Talk:Frederick Catherwood

Incomplete biography

Is there a double standard going on? If in Wikipedia, the entry for the "Mona Lisa" reads in part: "It is owned by the French government and hangs in the Musée du Louvre in Paris," then why is the fact that the place where Frederick Catherwood's "Views of Ancient Monuments in Central America, Chiapas & Yucatan" is always being deleted? If it's OK to say that the Mona Lisa is at the Louvre, then it should be OK to say that "Views of Ancient Monuments ..." are on view at Casa Frederick Catherwood in Merida, Mexico.

Also, that drawing is NOT Catherwood, but BELIEVED to be Catherwood ... there is NO KNOWN portrait, rendering or photograph of Catherwood.

Also, Catherwood is the subject of FOUR books, the most impressive of which is omitted! The Lost Cities of the Mayas: The Life, Art, and Discoveries of Frederick Catherwood by Fabio Bourbon

And finally, the Catherwood Foundation is coming out with a folio of the text from "Views of Ancient Monuments ..." in 2008, which will contain Catherwood's descriptions for each of his litograph.

This entry is getting worse every time it is edited!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 189.150.2.197 (talk • contribs) 24 July 2007.

No double standard, IMO. To use your example, the Mona Lisa is a unique (in the literal sense of only-one-original-exists) artwork, and it's entirely relevant to mention where it resides. By contrast, the lithographic prints in that particular series/edition by Catherwood are not unique. Although they may be rare, those lithographic prints are not confined to the Casa Frederick Catherwood but are available from other sources too, including any of the original printing or later editions that survive (about 150 held in US-based libraries alone[1], or this collection, this exhibit, etc. Unless you mean that Casa F.C. holds the actual lithographic plates, but I don't think was the intention to judge from the description at the Casa F.C.'s webpage.

It might possibly be appropriate to have an external link to Casa F.C.'s website, but there seems to be minimal specific info on Catherwood himself there. The online reproduction imgs available there are no higher in resolution or info content than others around- the Smith College Libraries exhibit linked to earlier at least has annotations and identification for each. For guidelines on external links in wikipedia articles, pls refer to WP:EXT.

I do agree it should be annotated that the portrait is only presumed or interpreted as Catherwood- but it should also be noted that it is actually a detail from plate 24 in the "Views of Ancient Monuments..." series, & the presumption is that it's a 'self-portrait' of sorts. Could also mention that Catherwood himself did not do the lithographic plates, which were engraved from his drawings by others.--cjllw ʘ TALK 04:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

True, "Views of Ancient ..." consisted of 300 copies of that edition of 1844 ... but ALL are in private or library collections, and THE ONLY ONE ON PUBLIC VIEW is at Casa Catherwood, which was created in 2007 specfically for a PERMANENT exhibition. There are, of course, temporary exhibitions, such as the one at Smith College, but those are on loan, or up for a while. It seems only fair to let readers know that the one, permanet exhibition of Catherwood's lithographs are somewhere, and that somewhere is Casa Catherwood.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 189.150.2.197 (talk • contribs) 25 Jul 2007.

Well, it still seems out-of-place for a mention mid-stream in the article itself; I've moved it to the 'ext links' section where it seems better suited.--cjllw ʘ TALK 16:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I still think Casa Catherwood should be mentioned. After all, if there is no double standard, then why is there a mention that the U.S. Declaration of Independence is on view at the National Archives, when there are SEVERAL copies of that document, and it's a service to reader to see where they can see it. After all, unless you are a bonafide scholar you don't have ready access to see "Views of Ancietn Monuments ..." at the Peabody Museum in Harvard, and few private collectors let folks knock on their doors to see their copies. Perhaps as an external link? I'm adamant about this, since Casa Catherwood is the copyright owner of Catherwood's descriptions of the lithographs, and a new edition is coming out in 2008, brining Mr. Catherwood's words to the public once more ... beats the archictectural students' at Smith College descriptions of his lithographs. If Wikipedia can mention that the Declaration of Independence is on view at the National Archives (one of several copies), without "interrupting" mid-stream, then I suppose the same can be done for Mr. Catherwood. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 189.150.3.6 (talk • contribs) 25 Jul 2007.

I have a couple of thoughts here. I "discovered" Catherwood in 1976 when I was doing some homework prior to going to Central America (Belize) for a tour in the Peace Corps and have read what I could about him since . I didn't know about Casa Catherwood prior to now, but it seems to me that it has a place in the article, esp. if it does not degenerate into a Starbucks commercial. Secondly, I feel that if you (the poster here) were to become a registered wikipedian that I'd be even more comfortable supporting your position. For example, User:Frederick Catherwood does not seem to have been used yet.

And for more, the collision between the SS Artcic and the SS Vesta is not in wikipedia, nor do I find mentions of Catherwood on articles about that disaster elsewhere. There appears to be at least one book, (I feel an inter-library loan coming on) and maybe more, about it, so that's another way we can all show good faith and get both this article better and another one going. Carptrash 21:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Anon 189.150 — Casa Catherwood and its exhibition is still mentioned in the article; I had only repositioned it from the main body of the article to the 'external links' section, as the standard place in wikipedia for links to offsite info. Hopefully this arrangement will suit all.

Hi Carptrash — yes, agree with you re the more pressing matter being the expansion and improvement of this article, and possibly the creation of new ones to cover missing topics. Thanks for your additions and references also- if you still have those to hand, it'd be great to also have the specific page nos. noted in the citations. By all means, some more on the disaster (and other aspects in general) here would be welcome, as would better cross-mentioning & referencing btw related articles. I say, go for it, if you've a mind to. Cheers, --cjllw ʘ TALK 09:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

These books are all from the Carpchives, so I can look up the page numbers, but am out the door for the weekend, so it won't be until Monday. Carptrash 19:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)