't appear to contradict Shames (such as, the significance of the image depicting African Americans by themselves, and suggestions as to what this might be an image of). What we can do is add a new section on Shames' argument for the authorship. Of course this will all need to be directly cited to the book, and we need to make clear that it's her argument. We should not mine Shames' footnotes for primary sources, which we can't really use here, and we can't use your own communication with the curator as a source.--Cúchullaint/c 20:13, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I've started a section mostly based on the authorship material, and included cite-needed tags where cites are required. If you'd go ahead and supply the appropriate citations (with page numbers) we'll be on our way. If you need help with this let me know.--Cúchullaint/c 20:59, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Great work. One question: does Rose's will actually mention a picture of dancing slaves, or is Shames just inferring?--Cúchullaint/c 15:07, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
It's in the will and discussed by Shames in detail on pp 45-46 5un555hine (talk) 15:23, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Okay, cool. So I take it that (1). Rose certainly had a watercolor of dancing slaves and (2). Shames argues that this can identified with the painting Cahill bought from Mary Earle Lyles. Is this correct? Also, you don't need to create a new section header when you respond to a question; it's only if you want to start a new topic.--Cúchullaint/c 15:32, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p Broyles 2000, p. 94.
THis reference doesn't exist on the web anymore. Instead it links to an advertisement to purchase an educational DVD set not page 94 of a text written for middle school students. Furthermore that program dates from 2000, and any information about the painting is out of date. Can we please delete that reference? I can get Tab Broyles approval if necessary. Thanks 5un555hine (talk) 15:33, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
We don't need to get approval to remove it; I agree that it looks to be a less than preferable source. I see that Shames can be used to cite much of the same info, and probably some of the other books as well.--Cúchullaint/c 16:20, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
^Shames, Susan P. The Old plantation: the artist revealed. Williamsburg, Va.: Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, 2010.