Talk:A Polish Nobleman

Further improvements
Some suggestions for further improvements: – Editør (talk) 10:00, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The term "szlachta" in the lead can be also mentioned in the text (including a source reference).
 * The websites in the 'References' section should have retrieval dates (such as "Retrieved on 17 April 2014.").
 * What is the purpose of the publications in the section 'Polish bibliography'? Are they sources or intended for further reading? Perhaps they should be moved to a different section.

Featured picture candidate
A photograph of this painting is currently a featured picture candidate: Featured picture candidates/A Polish Nobleman. – Editør (talk) 10:23, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The image was promoted and is now a featured picture. – Editør (talk) 09:46, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

File:Rembrandt van Rijn - A Polish nobleman.jpg to appear as POTD soon
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Rembrandt van Rijn - A Polish nobleman.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on April 26, 2016. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2016-04-26. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:11, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Moderator is removing items that I edit, without any good reasons....
I own the original painting of the Picture made by Rembrandt. (the picture is a foto of a copy of my painting) I added in the Further reading section new information and a link to a pdf document that is a good article. Good article criteria. How can I, in the article, let the people know of this new information...an email of the museum seems not to be relevant!? Pmnedus (talk) 20:29, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

WP:V ?
Rembrandt or his pupils could never have given the painting a name like “The treasurer of our archaeology”. “The treasurer of our archaeology” is the title of a book which was published in in the year 1854. In that book on page 61 to 68 one can find an Polish inventory of belongings made in the year 1655. There you’ll find a list of paintings and one of them is called “Wladyslaw in Elk Skin”. I apologize for making you think otherwise. Can you advise me how to proceed. Pmnedus (talk) 12:41, 10 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Lets go through some "sources"


 * Skarbniczka naszej archeologji¨ by Ambroży Grabowski,
 * Inaccessible, by the looks of it a 19th century writer.
 * "Władysław IV and a homage to Malbork, oil on panel, c. 1640, 135 × 299 cm Muzeum Okręgowe w Toruniu."
 * A painting. Not a source
 * Frau Minne (alias Judith) From: Mechthild of Magdeburg at Helfta: A Study in Literary Influence, Barbara Newman
 * A book about a medieaval abdis. Relevance questionable at best.
 * "Magierka caps, for the summer, 17th century" https://www.polishhussarsupply.com/Jewelry.html
 * A site for reenactors. Not a source
 * "The description is based on Wilhelm Bode and C. Hofstede de Groot, The Complete Works of Rembrandt, Paris 1899, Vol. Ill, no. 228, as cited by Odlozilik in "Rembrandt's Polish Nobleman"
 * A work from 1897
 * "Briefwisseling.Deel2: 1634-1639 ConstantijnHuygens"
 * WP:PRIMARY, The reader is left guessing which letter by Constantijn Huygens is referred to and I'm guessing none.
 * meisterdrucke.es
 * An image. Does not say anything about "A Polish Nobleman".
 * etc. I do not have the time, nor the stomach to go through all these "sources", but WP:SYNTH and WP:OR apply. NONE provide a direct attribution of this painting to that title. Kleuske (talk) 08:29, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * My advice: STOP! Kleuske (talk) 08:38, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Alternatively, show me the killer source that really attributes that name to the painting. I have gone through your "sources", twice and did not find any. Plenty of irrelevant, inaccessible or flat-out garbage references. A site for re-enactors of Polish Huzzars, for crying out loud. I am left with no choice but to qualify your activity here as POV-pushing. Kleuske (talk) 08:55, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 * For me, my killer source is the extract from the will of Jan Paviola
 * (Johannes Benedictus Savioly, d. 1653) ‘counsilor’ of Krakow (Poland).
 * https://sbc.org.pl/dlibra/publication/10498/edition/9744/content
 * This extract is to be found in the book "The treasurer of our archaeology".
 * In that book (published 1854) on page 62 one can find an Polish inventory of belongings made in the year 1653/5. In that list are several pictures mentioned. Among them are several pictures of ‘King Ladislaus IV’(Wladislav IV). One of them is “a image of King Ladislaus IV in elk skin.
 * This combined with the historical information that he travelled in the 1637 from Poland via Holland/Belgium to Vienna and back again. (arriving in Holland before and on May 6th 1637, Huygens).
 * For the Huygens part the references https://www.dbnl.org/tekst/huyg001jawo04_01/
 * For the reference: "The description is based on Wilhelm Bode and C. Hofstede de Groot" is from an earlier contributor.
 * It is a WP:PRIMARY source, to wit the will of a private person, from which you draw conclusions.
 * Reply: The person of the will was a Government official. And the primary sources are the Polish archives.
 * Reply: We can see from the picture of Hondius of the year 1637 and the one of the Muzeum Okręgowe, that it is the same person, and much more pictures show this on the internet. So we talk of the same person, King Władysław IV Vasa (this is not a conclusion), it is like you can see from a picture the city of Paris that it is Paris. This person was in Belgium in 1637, from sources "Leszek Podhorodecki Władysław IV 1595-1648" we know also that he in secret and not officially was traveling, and he was in Holland in 1637 (Huygens). Even the route of that time we know from the following source "The history of the Polish nation during the reign of Władysław IV, the Polish and Swedish king. Kwiatkowski, Kajetan" and of the following "Der Regierung VLADISLAI IV. Gottfried Lengnich ANNO 1729 Dantzig"
 * There is so much information in it, that I can only use it as references, because I am not able to quote whole parts of these books.
 * This site will do!? https://artinpoland.weebly.com/en/forgotten-portraits-introduction-part-b Pmnedus (talk) 10:50, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 * A blog post on a Weebly website will most definitely NOT do, you are wasting everyone's time here. Theroadislong (talk) 10:53, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 * Reply: Escuse me!
 * Ok, I agree we are wasting time, can I then only publish the picture..!? Pmnedus (talk) 10:56, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 * Reply: Waiting for a response, hours pass, so I think, ok, lets do it like on the other similar article. Then I get this : "Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing" This is not so nice.
 * I decided to skip, for now, the text part (have to study the rules better as you all indicated) and would like to update the article for ==Notable copies== as is done with another similar page. This also is not allowed!? Please advise. Thanks Pmnedus (talk) 17:26, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

