Talk:Crucifixion and Last Judgement diptych

Panofsky
From Attribution
 * "Panofsky believed the Crucifixion and Last Judgement panels were created as diptych rather than triptych wings. He noted that it would have been unusual for mere outer wings to haven been given be such "sumptuous treatment",[32] and that both have gilded and heavily inscribed frames; in a triptych typically only the central panel would haven been given such lavish treatment.[3]"

Might this go better in the Description section? If not, maybe the connection to attribution could be made more explicit. Tom Harrison Talk 13:56, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, but at the time, there was a signifiant question to wheter the panels were a fully formed diptych or wings of a triptych. I guess cause youve asked, that thats not clear in the current text. Ceoil (talk) 14:04, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Sage
Dropping this here. Tom Harrison Talk 15:21, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * http://www.archive.org/stream/cu31924015994878/cu31924015994878_djvu.txt
 * Excellent find. Reading through. Thank you. Ceoil (talk) 15:37, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. Very old! I have Harbison's book on van E - has that been consulted? Johnbod (talk) 15:44, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No. I found a copy in the Louvre about 3 weeks ago, for €23! but under let it go. It it worth ordering? Ceoil (talk) 15:53, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * This might be used for the scripture under the hands of Christ and around Michael and Death, if you want to go into more detail about that. Tom Harrison Talk 20:38, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Inscriptions
The full text and description of the inscriptions are here:. I'll make screen prints and send on in case you can't see them - it being g-books and all. Truthkeeper (talk) 23:33, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Great thanks. Between this and Tom's lk above, I think I have enough now to do a section. Ceoil (talk) 00:19, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Longinus
"Longinus, who is blind according to Labuda and therefore accompanied by an assistant..." It's not clear to me what claim Labuda is making. The man with the lance is Longinus because that's the name legend gives to the man who pierced Jesus' side. He's blind because in some versions of the legend Longinus is blind, and is cured by Jesus' blood. The sentence might be changed to "Longinus, blind and aided by a helper who guides his lance, pierces Jesus' side..." If some source contradicts Labuda, or if Labuda is making an unusual claim, we should clarify that. Tom Harrison Talk 14:32, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I changed it because as far as I knew Labuda was the only person who claimed that van Eyck was picturing him as blind (though the assistant is a pretty good clue). The main problem for me is that the article asserts that the Calvery scene follows the Gospels, in particular the Gospel of Matthew, none of which name the soldier with the lance or mention any blindness - Matthew doesn't even mention the lance. If we are going to identify Longinus and Stephaton by name then we should make clear that they are named in later traditions rather than the Gospels. To be honest, the claim that the panel depicts the scene as related in the Gospel of Matthew has to go - the painting is an amalgam of the story from all four Gospels and later legends. Yomangani talk 15:18, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Probably more accurate to say the painting follows the Golden Legend. Tom Harrison Talk 15:34, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * something like ".... the Gospel accounts as elaborated by medieval additions... " or something. Johnbod (talk) 15:37, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Labuda doesn't say anything about the Golden Legend, but he does say that it's an amalgam. I think Johnbod's wording probably works the best; or to simply state it's a narrative based on an amalgam. Something like that. Truthkeeper (talk) 15:50, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. Tom Harrison Talk 16:01, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I put "story of the Passion" which is fairly non-committal, but feel free to change it if you prefer another wording, though "fairy story of the Passion" probably won't go down well. Yomangani talk 16:16, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Good calls here. Ceoil (talk) 22:18, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

IHS monogram
There are some inline doubts as to the letters on the placard above the cross, placing a close up here for input. Ceoil (talk) 00:26, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The inscription above the cross is duplicated in the other panel and is somewhat clearer. The Latin at least is clear enough to see that it is a shorthand version of "Jesus of Nazareth King of the Jews" (JHC NAZAR REX JUDE(A?)). The crucifixion panel's Latin inscription is even shorter with just an R (or an R that looks like a P) for REX. Yomangani talk 15:25, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Matthiesen Gallery
"The panels were shipped from Saint Petersburg to the Matthiesen Gallery in Berlin. They were examined by the gallery's assistant director William Ivins..." Did Ivins examine them in Berlin, where he was assistant director, or did Ivins go to Berlin to examine them, or were the panels kept in Berlin for some reason? Tom Harrison Talk 18:14, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems the works passed through Berlin en route to New York. From what I can tell, they were taken to the Matthiesen where they were examined by Ivins. I'll go back again and check this out; its mentioned in a few of the sources. Ceoil (talk) 19:30, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Apologies Tom, I see what now what you were getting. I clarified this somewhat in the article, but it needs a bit more digging into yet. Ceoil (talk) 15:32, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Sheep and Goats
Presumably Jesus is depicted after the conclusion of the dividing of the sheep and goats, otherwise the oblivious masses on his left are about to get a nasty surprise. Yomangani talk 15:29, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * To ressaure from the future, this was/will be long resolved by the year 2013. Ceoil (talk) 00:52, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Title
Why is the article title straight but italicised in the lede? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:55, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Good question. I think there is a template for that? Not remembering now. Ceoil (talk) 06:56, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. Phew. Ceoil (talk) 06:58, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Alright, thanks. Was a little confused while doing the Signpost writeup. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:59, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No worries, I saw FAR flash before my eyes there! Ceoil (talk) 07:01, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * LOL, oh definitely not. Anyone who suggested that would be fed piecemeal to the wolves. This is solid — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:07, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * My wolves or yours. They can bring it on, if feeling lucky! Ceoil (talk) 07:11, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Provenance
The Metropolitan Museum's given provenance has been garbled, perhaps by a misreading of Passavant. General Prince Dmitri Pavlovitch Tatistcheff was appointed minister at Madrid by Tsar Alexander in 1814; the panels were purchased during his residence in Spain.--Wetman (talk) 00:49, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok thanks for spotting. Edited to read The Russian diplomat Dmitry Tatishchev, who lived in Spain between 1814 and 1821, acquired the panels, possibly from a Spanish convent or monastery near Madrid or Burgos. The Met has a funny way of punctuating its provenance sections, to my eye in an almost imprenatable shorthand. Ceoil (talk) 01:10, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

