Talk:A Meat Stall with the Holy Family Giving Alms

Fantastic work

 * Good job to all of the article's writers. This looks absolutely fantastic! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:25, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Chris! Hafspajen (talk) 12:37, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

?
, of course you should copy-edit! Hafspajen (talk) 12:37, 23 December 2015 (UTC)


 * ?? Hafspajen (talk) 10:06, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind that I made quite a few changes to the wording of sentences. I think it reads better now; hope you agree. I wanted to ask you about a few things:

1) In the lead, you have "life-size" twice. It would be better not to use the same word/phrase twice in such close proximity. Do you really need the second one? I don't think you need to substitute another word, but if you feel a modifier (adjective) is needed there, perhaps the word "large" would work. I decided to remove the first "life-size" but convey the size of the scene with "a large painting". I assume it is a large painting. If not, I'll have to work on the sentence.


 * Hafspajen Did you see this last bit? Corinne (talk) 18:55, 29 December 2015 (UTC)


 * No, missed it, yes large is fine. What the sentence want to say is: the meat and food is depicted in "life-size" - size. Hafspajen (talk) 18:57, 29 December 2015 (UTC)


 * If I have "life-size" twice, that's bad, but I can't come up with anyt synonyms, can you? Hafspajen (talk) 18:37, 29 December 2015 (UTC)


 * You didn't see (above) that I had decided to change the sentence at the beginning of the lead (I think it's the second sentence) to avoid the second appearance of "life-size". What do you think of it now? (this is Corinne)
 * SIMPLY great. (this is Hafspajen) Hafspajen (talk) 19:16, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

2
2) I'd like to link the phrase "figure subject(s)" to help readers not familiar with it but couldn't find the right article.
 * DONE.
 * I redirect figure subject to Figure painting; how's that? Hafspajen (talk) 18:49, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, figure subject should be linked .. but where? Hafspajen (talk) 18:38, 29 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I did a search for that phrase and didn't find an article. Are you saying there is an article titled "Figure subject"?


 * No, now I see it's a red link. Can you look at the disambiguation page for just the word "figure" and find an article that would explain "figure subject"? Be sure to look down at the "Arts" section on the disambiguation page. Corinne (talk) 18:46, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

3
3) The second sentence of the second paragraph in the "Painter" section is:


 * The landscapes are just that – small landscapes with no figures – but these gems of scenery are hiding a religious theme: they depict the Holy Family distributing alms on their journey, on their way to Egypt, to escape from Herod's harassment, almost completely hidden in the background.

I couldn't see it in the painting, but is it Herod's harassment that is "almost completely hidden in the background" or is it the Holy Family distributing alms that is "almost completely hidden in the background"? Right now, it is not clear. Once I know which it is, I can clarify it.
 * HEhe, it NOT Herod's harassment that is "almost completely hidden in the background".

It is the Holy Family distributing alms that is "almost completely hidden in the background" - AND they are escaping from : *Herod's harassment* - they are on the run. Hafspajen (talk) 18:40, 29 December 2015 (UTC)


 * O.K. Thanks for the clarification. Now I'll look at it again. Corinne (talk) 18:45, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

4
4) In the middle of the first paragraph in the "Painting" section is the following sentence:


 * The viewer's senses are somewhat distracted by a seemingly infinite rich and realistic display of various foods – plates in the foreground, meats, ham, lard, smoked fish, pigs' legs and head, bread, butter, milk, cheese and hanging pretzels (in the left corner) – that has been spread out in front of the viewer, and the figure subject is overwhelmed by the still-life composition.

It's not clear to me what is meant by "the figure subject". Also, the sentence is rather long. I'd like to remove the word "somewhat" in the first part of the sentence, if that's all right. If you could explain to me what you mean by "the figure subject", I can figure out how to express this better. Corinne (talk) 18:31, 29 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Remove somewhat then. Hafspajen (talk) 19:14, 29 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Done. Corinne (talk) 19:17, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

5
5) In the section on A Meat Stall with the Holy Family Giving Alms:


 * (a) Can we remove the word "by" before "the workshop of the painter"?
 * YES. Hafspajen (talk) 21:21, 29 December 2015 (UTC)


 * (b) The last one says "the workshop of the painter". All the others say "the workshop of the artist". Which word do you like best?


