Talk:Witches' Sabbath (The Great He-Goat)

Images to use later

[1]

Deleted quote

1964, Bernard Myers;

"This is probably the most well-known of the black murals from the House of the Deaf. An awestruck congregation gapes at the silhouetted goat-devil. A white shrouded figure in the centre of the picture appears to be issuing from a hole in the ground, a grave or tomb. At the extreme left of this extraordinary scene of resurrection by sorcery sits the demure figure of a young girl. She is veiled and heavily draped in black, her hands hidden in a muff. What is her significance? Is she put there to heighten the grotesqueness of the others, or is she part of the ceremony, a seemingly innocent victim like the adolescent figures that are supposed to have a strong affinity with poltergeists? Certainly she heightens the horror of the scene."

References

piece to reintegrate

Witches' Sabbath originated from earlier commissions for the Duke and Duchess of Osuna of folkish depictions of witches which were by comparison cartoonish in their humour and charm. The earlier drawings showed a conventional crescent moon; in this painting it is replaced by a lightning effect.

References

¿Qué?

"Some are known by a variety of titles attributed to a number of sources, including his children and his friend Bernardo de Iriarte from around 1868". The titles are given in around 1868? The titles are given by his children and friend in around 1868? The titles are given by his friend in around 1868? He made friends with Bernardo de Iriarte in around 1868? (what I'm saying is I don't understand this sentence and you should perhaps revise it, but I'm saying it with the subtlety of a van crashing through your bathroom wall while you are taking a shower; wash the soap out of your eyes, grab a towel, step over the rubble and sort it out. Mwah.) Belle (talk) 01:34, 16 June 2015 (UTC) [Stamps foot] Hellooo [pouts]; All your editing and nobody pays me any attention. [Flounces off in high dudgeon] Belle (talk) 00:34, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

It is well known that when a featured article candidacy is ongoing, nobody cares what you (the general you) say on the talk page. I agree that you have found a gaping hole and it is the very sort of issue (an issue of meaning) that us pro copy editors cannot simply re-word our way out of. But really, lodging an oppose over this would not be an overreaction at all, and well deserved for a certain personage having ignored Belle. Riggr Mortis (talk) 01:40, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, thank you, Morty. Because of your proper attention here, I'll overlook that you ignored me for several months last year; now where are your bunny and cookware?; just joking; I'll be far too busy opposing the FAC to spend time taking revenge for minor slights; maybe next week? Love forever (FOREVER) Belle (talk) 01:53, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Hey ya. Trying to fix this, as I agree it's, well, not easy to parse, but I can't find the book quoted, so can only guess at the meaning. Lady Liz of House Kafka (talk) 01:58, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi, thanks; I'll give Ceoil the benefit of the doubt for a few days before I condemn his FAC with my powerful arguments about the utter ruin this one sentence causes. Do you think I've scared Riggr Mortis off with my declaration of undying love? (it's always the same; either they leave me or they stay with me forever chained to the wall in my basement). Belle (talk) 11:31, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

The Riggr don't scare easy, in my experience. He can become inexplicably aloof, though. It adds to his mystery. Building the legend, as it were. Lady Liz of House Kafka (talk) 12:03, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Shucks, y'all talkin' about me. Actually it's the opposite, I do scare easily (if I didn't I might have gay-married Ceoil).^¿Qué? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zoOUZxWlFlc (this song is about Goya when he was at home in the Quinta del Sorrow)

For those of who prefer to stay on topic, Belle's Powerful Arguments are powerful and Riggr Mortis (talk) 02:25, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Belle, I think the history of todays names comes from Huges; panic re-searching starting now; you make a very good point, and thank you very much for obv close reading, least somebody is awake. Apololgies for the tardy responce, was at a glamerous photo shoot, dont you know. Ceoil (talk) 20:51, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

The names were mostly given in the late 1860s to 1880s; mostly by family members. Sorry guys for the confusion, was badly stated. Tks though for the extensive copy edits; deeply appreciated and it seems needed. Ye guys have been missed. I'd cry if I wasnt so so long around here and battle hardned. Ceoil (talk) 21:04, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Providing you were draped across the bonnet of a car in a thigh slit silk dress how can I hold a little delay against you? No, yucky; let's just go for a tux; I've done a little sick in my mouth imagining the first one. The text is much clearer now; I won't have to crush your FAC dream after all (what shall I do for kicks now?). Belle (talk) 23:32, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Imagine a tiny Speedo? ;) Lady Liz of House Kafka (talk) 23:57, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

None more black. Sound Belle, no matter what Riggr says. Ceoil (talk 23:59, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Liz, I'm quite dizzy at the thought of it. And, Ceoil, just when you thought yourself rid of me for a while: "The work seems to have been seriously damaged even before its removal from the walls of Goya's home; the base of dry plaster may have contributed to its early deterioration. Frescos completed on dry (rather than wet) plaster can survive for a long period on a roughened surface." Should that be "cannot survive for a long period"? Otherwise, it confuses me. Belle (talk) 00:05, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Fixed; I'll get my coat. Ceoil (talk) 00:10, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

References

Should the parentheses be in italics?