No original research questions.
The National gallery in Washington has a pdf ("Rembrandt van Rijn - A Polish Nobleman" National Gallery of Art)used in this article, and are using with this Pdf their own research and opinions. They are the owner of the object. Is it not, that this is in conflict with the “No original research” rules !?

And the content of “A Corpus of Rembrandt Paintings All Volumes: Rembrandt's Paintings” and the RKD webpages, also have the same conflict!? Does did mean all the art articles have to be reviewed!?

Awaiting for a constructive answer. Thanks. Or does this question belong in the Teahouse?

The disclaimers:

This is a publication of the Stichting Foundation Rembrandt Research Project. The opinions expressed in this volume (VI), and the previously published volumes I-V in the Series A Corpus of Rembrandt Paintings, should be understood as “opinions” that are meant for academic use only. The opinions represent the Foundation’s best judgment based on available information at the time of publication. The opinions are not statements or representations of fact nor a warranty of authenticity of a work of art and are subject to change as scholarship and academic information about an individual work of art changes. Opinions have been changed in the past according to new insights and scholarship. It should be understood that forming an opinion as to the authenticity of a work of art purporting to be by Rembrandt is often very difficult and will in most cases depend upon subjective criteria which are not capable of proof or absolute certainty. Therefore, the conclusions expressed in the volumes are only opinions and not a warranty of any kind. Third parties cannot derive any rights from these opinions. Neither the Foundation, nor the members of its board, nor the authors, nor the cooperators, nor any other parties engaged in the Rembrandt Research Project accept any liability for any damages (schade), including any indirect or consequential damages or losses and costs. Anyone is free to disagree with the opinions expressed in these volumes.

Disclaimer RKD All users with access to the RKD – Netherlands Institute for Art History website and who use this site for whatever purpose, agree to the following.

The RKD has the right to refuse services to users of the RKD. The RKD devotes a lot of time and energy to ensuring the information on the website is accurate and up to date. Despite this, inaccuracies may be present on its website or those affiliated with the RKD. The RKD does not accept liability for any damages incurred as a result of these inaccuracies, or for problems arising from the use or transference of this information. The RKD furthermore does not accept liability for any losses, lost profits or any other kind of damage or loss which occur as a result of the use or circulation of the information, or for any technical shortcomings. Users who download data or information do so at their own risk. References or hyperlinks to other websites are only given as information for the users of the RKD website. The RKD offers no guarantee with regard to the content and reliability of these websites, nor does the RKD accept liability in any way for damages incurred either as a direct or indirect result of using the information on these websites. Any statements made by the RKD on art works are a result of art historical examination by the staff member(s) concerned and cannot be seen as expertise. The RKD and/or the staff members(s) who carried out the examination cannot be held liable for any inaccuracies or incomplete information in the given statements, nor for any consequences for third parties due to the results of the examination issued. Pmnedus (talk) 18:34, 12 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Note: Question asked and answered at the Teahouse. (diff). Nick Moyes (talk) 12:56, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify: We do not allow Wikipedia editors to come here and promote and present their own theories, ideas or research on any topic. This is what is meant by WP:OR. However, if a museum has undertaken research into its collections and made that research publicly available in print or online, we deem that organisation to have had editorial oversight of its content, and we regard that as a reliable source. When it comes to opinions of who painted which person and when, then opinions may differ. Another esteemed organisation might publish research which draws a different conclusion. Once again, we need to know that editorial oversight has been involved. Then, on Wikipedia, we might wish to clarify that two different interpretations exist.
 * However, if one of those museums' staff members were to take to their own personal blog and publish their own personal interpretations, we would not accept it. There would have been no editorial oversight. Even had it been one of the world's experts, we would not accept personal blogs and opinions. If that person then comes here as an editor and tries to publish their unproven and unpublished ideas, we call that WP:OR and would reject it. That curator would have to ensure that their work has already been published by a reliable source (its own institution, perhaps) before any editor here could consider their personal research as being appropriate to include here. But then, they would also have a clear  Conlict of Interest in writing about that subject, and would be required to declare that conflict. I speak from personal experience as a retired museum curator, myself. Before I could place any knowledge onto Wikipedia that I had gained through my work, it had to already have been properly published in a journal, museum publication, book or institutional website which had editorial oversight of those contributions. Nick Moyes (talk) 13:37, 13 July 2023 (UTC)