Talk:Rogier van der Weyden

Section removed

I have removed a very long section on one work because:

a) It was disproportionately long for one work, not usually considered major.

b) It was oddly written, not in wiki-style, with no links or paragraphs. Among other things it failed to make clear which work was being discussed - the Houston one? Why "infamous"?

c) It would be more appropriate in a separate article on that work, but needs a good deal of editing. Johnbod (talk) 09:25, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Changes

No surviving work of art can be attributed on the basis of fifteenth century documentary evidence to Rogier van der Weyden. This sentence does not read well and I restored the original sentence: Not a single work that can be attributed with certainty (on the basis of documentary evidence) to Rogier van der Weyden survives....Modernist (talk) 22:05, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I've re-written to give sense that Campbell & De Vos consider three paintings by Van der Weyden to be (in Campbell's words) "well-authenticated". I think the former initial sentence "Not a single work that can be attributed with certainty (on the basis of documentary evidence) to Rogier van der Weyden survives." is too absolute. Campbell argues that the 16th century documentation of 'The Deposition' in The Prado, Madrid, demonstrates beyond any reasonable doubt that the painting is by Van der Weyden. He also believes the documentary & technical evidence supporting the 'Crucifixion', Escorial, and the 'Miraflores Altarpiece', now in Berlin, make the 2 pictures "well-authenticated". Campbell further argues that 'The Magdalene Reading' in the National Gallery London, is "one of Rogier's most important early works".Campbell, The Fifteenth Century Netherlandish Schools, National Gallery, London, 1998, p. 405. Haven't had time to do that one. Mick gold (talk) 14:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you should add a proviso - as you say above: -

However Campbell argues that the 16th century documentation of 'The Deposition' in The Prado, Madrid, demonstrates beyond any reasonable doubt that the painting is by Van der Weyden. Campbell further argues that 'The Magdalene Reading' in the National Gallery London, is also "one of Rogier's most important early works" etc.

Good work so far! Modernist (talk) 14:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Subject's name

The subject is referred to in the article as "Rogier" and as "Rogelet". The latter looks like a typo, but nl:WP seems to say that it appears in a contemporary document and then seems to discuss whether this is the same person. My limited Dutch doesn't allow me to get further with nl:WP, but fr:WP concludes in a documented note that they are different people. Could a specialist - or at least someone fluent in Dutch, since the discussion in nl:WP seems to be fuller - provide a clarification for en:WP?

He is also referred to as "van der Weyden" and as "van er Weyden". Since the latter does not appear in nl:WP, I have assumed a typo and changed "er" to "der".

"de le Pasture" looks wrong - modern French would be "de la Pâture", and this is used in fr:WP. But "Pasture" could be right for the time and nl:WP has "de le Pasture" throughout. However, fr:WP also refers to "de la Pasture" and, in an note, apparently from a document. The question is not, of course, how contemporaries should have spelt the name, but how they did - and, if they did so inconsistently, which is very possible, that should be recorded. Modern spelling may be in many modern discussions - if so, I think it should be included and specified as modernisation.

fr:WP also jumps around between "Rogier" and "Roger", appearing to find "Maître Roger" in a document, but that may be a modernisation of both words. A quotation in a note has "Maistre Rogier de le Pasture" and "Maistre" looks right for the time. Roger" does not appear in nl:WP. So I would not introduce "Roger" to en:WP.

Roger en uit. --Wikiain (talk) 00:06, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

There's no point trying to record every spelling variant in this period, even when just one language is involved. A no doubt non-exhaustive list is here. Nor should other WPs be used as references. I suggest, for your sanity, you don't even try looking at William Shakespeare. Johnbod (talk) 00:12, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Johnbod: those were not my points.

As to spelling, my point was that different spellings are given in the article without explanation. It is at least important, and is treated as important in fr:WP and nl:WP, whether "Rogier" and "Rogelet" are the same person. I wouldn't think it necessary to cover spellings beyond those used by the man himself, by close family members or in official documents - the list that you link to may go beyond that. But the selection would need to be that made in publications that are used as sources, or one would be doing OR. All the same, one should distinguish between contemporary spellings, such as "Maistre", and modernisations.

As to other WPs as references: of course. I meant only to invite someone with knowledge of Dutch to follow up on the discussion in nl:WP, so as to improve the discussion in en:WP from the sources used by nl:WP. I was treating other WPs as examples or models, not as sources.

And, of course, Shakspere's spelling was terrible. --Wikiain (talk) 23:26, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Most of the variant references are using the form in the original source, and we should be wary of tampering with them. Perhaps use "". Most of these come from the old EB text, which is still the main part of the article. Really it all needs a revision using up to date sources, of which there are plenty in English. nl:WP is not a WP:RS.Johnbod (talk) 00:22, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll try and prepare a foot note on this, over the weekend. Ceoil 17:20, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Error in Rogier van der Weyden Biography

Hello, User Ceoil. You added to the lede in Rogier's article the following statement:

By 1439 both Rogier and Elisabeth [his wife] had died, evidenced by documents recording the division of their property amongst their children.

This statement cannot be correct, as Rogier is recorded as living until 1464. I do not know how the error arose, but I will be deleting the statement altogether. Nandt1 (talk) 04:01, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Did you mean his parents maybe? Johnbod (talk) 19:25, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I have the source (LC's big book) witin two feet, will fix. Prob a typo or something. Ceoil ^sláinte 20:42, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Artist's infobox

Rogier van der Weyden like Bruegel has enough info to merit an old masters infobox. Rizalninoynapoleon (talk) 15:04, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

It's not a question of that. An infobox takes up space needed for images and, as with many art articles, the local editors prefer not to have one. Johnbod (talk) 15:17, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree that this article would be better without a box. --Kleinzach 00:20, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

GA nomination

i'm nominating for GA since the revscore indicates FA https://ores.wmflabs.org/scores/enwiki/wp10/711866543/ -- Duckduckstop (talk) 18:34, 26 March 2016 (UTC)