Shouldn't the page title be "Witches' Sabbath (The Great He-Goat)"? {{DISPLAYTITLE}} will fix it if that's appropriate? Thanks,  SchreiberBike | ⌨  03:14, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Vandalism ? ? ?

I think the lede has been vandalized.

Check the last two sentences. 2600:8800:784:8F00:C23F:D5FF:FEC4:D51D (talk) 13:37, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing/deleting the vandalism. 2600:8800:784:8F00:C23F:D5FF:FEC4:D51D (talk) 03:17, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Hard-coding images

WP:IMGSIZE requires us not to use hard-coding for images. This article can be Featured, or use hard-coded images, but not both. --MarchOrDie (talk) 17:40, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

• It's a featured article as is; leave it alone...Modernist (talk) 17:41, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  • WP:IMGSIZE requires us not to use hard-coding for images. This article can be Featured, or use hard-coded images, but not both. --MarchOrDie (talk) 17:44, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
    • Here's a link: [2] to it's becomming a featured article. LEAVE IT ALONE!...Modernist (talk) 17:49, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Look, I know it's a Featured Article. That doesn't make it perfect or unimprovable. It doesn't give you the right to revert changes that make it noncompliant with policy. And it doesn't give you the right to call me a troll. Please have a proper think about why it's important to keep the hard coding. --MarchOrDie (talk) 18:08, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

• Art articles have special needs, and this was promoted in 2015 with the large images. WP:IMGSIZE suggests not using fixed image sizes "[e]xcept with very good reason". The needs of art articles are generally accepted as a very good reason. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:06, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Accepted by whom? I think it's silly as you can achieve the same image sizes in a compliant way. Why is it so important to keep non-compliant coding? --MarchOrDie (talk) 18:08, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Accepted by editors who write art articles and review them at FAC. As for your second point, you didn't reproduce the same effect. Here is your version of the article. The main image is postage-stamp size, and the other images are very different sizes. There's no consistency or coherence. Changing image sizes or layout in an art FA is the equivalent of doing a rewrite of any other. It's best to propose it on talk given how contentious it's likely to be. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:52, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

So here we are in talk discussing it. I am absolutely not seeing any cogent reason why the numbers have to be hard-coded, nor is such an exception noted in the policy. Other than WP:OWN and one editor's amour-propre, what is it we are arguing about, exactly? --MarchOrDie (talk) 19:13, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

If you would like your version to be accepted, you have to argue for it. For example, you'd have to explain what the advantage is of presenting a stamp-size image of the topic of the article, as you added here. I can't see any benefit to doing that. The article is about that image. If ever there were a "very good reason", per the policy, to present a large, fixed-sized version, this would be it, surely. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:29, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Either you are deliberately deploying a red herring here, or you are ignorant of how image formatting works. Here I'll bold it this time. You can achieve the same image sizes in a compliant way. And that is what most articles do, and what this one ought to do. It really isn't complicated. --MarchOrDie (talk) 20:49, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

• To be clear Consensus is against your changes...Modernist (talk) 21:04, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Er, no it isn't. Consensus is for IMGSIZE. And you and your friend, no offence, don't seem even to understand what you are arguing about. --MarchOrDie (talk) 11:00, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Well better heads have prevailed March, and this well judged edit to me makes your purely formal argument, and frankly dreadful edit, moot. It seems that it is you that doesn't know what you are talking about - you were wrong on both the policy and local needs requirements. Ceoil (talk) 19:51, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Insults and stupidity, noted, and well done to Pigsonthewing for fixing the problem. Sheesh. --MarchOrDie (talk) 09:03, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