"The taunting of the condemned"
The caption for this image seems a bit odd. It's not a explanation of the artistic qualities of that part of the diptych, or what the image represented to the artist and his contemporaries, but (apparently) a distillation of a modern writer's not-very-NPOV take on the historical event being depicted. This seems out of place. Or am I missing something? --Yaush (talk) 17:50, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Isn't it? Taunting is a very conspicuous feature of Northern 15th century depictions of the Passion. The reference given, Simon Sebag Montefiore, may not be the greatest expert on the subject, but he knows enough to be used for this very non-contoversial comment. .  Johnbod (talk) 18:03, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Have thought about this a while, and I'm not buying it. The caption reflects absolutely nothing about how the artist or his audience would have understood the scene. It has the smell of a drive-by POVing. Very jarring and out of place. --Yaush (talk) 20:43, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:07, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Van Eyck - The Crucifixion; The Last Judgment.jpg

Featured picture scheduled for POTD
Hello! This is to let editors know that File:Jan van Eyck - Diptych - WGA07587, left panel.jpg and File:Jan van Eyck - Diptych - WGA07587, left panel.jpg, featured pictures used in this article, have been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for September 14, 2023. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2023-09-14. For the greater benefit of readers, any potential improvements or maintenance that could benefit the quality of this article should be done before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page. If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 17:05, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Discussion of this article's title from Featured articles/mismatches

 * Copied from Featured articles/mismatches as of this edit – Ham II (talk) 09:52, 17 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Crucifixion and Last Judgement diptych --> Crucifixion and Last Judgement Diptych
 * this looks like the change was in the wrong direction, per this source; please check? Sandy Georgia (Talk)  14:26, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi, I saw it and don't understand why it was moved. It was correct. There's a good argument that the article title shouldn't be in italics b/c it's an object - hence, "diptych" - but that should be raised on talk. A unilateral page move isn't ideal. Victoria (tk) 15:34, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * That's what I saw as well ... maybe the Diptych portion in the lead should be lowercase? Sandy Georgia (Talk)  16:49, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Hmm, tricky. I would have preferred a discussion. I've checked two books on my shelves - Craig Harbison has triptychs and diptychs as part of the titles & capitalized. Maryan Ainsworth from the Met leaves out the diptych, so it's Crucifixion and Last Judgement. I have other books to check but as it happens they're under dropcloths at the moment and I'm on my way out . Can we put it back and have some time to check sources? And also to check the move logs? It's possible there was an earlier move. Victoria (tk) 18:15, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * ? Sandy Georgia (Talk)  19:23, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Why not Crucifixion and Last Judgement (diptych) (t &#183; c)  buidhe  19:28, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * It would be best to be able to survey the sources, which takes a bit of time & to discuss on the talk page. If it's Crucifixion and Last Judgement it needs to be disambiguated but the attribution is isn't definitely van Eyck (if I remember off the top of my head - at least not both panels). I've never seen it called Crucifixion and Last Judgement (diptych). It's a 600 year old object that doesn't want to be stuffed neatly into modern internet usage rules. Hence the need to check sources & discuss. Pinging too, since the discussion seems to be here. He'll know.  Victoria (tk) 19:38, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The Met's online page currently uses The Crucifixion; The Last Judgment (link in the notes - AmEng of course) but I expect they have used different variations over the years, as no doubt have other sources. There's not really a "right" title (just several wrong ones). The move was supposed to be for capitalization, but shouldn't have been done without discussion, especially to an FA.  I rather doubt a proper RM proposal would have passed. I'm inclined to agree with Victoria; move it back & if anyone wants to do an RM, well let them. Johnbod (talk) 19:59, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Just a note to let you all know that this page is overwritten every Monday, so if this isn't resolved within about five days, you might want to copy this discussion over to article talk. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  20:06, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Harbison's usage seems most WP:CONSISTENT with most of the painted (not ivory) diptychs at Category:Diptychs. Ham II (talk) 20:53, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Apologies for the delayed reply; was on a long flight. If we're using italics, it makes sense to treat it as a proper title, in which case "diptych" ought to be capitalized, otherwise it looks very jarring to my eyes. Otherwise I'm happy to restore the original capitalization, but remove the italic styling – i.e. treating "Crucifixion and Last Judgement diptych" as a name but not a title. More detail is available at MOS:VATITLE. Also, as has been pointed out, we can be WP:CONSISTENT with other articles at Category:Diptychs. —  RAVEN PVFF   · talk  · 16:53, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I think it certainly is a title rather than a name, even when including "diptych". Johnbod (talk) 00:13, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I've changed it in the text to Crucifixion and Last Judgment diptych which is generally what I'm seeing in the sources. this is a featured article and it was page moved and the main image changed without discussion or consensus. I've restored that image as it should be and fixed the text. Please move the page back and it seeing a lower case "d" is problematic, then open a discussion on the article talk page. Thanks. Victoria (tk) 23:47, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Done as requested – thanks. —  RAVEN PVFF   · talk  · 05:17, 17 September 2023 (UTC)