 * Hm, "the workshop of the artist". Hafspajen (talk) 21:21, 29 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Done. (I had the two words reversed, but the issue of consistency was the same.) Corinne (talk) 18:50, 29 December 2015 (UTC)


 * (c) In notice that the phrase "Fundación Banco Santander" was a red link but is not any longer, which is fine. In any case, I'm wondering if this is a foundation of the same bank as Santander Bank, which has an article. If it is, do you want to link the phrase to that article?


 * I am uncertain if it is the same or not, probably it is.  Hafspajen (talk) 18:45, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Corinne (talk) 18:41, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * GOT IT! I redirect figure subject to Figure painting; how's that? Hafspajen (talk) 18:49, 29 December 2015 (UTC)


 * O.K. I'll find a place to link it. But if figures are mainly, or even sometimes, people, then why, in that long sentence about the landscapes in the background (just before you mention Herod's harassment), do you say they are landscapes without figures? I know I re-worded that section a little bit, but I thought I preserved the meaning of what was there before I started copy-editing. Now it doesn't make sense to me. How can those little landscapes in the background be "without any figures" if the Holy Family and the other people are in them? Corinne (talk) 18:53, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Why do I say they are landscapes without figures? Generally landscapes ARE without figures, but I don't need to say that if it is disturbing. Actually, it doesn't make much sense. Remove it. Hafspajen (talk) 18:56, 29 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Hafs, in this sentence:


 * Both those people and the Holy family, including the Virgin Mary and Joseph, are dressed in contemporary Netherlandish clothing.


 * Can I remove "including the Virgin Mary and Joseph"? I don't think it's necessary if you have "the Holy family". Or, if you prefer, I can substitute "the Virgin Mary and Joseph" for "the Holy family". Corinne (talk) 19:19, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Chuck it. Hafspajen (talk) 19:21, 29 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Hafs, do you remember how I re-worded this sentence to avoid using "life-size" twice? It now reads:


 * A large painting, it depicts a peasant market scene, with an abundance of life-sized meats and other foods.


 * Do you think it might make more sense to say that the painting is "a nearly-life-sized painting depicting a peasant market scene" than to say the meats depicted in the painting are life-sized? I'm thinking that "life-sized meats" doesn't make a lot of sense. If I put that phrase back in, but leave out the second "life-sized" this time, it would read:


 * The nearly-life-sized painting depicts a peasant market scene, with an abundance of meats and other foods.


 * Do you like this wording better? Corinne (talk) 21:14, 29 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Life sized ... in this case are the food, not the painting - the painting is not THAT large, there are way bigger paintings out there. . 115 x 165 cm (45.51 x 64.96 in) - that's the size of the painting. But the FOOD is painted life size....A large painting, it depicts a peasant market scene, with an abundance of life-sized meats and other foods this is best, I think... Hafspajen (talk) 21:16, 29 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Oh. O.K.

Tried to avoid mixing up the boy and the father with Josep and the Christ child... added something, noticed it?Hafspajen (talk) 21:23, 29 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes. I saw that. It's good you caught that. How can you see those figures? They're so small! I made a few more small changes. Corinne (talk) 21:25, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Click on the painting. Actually, we should try to have a detail on it somehow... on Mary and the guys. There is a way of doing it. Hafspajen (talk) 22:20, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh... I hadn't clicked on the painting before. Thanks. Wow, you can see a lot more detail. Hafs, the man behind the boy who is accepting alms from the Virgin Mary is not kneeling. He's sitting. It looks like he is sitting on a basket or box. You had written that he was kneeling. Corinne (talk) 23:29, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * HOLY CRAP, he is. he is sitting on a basket! The source SAID it was kneeling, ha!! Hafspajen (talk) 23:45, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * HAHA; the man is accepting alms from the Virgin Mary is sitting on a basket - doesn't sound so ... wonderful, no? Maybe we just disregard the whole issue. YES; he is sitting - in ALL VERSIONS -sitting on his basket, blast him. Hafspajen (talk) 23:52, 29 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Does that mean the art expert who wrote the article didn't look closely enough? Can you look for another article? Corinne (talk) 23:56, 29 December 2015 (UTC) P.S. How do you know how to swear so well in English? American English at that? Corinne (talk) 23:57, 29 December 2015 (UTC) Anyway, isn't it the boy who is accepting alms from Mary? He's standing and reaching his hand out. But I suppose he is accepting for himself and his father. But you certainly don't have to say the father is accepting alms sitting on a basket. Corinne (talk) 23:59, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * True, but if you read the sources, they do say so. Silly, and it must be changed. Hafspajen (talk) 00:02, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * To swear? from American relatives and filmes. Hafspajen (talk) 00:04, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not clear on what you want to change it to, so go ahead and write it and I'll fix any mistakes in the prose, or write it here, and I'll take a look at it. Corinne (talk) 00:35, 30 December 2015 (UTC)