As far as I can see, MarchOrDie was largely right in conception even if the way they presented and handled this was very poor. There should be no need to use fixed sizes in almost all cases, as it can be handled in other ways if the default size is too small. A scaling factor can be used, instead as IMGSIZE clearly specifies. There was good reason, why images had to be larger then the default here. But there was no reason here why it was an exception to the rule that fixed sizes should not be used, instead scaling factors where needed as here. This is not simply some arbitrary technicality but could easily have accessibility issues if anyone registered to adjust their default image size because it was needed for them. We're effectively disrespecting and harming any such reader or editor. Note that I had no idea of how to do any of this, I simply read the policy before responding. Someone, preferably MarchOrDie but if not one of the other participants of this discussion should have fixed it before Pigsonthewing. In other words, everyone in this discussion has failed, except Pigsonthewing so ultimately our lectures count to ourselves as much as to anyone else. (I count myself since I didn't find it and fix the problem before people wasted all the time above on it.) Nil Einne (talk) 16:05, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Sort of agree with this. Problem was that they were making significant image reduction changes on main page day and arguing against consensus, but that's in the past now. For my own part, am using Andy's img sizing format in current and future articles. Ceoil (talk) 21:53, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Image width

Why on earth are there so many large images? I thought lead images should not exceed 300px. And what's wrong with using default thumbs and upright thumbs? This is a beautiful article but the image widths need to be addressed. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:24, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

• Support image width reductions. I'd prefer seeing regular thumbs or upright thumbs. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:02, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose having the images made smaller. Victoriaearle (tk) 19:46, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per [3]; this featured article and it's images should be respected as they are...Modernist (talk) 19:43, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  • What does featured status have to do with image width? We can adjust image widths regardless of article status... ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:50, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose miniaturizing images in an article on a work of visual art, particular the lede image of this wide painting. I can hardly even see it in this version of yours. ---Sluzzelin talk 20:07, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Image widths can be adjusted within the infobox. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:10, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose reducing the image sizes. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:14, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. Many articles about paintings and sculptures have unneeded infoboxes when a larger image would accent and describe the article more than an infobox would. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:36, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per above, while noting that, ironically, this edit made some, but sadly the wrong ones, even larger on my OS, while both logged in and out. Ceoil (talk) 19:20, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per opposers. Johnbod (talk) 17:20, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. The small image proposals are ridiculous. Sizing highly rectangular images are always the exception, not the rule. Coldcreation (talk) 17:51, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

File:Quinta del Sordo 1900.jpg

Is there a reason File:Quinta del Sordo 1900.jpg is 340px wide, specifically? I understand bending some image width rules to illustrate works of art, but this image does not depict a work of art, and just looks larger than necessary. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:39, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, there is and please read the article. The artist chose to paint a mural on the wall of his house. He chose the size. There were other murals, along with this one. They were photographed (hence that particular photo), then they were removed from the wall and restored. Some of the original mural was lost, which is shown in the photograph. The photograph shows, a.) the mural as it was in its original location, and, b., the mural before the left side was cut off, which changes the composition. The reduction in size brought it down to about half an inch or less by two or so inches on my browser - less than postage stamp size. Again, as with the infobox issue, the sizing and placement of these images were rejigged many times and have existed for years, through FA and a first TFA without this interference, in other words with long-standing consensus. Should you need a declaration of support, happy to provide one. Victoriaearle (tk) 20:52, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Wait, are you saying that Francisco Goya is still alive and chose to make the image 340 pixels in this article? I'm confused. Anyway as to the issue, the current version [4] [[File:Quinta del Sordo 1900.jpg|thumb|left|[[Quinta del Sordo]], photographed c. 1900]] seems fine to me to illustrate what is necessary. The problem is that while all the above may be technically true, the photograph barely illustrates anything and size does not help. I zoomed in so the mural fills my screen and I can barely make out any detail. (Actually zooming it in that far makes things worse. Better when the image fills the screen.) Unfortunately the quality of the photo etc is such that whatever the image is meant to depict, the only thing is really depicts is some vague outline of something which looks vaguely similar to the mural on the house, whatever the size. It is not necessary to have a large size to show this, and having a large size doesn't significantly improve how well the reader can see this or make out the detail in the mural. Note I wouldn't call the image post stamp size on my browser. Nil Einne (talk) 16:24, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Nil Einne, bearing in mind that the version proposed during the above discussions had much, much smaller images, the matter is now resolved and moote. I think there is consensus among all that the outcome is satisfactory, as well as some user talk discussions that given we are all on the same side, such discussions are a bit silly and shouldn't happen again. Certainly myself and Another Believer seem to have resolved not to talk past each other in future. Ceoil (talk) 21:48, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Infobox

I added an infobox, but my change was reverted. Should the article have one? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:29, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

