|
'''Orazio Lomi Gentileschi''' was an [[Italy|Italian]] painter. He was born in [[1563]] in [[Pisa]] (in [[Tuscany]]) and he died in [[1639]] in [[London]]. He was the father of the painter [[Artemisia Gentileschi]].
== There is a Dispute on the factual accuracy. ==
It states that [[Media Matters for America]] is a liberal group however Wikipedia's own page does not say this! I'm sure one of the two zealots will quickly add the word on the page now that I've brought this up.
He is generally named Orazio Lomi de Gentileschi; it appears that De Gentileschi was his correct surname, Lomi being the surname which his mother had borne during her first marriage. He was born at Pisa, and studied under his half-brother Aurelio Lomi, whom in course of time he surpassed. He afterwards went to [[Rome]], and was associated with the landscape-painter [[Agostino Tasi]], executing the figures for the landscape backgrounds of this artist in the [[Palazzo Rospigliosi]], and it is said in the great hall of the [[Quirinal Palace]], although by some authorities the figures in the last-named building are ascribed to [[Lanfranco]].
It makes no sense to me to start labeling people or groups when they are only quoted and when an article they have articles that can tell more about these people. [[User:Pitchka|Dwain]] 18:30, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
His best works are ''Saints Cecilia and Valerian'', in the [[Palazzo Borghese]], Rome; ''David after the death of Goliath'', in the Palazzo Doria, [[Genoa]]; and some works in the royal palace, [[Turin]], noticeable for vivid and uncommon coloring. At an advanced age Gentileschi went to [[England]] at the invitation of [[Charles I of England|Charles I]], and he was employed in the palace at [[Greenwich]]. [[Van dyck]] included him in his portraits of a hundred illustrious men. His works generally are strong in shadow and positive in color. He died in England in 1646.
{{1911}}
There is no dispute on the factual accuracy of this article. The only dispute is on whether or not its appropriate to include the labels "conservative" and "liberal". Of course, there's no dispute that Drudge is conservative (proof is below) or that Conason is liberal (would be happy to post proof for that if requested). The dispute is.. Should we include that in the controversy section? I, and others, say yes. Someone else says no. But it's not appropriate to put a disclaimer disputing the factual basis. [[User:RJSampson|RJSampson]]
{{Commons|Category:Orazio Gentileschi}}
...Does every political article on wikipedia run into this non-sense when it's created? This is truly exhausting. [[User:RJSampson|RJSampson]]
{{artist-stub}}
[[Category:Italian painters|Gentileschi, Orazio]]
==Conservative and Liberal==
We would appreciate it if the characterizations of Drudge and Conason would remain. A user on this site got very angry at me for having characterized [http://www.buzzflash.com/editorial/04/07/edi04050.html Matt Drudge] and others as conservative. It's as if he wants Drudge to be considered an unbiased source, so we can all bask in the headlines of his gossip-site (which are normally acrimonious to the left and/or magnanimous to the right). The interview posted below shows Drudge is proud to be conservative. Conason is proud to be liberal. Neither of these two personalities are centrist book reviewers, and to exclude their political orientation could possibly make this suggestion. This is a CONTROVERSY section, so this article needs to highlight points of view that exist (but not exclusively) on both the Left and the Right.
{{lived|b=1563|d=1639|key=Gentileschi, Orazio}}
I've read the book cover to cover and it is not a Biography. It is a political book written by a disaffected Centrist who is now Conservative (according to HIS interviews. Shall I post those as well?) Because it is a work with political intent, it is EXTREMELY appropriate to state reactions from prominant people from the group the book targets (Liberals) and the group that the book is written to make look better (Conservatives). Matt Drudge is conservative, Joe Conason is Liberal. Period. They're both proud of it, they have both been described that way in other articles in the mainstream (ie, not Foxnews or New York Times) press outlets like [[Reuters]] and [[Associated Press]]. Therefore, they will be described that way here. It only benefits the reader, it is a FACT and not POV, and if that upsets you, you should not be editing this article as your desire to remove "conservative" characterizations clearly demonstrates bias. Removing Conason's "liberal" characterization comes across as a thinly-veiled attempt to stay neutral. All you have done is remove facts from a Wikipedia article, which is extremely counterproductive. The characterizations stay.[[User:RJSampson|RJSampson]] 08:12, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:Ditto. [[User:Rhobite|Rhobite]] 20:17, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
==Matt Drudge IS conservative==
I am replacing Matt Drudge's characterization as conservative. Libertarians can be conservative, and Republicans can be liberal. More importantly, Drudge considers himself conservative. If you still insist that this is our opinion/POV, I am attaching an excerpt from an interview between world-reknown (for better or worse) journalist Camille Paglia and Matt Drudge. I am also enclosing a link to the entire text.
This should resolve, once and for all, that Drudge is conservative and we don't want any know-it-all teenagers (or those with teenager personalities) getting angry about it and removing it:
PAGLIA: You're antiestablishment down the line, except when it comes to your politics. Do you really consider yourself a conservative?
DRUDGE: Oh, yeah. I'm a prolife conservative who doesn't want the government to tax me. There are issues that I'm so frightened of -- 1.2 million abortions a year scares the hell out of me. Oftentimes when I see these superstorms forming, you know, sometimes -- I wouldn't be honest if I didn't think it was retribution. I also am opposed to big government. Now, you would argue: Well, how could you support a government interfering with the rights of a woman over her own body? But I would argue: No. That all life is sacred. Abortion is the issue that really motivates me.
See the full interview at:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/927041/posts <-- The question is about 1/4 the way down.
[[User:RJSampson|RJSampson]] 07:19, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
== Conservative Labelers ==
[http://www.buzzflash.com/editorial/04/07/edi04050.html Matt Drudge] is not conservative. What possible reason are you guys constantly adding conservative to people when it will most likely be written in their seperate articles if they really are?
Matt Drudge is is a [[Michael Jackson]] supporter and a [[homosexual]] [[libertarian]]. I have listened to him and he is not conservative in my book. Your OPINION is that he is well that is POV isn't itand it doesn't below in this article! [[User:Pitchka|Dwain]] 06:16, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
:I am reminded of one headline by Drudge during the 2004 U.S. election. He got hold of a picture of Kerry and Edwards arm in arm after a campaign rally.. the headline was "CAN'T KEEP HANDS OFF EACH OTHER". Take out Drudge if you want, but don't touch Hannity.. if you start arguing that Sean Hannity isn't a conservative I'm going to laugh. [[User:Rhobite|Rhobite]] 06:18, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
Please excuse the expression, but you are being RIDICULOUS if you think Hannity is not a conservative. He hosts a debate show for crying out loud. Fox News bills him as the conservative one. He wrote a book about "Defeating Terrorism, Despotism, and Liberalism"! I'm sorry to say, your claim that Hannity is not a conservative is very mistaken. [[User:Rhobite|Rhobite]] 06:25, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
:Where Hannity stands on the socio-political spectrum is clear, and the POV reasons for obscuring this fact are demonstrated by editors who proclaim how conservative they are in edit summaries. In any event the article is better off in its current form, ie. without mention of the minor point of a Hannity interview on the day the book was launched. [[User:203.198.237.30|203.198.237.30]] 07:44, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
== References ==
I recommend a change in reference format. It's good that this article is thoroughly sourced. Since most of the sources come from the book itself, parenthetical references are much easier than footnotes. There's no need for a large number of footnotes when you're citing the same book many times. [[User:Rhobite|Rhobite]] 05:44, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
| 