 * How about; simply taking instead of: The young boy and his father are receiving the bread from Mary; the father is depicted kneeling beside the road. The bread represents the Eucharist, with the abundance and richness of the food in the stall possibly being a satire on gluttony


 * JUST MAKE IT: The young boy and his father are receiving the bread from Mary. The bread represents the Eucharist, with the abundance and richness of the food in the stall possibly being a satire on gluttony, ?? Hafspajen (talk) 16:42, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * What do you think, ? Hafspajen (talk) 16:43, 30 December 2015 (UTC)


 * The first sentence is fine. Regarding the second sentence:


 * (a) Can you say, "the bread represents the Eucharist" with certainty? If not, I would add "probably": "the bread probably represents the Eucharist", or "may: "the bread may represent the Eucharist".


 * (b) I don't see why the information about the food in the stall possibly being a satire on gluttony is mentioned in the same sentence as the bread representing the Eucharist. Is there any particular connection there that I'm not seeing? If not, I would separate these (start a new sentence). The information about the food in the stall suggesting gluttony is actually closer in meaning to the next sentence. Here is how I would arrange the sentences:


 * The young boy and his father are receiving the bread from Mary, with the bread probably representing the Eucharist. The abundance and richness of the food in the stall may be a satire on gluttony. The meat can also be seen as a symbolic representation of, and allusion to, the 'weak flesh' (Matthew 16:41). The slaughtered animals may symbolise the death of a believer, a fairly common iconography in the the 16th and 17th centuries.


 * What do you think? Corinne (talk) 17:04, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * MMm, yes, I think you can say, "the bread represents the Eucharist" with fairly good certainty, considering symbols and all that. Several sources mention it (well, I know, the guy in the basket, but ... still).


 * The information about the food in the stall possibly being a satire on gluttony is mentioned in the same sentence as the bread representing the Eucharist - also comes from the sources, and it - I think is a fairly accurate idea, considering that eating a lot AND GLUTTONY actually WAS CONSIDERED A great sin those times, many people fasted and fasted, several days a week, to feel ...   pious. It was as one of the seven deadly sins - too bad, you know. Hafspajen (talk) 17:47, 30 December 2015 (UTC)


 * The young boy and his father are receiving the bread from Mary, with the bread probably representing the Eucharist. The abundance and richness of the food in the stall may be is probably a satire on gluttony. The meat can also be seen as a symbolic representation of, and allusion to, the 'weak flesh' (Matthew 16:41). The slaughtered animals may symbolise the death of a believer, a fairly common iconography in the the 16th and 17th centuries.


 * Hows this? ? Hafspajen (talk) 17:58, 30 December 2015 (UTC)


 * That's very good, Hafs. (I wasn't questioning the statement saying the food in the stall represents gluttony. I was only questioning mentioning it in the same sentence as the bread representing the Eucharist. From what you wrote above, you apparently agree that it belongs in a separate sentence.) What you have written is perfect. I would add it, but I'm afraid I would get the references in the wrong place. Can you do it? Corinne (talk) 19:18, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * OK: Can you check St Francis? I am affraid made a mess of it. (Too. Hafspajen (talk) 19:26, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Flemish language?
This page mentions Flemish language several times, but imho it shouldn't. Even if there have been schools of painting and of music classified as "Flemish" - in both cases referring to artists who were often French-speakers - there has never been a Flemish language. Linguistically speaking, Flemish is no more than a dialect, or a group of dialects, of Dutch. I therefore suggest changing all occurrences of "Flemish" to "Dutch", as far as it is about language. Comments very welcome. Jan olieslagers (talk) 14:44, 10 January 2016 (UTC)


 * In any case, the sign is in Brabantian :o).--MWAK (talk) 18:10, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I am fully willing to believe that - not claiming any authority for myself - but how relevant is it? Jan olieslagers (talk) 19:06, 10 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Not very :o). The article should of course not deceive the reader into thinking that there is some sort of "Flemish language" spoken in all of the north of Belgium, a notorious myth. Or worse, that the local dialect of Antwerp at the time was a precursor of such a language, especially since the dialect was to the contrary an important source of the modern Dutch standard language. But I fear that the source cited bases itself on such misconceptions. Perhaps it is best to vaguely assert that the sign is "in the local Dutch dialect".--MWAK (talk) 19:47, 10 January 2016 (UTC)