• Support infobox inclusion. Why not? Adds a nice summary to the lead. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:01, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  • What summary does it add that isn't already in the caption? ---Sluzzelin talk 20:05, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
    • Template:Infobox artwork has many fields. Artist, for one... ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:08, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - This article soes not require an infobox. This is a featured article...Modernist (talk) 19:41, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Ok, I know the article is featured. What does that have to do with having an infobox or not? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:48, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
    • Because those editors who created this article and brought it to featured status decided not to use an infobox; that's why...Modernist (talk) 19:50, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
      • OK, so because a couple editors made this decision, that means that's the best possible decision? Articles can always be improved. Are there specific reasons not to have an infobox? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:00, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose - Here's the version that passed FAC. Here's the version with an infobox. This is a complicated piece of art with parts that are difficult to see even when the image is boosted - I should know, I've worked this page and often after reading a source have had to zoom in on the image to see what's what. The inclusion of the infobox adds little value and eliminates the value of seeing the article topic - a piece of visual art. Also oppose having the images made smaller. Victoriaearle (tk) 19:44, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Why are you opposing based on image width? Image width and infobox inclusion are different issues, and image widths can be defined within infoboxes. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:48, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

• To be clear - consensus is against an infobox....that includes Ceoil, Iridescent, Modernist, Tim riley and all the editors who brought this article to featured status...Modernist (talk) 20:07, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Where was this decided, and why? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:05, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
    • It was decided in 2015...Modernist (talk) 20:07, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
      • Where? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:09, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
        • Another Believer, the article was started in 2010 (almost a decade ago), and has existed from that time to now without an infobox. In other words, a nine-year-long consensus exists not to add an infobox. Doing so on the day this article runs for the second time as TFA is provocative and unnecessary. Pinging @WP:TFA coordinators , so the coords are aware of this because it explains why some of us prefer not to run the TFA gauntlet. A DS alert has been posted and needs to abided by. This isn't the first time you've added an infobox to an FA visual art article, without consensus, I've been involved with, and it's really annoying. In the least consider shelving the discussion until it's off the main page so as to avoid edit warring (this goes for other stylistic changes as well) and consider not badgering discussants. Victoriaearle (tk) 20:24, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
          • Me? I mean, maybe I've added infoboxes to artwork articles before, but you say that as if it's a bad thing (and you make it sound like this is something I do often, which is not true). I think the article could use an infobox, and the wide images look silly, IMO, but I'm moving on to other things. Happy editing, all! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:30, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose adding an infobox for the reasons outlined above, especially given that the one that was added (permalink) served only to reduce the image size and add a caption. Art articles have special needs when it comes to image size and placement. Those decisions are best left to the editors most familiar with the work. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:19, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose, for the reasons added above, I don't think adding an infobox will add anything to the article. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:56, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose infobox, the page is fine and communicates well as is. And per above points including that it's gone through the feature article process intact. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:38, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose infobox. As the scheduling TFA coordinator, I have been closely involved with this article for some time, as has Dank who wrote the blurb, and at no stage has either of us, the article's main editor, or those involved at FAC considered that there is any need for this unnecessary junk. And the targeting of a TFA seems intended to be provocative at the very least Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:46, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
  • This isn't the kind of decision I would ever make; in the normal course of doing TFA blurbs, I don't edit the article unless I find out that there's an obvious mistake in the article. - Dank (push to talk) 13:56, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per the above. The thing is of insufficient benefit for inclusion. - SchroCat (talk) 09:11, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose, largely per Sarah. Although I'm not against infoboxes per se, and apply them more often than not, they tend not to be suited to polyptychs or works of art that are significantly wider than they are high, as is the case here. I am aware that the box can be scaled up to accommodate a wider image, but this inevitably has the effect of also widening the lower, text part of the box, resulting in severe squash down along the article body. Just to also note that a few people commenting here are very familiar with the issue of displaying lead images that are "significantly wider than they are high", which wiki is drastically unsuited to presenting, and have debated and thought this through many times over the years. Ceoil (talk) 18:33, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose infobox, per SV and Ceoil etc. This one added nothing useful at all. Johnbod (talk) 03:18, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per opposers. Coldcreation (talk) 17:52, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Alternate infobox implementation

There is more than way to implement an infobox. I am offering User:Peaceray/sandbox/Witches' Sabbath (The Great He-Goat) with a Wikidata infobox as an example. A detail is placed in the infobox, & a larger version of the image using the {{wide image}} template. Please also view it on a mobile device as it will present different than on a PC. It will be scrollable on a mobile device; I do wish there was a way to present a different size image for m.wikipedia.org (mobile) v.s. wikipedia.org (desktop).

I am not saying that this should necessarily be the version for this article, but I am pointing out that there are alternate ways of using an infobox yet still presenting the wide-image painting in an appropriate format.

