Talk:Eleonora di Garzia di Toledo

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

Women's History

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles 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.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on July 10, 2020.

Image[edit]

The image by Alessandro Allori is of Marie de Medici, not Eleonora di Garzia di Toledo according to the information of the museum it hangs. Gryffindor 17:09, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note the recent scholarship by Langdon and Murphy which settles the identity of this sitter. They both identify this as Leonora and the painter as Allori. Langdon includes other portraits of Leonora by Allori, including a miniature related to this painting. Leonora is wearing turquoise in tribute to her aunt Eleanor of Toledo, whose favourite colour this was. Motifs in her hair and dress also reflect her Toledan side. Marie de' Medici was born four years after this portrait was painted and comes from a later period. She looks nothing like Leonora; you can see this from her portraits (have a look at her article page) and that she wears much later fashions. qp10qp (talk) 17:29, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Checking the museum, they give this information: "Maria de´Medici, Allesandro Allori (?), around 1555/57, KHM, Gemäldegalerie". Clearly, that date rules out Marie de' Medici entirely, so I assume they are referring to Cosimo I's daughter, Maria, who died in 1557, aged 17. Fortunately, we have a 1551 portrait of her by Bronzino (right), which shows that she was not a redhead (remember that Leonora is documented as a redhead). The Florentine fashions of the dates given by the gallery do not match with that high, open-collar style of the Allori portrait, which came in with the early sixties. They featured an open, square neck–see the portrait of Duchess Eleonora di Toledo on this page as well as the portrait on the right. I am also not aware of such an early Allori, who would have been about 19 or 20 (earliest I can find is 1559; Langdon says he was training in Rome between 1554 and 1560); I daresay he was already painting, but this is a mature and sophisticated portrait. Anyway, it's not for me to argue these imponderables for myself (though I find this stuff interesting), because my sources for the image (cited on the image page and in this article) assert that this is an Allori portrait of Leonora. qp10qp (talk) 17:52, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just quoting what the museum says. I would suggest in that case to contact them directly and ask about it and let us know, and if indeed you are right then all the better. Gryffindor 18:56, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've contacted museums before, and they aren't very interested in the info on their webpages, seemingly. I'm sure that the experts at the museum know full well about Langdon's identifications—but they probably don't edit the website. qp10qp (talk) 19:04, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is no argument. Contact the museum and see what they say instead of saying they won't write back anyways. I've checked the museum's site, apparently it is Maria de' Medici (1540-1557) that is being depicted (not the queen of France), so hopefully this will help clear some things. Gryffindor 19:20, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All right I will contact them. But I already worked out above that they must mean Maria di Cosimo de' Medici. May I remove the inaccuracy tag that you have added? A museum caption cannot challenge the scholarship; and Langdon is a scholar on Leonora and the portraits of her. And she is followed by Murphy. That's two secondary sources. I don't know of any other treatment of the subject. qp10qp (talk) 19:27, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have sent the e-mail, in case you thought I was being lazy. But that isn't to say that I accept this as the way to source Wikipedia articles. The accepted way is to cite scholarly sources, which I have done. I have asked in the e-mail for alternative scholarly sources if Langdon's findings are not accepted, because an e-mail back from the museum cannot in itself be used to source the article. qp10qp (talk) 19:52, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I must say that I find it terribly upsetting to have an accuracy tag on a carefully sourced article. People who read it—if they do now read it—will have no faith in it. qp10qp (talk) 19:55, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, don't take it personal. I think you have done great work and it is excellent that users like you once in a while notice that maybe something could be wrong. I am just going with the info that I have here, if indeed it turns out to be wrong then more power to you. And if not, then the information that there is scholarly dispute about who exactly is depicted can always be included. Btw. I am noticing that the name of the article right now does not confirm to Wiki standards laid out. Per naming convention Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(people)#Qualifier_between_bracketing_parentheses this would be Eleanor of Toledo (1553-1576). I thought I better point this out to you as well. Gryffindor 20:11, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is a complicated one and I thought about it a lot. The trouble is that Eleonora di Garzia di Toledo is never referred to as Eleanor of Toledo, not once (she's only just emerged from the shadows of history and so has no "traditional" Anglicised name). On the other hand, in older books, the aunt did used to be called "Eleanor of Toledo" sometimes, though now she is not and I would argue that that is a very unhelpful name for her. Our Eleonora is usually referred to as Eleonora di Garzia di Toledo or Eleonora di Álvarez di Toledo (the name comes from her father and is not just a wiki convenience), or even longer concoctions. To change her name to Eleanor will simply make things more confusing, and I don't think we should make things more confusing just to suit a wikipedia naming convention that is not reflected in the scholarly sources or in what she was called.

On the inaccuracy tag, how long does that stay up if they don't reply? I feel as if I am being penalised for providing Wikipedia with the latest scholarship. 20:29, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Hm... don't know about that, but I'll leave it for the moment. Articles normally have to be in English and this format "di XXXX" basically is Italian. But I'll leave it for the moment. Tags have to remain until the dispute is settled, it says here Wikipedia:Accuracy dispute. Gryffindor 20:37, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think naming is a matter of common sense; for example, we have "de' Medici" instead of "of Medici" because no one says "of Medici". The most common usage is best; in the case of Leonora, who is only called that in books, I would have named the article merely Eleonora di Toledo had she not a famous namesake.

How could this dispute be settled, then? What would you call a settlement? In the unlikely event that the museum replies to any purpose, how can that settle anything? This is a very little studied subject, which is probably why Eleonora did not have an article on Wikipedia till yesterday. As far as I can tell, Langdon and Murphy are the only people to have published on her in depth. I keep hoping to find something else, but I can't. Is it just the picture that bothers you? In which case, I could just put up another of Allori's pictures of her. Would that solve it? qp10qp (talk) 23:55, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Update) The museum has not replied (I can send you a copy of my e-mail if you doubt that I sent it). I have tried my utmost to find more information, but there really seems to be none available. The best I could do was find some academic reviews of Langdon's book, all positive; but though these reinforce the credibilty of Langdon as a source (in any case, her book about Caravaggio was highly praised, and she is a serious academic), they do not mention this painting. I feel I have done my best to resolve this dispute. I don't see how I can add to what seem to be the only two academic sources for this painting; this is not a matter of providing sources on request, because the citations were already there and it is the accuracy of the books that you are disputing. As far as Wikipedia policy is concerned, I believe that the "disputed" tag is unsustainable; and I propose, sooner or later, to ask an administrator to look at the possibility of removing it. At present, it effectively blocks the article from being taken seriously by Wikipedia readers—an article that provides properly sourced and up-to-date information. qp10qp (talk) 18:58, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you send them another email reminding them of your first? Either it did not arrive or sometimes museums are a little busy and need a gentle reminder. Please give it one more try. Gryffindor 14:42, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did then send a duplicate e-mail to all the different departments listed on the museum's website (which, however, seem mainly to do with publicity), and I never had a reply. Perhaps it didn't help that they were in English; I can write German, but I didn't want to risk mis-explaining myself. Or they might not wish to have contact with Wikipedia, regarding our use of their images as copyright theft. qp10qp (talk) 09:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm removing the Wikipedia:Accuracy dispute tag. 1) From what I have read, the infraction is minor. 2) Its a gross over-reaction; the content does not contain:

   * a lot of unlikely information, without providing references;
   * information which is particularly difficult to verify;
   * in, for example, a long list, some errors have been found, suggesting that the list as a whole may need further checking;
   * it has been written (or edited) by a user who is known to write inaccurately on the topic."

3) And finally, the offending image has been removed. Have a nice day! -- Jack1755 (talk) 23:52, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]