 * In my experience, "Flemish" refers to the group of Dutch-related languages or dialects spoken in the modern Netherlands and northern Belgium (aka "the low countries," i.e. Nederland) before they became what they are today – the English term Dutch being a corruption of Deutsch (German), a misnomer.
 * Regarding the sign, the unit of area probably should be translated as rood, since in English, a rod is a linear measurement (16 feet). Sca (talk) 16:40, 12 January 2016 (UTC)


 * That is not how the term "Flemish" is normally used. "Dutch" is not a corruption of Deutsch, it is originally the same word. Historically, it referred to the whole of the West Germanic dialects. These include dialects for which Dutch is the modern standard language, so it is not a misnomer. "Rood" indeed seems the better translation.--MWAK (talk) 10:09, 13 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I see that the etymology of Dutch is complicated. However, in the U.S. the word often has been applied to people or German origin or descent, such as "Dutch" Schultz or "Dutch" Kindelberger, usually to disguise their German or German-Jewish roots. So in that sense it is a corruption of Deutsch. But apparently not in this case.
 * The good news is, we agree on rood. Sca (talk) 15:22, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * PS: There is a region in Brandenburg called Fläming, named for Flemish settlers in the 12th century. German Wiki notes:
 * Den Namen führt der dünnbesiedelte Landstrich nach den Flamen (Flemingen), die nach der Gründung der Mark im Zuge der anschließenden deutschen Ostsiedlung in hoher Zahl den Höhenzug besiedelten.
 * Sca (talk) 15:38, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I just used the Google translate feature to translate that, and here is what resulted:


 * The name carries the sparsely populated stretch of land by the Flemish (Flemingen), which in large numbers settled the ridge after the founding of Mark during the subsequent German Ostsiedlung.

I assume that "The name carries" should be either:


 * The name covers the sparsely populated stretch of land settled by the Flemish (Flemingen), who in large numbers settled...

or:


 * The sparsely populated stretch of land settled by the Flemish (Flemingen) carries the name (Fläming)...

How could Google get it so wrong? Also, what is "the founding of Mark"? Who was Mark? Corinne (talk) 22:55, 13 January 2016 (UTC)


 * It seems Google Translate does not quite grasp the concept of the accusative case :o). The Mark should have been translated with "march". So the complete sentence would be "The name is carried by the sparsely settled region after the Flemish who, after the founding of the march, as a result of the subsequent German colonisation of Poland, in great numbers settled the ridge".--MWAK (talk) 16:54, 14 January 2016 (UTC)


 * MWAK Thanks. "March" makes more sense than "Mark". I commend and thank you for your efforts to re-write the translation; it's certainly an improvement, but I think it's still wordy and a bit convoluted. Perhaps this?


 * The name was given to the sparsely settled region after the Flemish who had founded the march and then settled the ridge in great numbers following the German colonisation of Poland.


 * I don't know why the word "subsequent" is needed there. Subsequent to what? And what is the relationship between "the sparsely settled region" and "the ridge"? And was it sparsely settled by the Flemish early on, or was it sparsely settled by other peoples before the Flemish settled there? (I have no idea of the history; I'm just trying to make the sentence as clear as possible, perhaps just an exercise in writing.) Corinne (talk) 18:02, 14 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, the historical situation is quite confusing. As I understand it, first the march was founded, as a frontier region against the Polish. Then the serfs moved out and settled in Poland. That left the local lords without sufficient peasants to exploit, so they contracted "free" Flemish to better cultivate the land. Despite a considerable influx, the results were apparently disappointing because today the ridge is again "thinly" settled.--MWAK (talk) 20:45, 14 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Just a little sidemark for the linguistically inclined: Master Tolkien, who was a strong authority on the matter, made the country of Rohan be called the Riddermark by its own inhabitants. Mark and March must be very close cousins, etymologically. Remember the country name Denmark, too: the march of the Denes. Jan olieslagers (talk) 22:12, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Image from this article to appear as POTD soon
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:A Meat Stall with the Holy Family Giving Alms - Pieter Aertsen - Google Cultural Institute.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on 2018-11-14. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2018-11-14. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 22:43, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Three absurdly long lists of references, in a POTD article on the front page, too
This article is an embarrassment and should never have gone with a picture of the day on the front page in its current state. There are three lists of nine or more references, implying major synthesis without a single reliable source for each of the statements made. They urgently need to be sorted out. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:55, 14 November 2018 (UTC)