Peaceray (talk) 08:06, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Your version isn't an improvement, while using wikidata in infoboxes is widely disfavoured by the community, especially for FAs. As I'm personally not opposed to infoboxes in general, I do appreciate your effort Peaceray, especially in trying to reconcile viewing on mobile devices vs desktop, but its not quite there yet. Ceoil (talk) 08:15, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Given the choice of offering the standard frame used in every article of every imaginable topic on the encyclopedia, or offering the artwork in its entirety, the latter is the better option even if it means we can't have the frame. The artwork is the story here, its size, its location, Goya's despair as he covered his home in the Black Painting murals. Here's what one editor posted on the linked Quinta del Sordo on TFA day. It's a great comment, shows appreciation for the story and curiosity about the artist. In my view that's what we as a community and project want to foster, but there will be times when we have to deviate from the standard. Which really is okay. Victoriaearle (tk) 16:18, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Interpretation section

"In Witches' Sabbath Goya mocks and ridicules the superstition, fear and irrationality of the ignorant placing their faith in ghouls, quack doctors and tyrants."

This interpretation is partly attributed to a page in a publication by Albert Boime, which is described, on https://www.bibliovault.org/BV.book.epl?ISBN=9780226063379 as it is not present on https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/author/B/A/au5471178.html, as follows:

"(...) Art created in pursuit of personal expression (...) Boime rejects these popular modern notions and suggests that history – not internal drive or expressive urge – as the dynamic force that shapes art."

It could be argued that both, personal expression and events having taken place not only in the past of one's presence but in one's present, tend to be intertwined rather than isolated instances as this description would seem to suggest.

"The (...) painting uses witchcraft imagery in a manner that inverts the order of traditional Christian iconography. The goat extends his left rather than right hoof towards the child, the quarter moon faces out at the left hand corner of the canvas. These inversions may be metaphor for the irrational undermining of the liberals who argued for scientific, religious and social progress."

Aside from the possibility of referring to the caprine figure as it, fictional as it may be, and may it forever invoke repercussions to tendencies towards complacent capriciousness in humanity, and aside from raising the question of a romanticizing of progress, which might, perhaps, in some way recall the artist's artwork of Saturn, the above observation and subsequent interpretations, which are attributed to a page in a publication by Robert Hughes, seem to focus on the central right portion of the artwork. Again, aside from calling into question the grading of a biological evolution leading to a mirroring of parts in certain beings, in other words, insinuating that one extremity is more favourable to the other, in relation to the position of the moon or beyond, the skeleton child which the caprine figure may to some degree focus on, is not mentioned. At least not directly, as the above interpretation may be based on the view that the possible blessing of an already deceased being using the supposedly favourable right extremity leads to nothing. lmaxmai 27 March 2022

Apologies for the 2 years late response to this...evaluating....you have a wordy manner of expression that's frankly hard to parse, so bear with me, but will address. Ceoil (talk) 00:28, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

"Interpretation": II

The "Interpretation" of the article for both this painting and that of a shared name from 1798 are curious. They share mostly the same content - together they present Goya as an adamant (But incorrigibly secret) opponent of 'medievalism' and 'Dark Age' superstition, and a strident proponent of 'Enlightened reason'. This is all apparently extracted not from any actual statements of Goya or any documentary evidence at all, but through extrapolation from a certain few works of his, especially, in this text, the few already mentioned.

Through hundreds of edits over the years both sections (And to some extent both articles) appear to be the personal projects of the user Ceoil. Looking through their history should reveal this.

In both sections the only sources mentioned are an entirely unexplicated page from "Boime" (Presumably Alfred Boime), and a 1989 article from New York Magazine, actually a review of the book "Goya and the Spirit of Enlightenment" by Eleanor Sayre.

Since the page from Boime cannot even be addressed, it should be said that the review from New York Magazine, disregarding the merits or demerits of its relative book here, is not worth citing in an encyclopaedic article. It presents offensively naive and spurious historical proposals about both some dark age of Spanish ignorance and the opposing and subsequent triumphant light of that aforementioned 'Enlightened reason', some of which are actually produced almost or entirely word for word here and constitute the articles' naivety. A grand champion of liberalism and, even, an opponent of the Roman Catholic church (!) is made here out of nothing. (It is interesting to mention that, at least as regards the 1798 painting, the Magazine review takes the opposite position of the article, claiming it as an example of his 'indulgence' in superstitious flight for the sake of his clientele.)

Given thus the complete lack of adequate citation in these fields, and the previous manner of maintenance which made then as such, these articles both require complete review and revisal. Zusty001 (talk) 20:26, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Calling BS on this fringe rant. See also "The Disasters of War", created between 1810 and 1820 but not published until 1863. I'd like to see you find art historical sources that support your counterfactual. Ceoil (talk) 23:42, 1 March 2024 (UTC)