Talk:Diego Velázquez

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Unclaimedomain.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:28, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Featured article review of November 25, 2005
Changes since being promoted on April 16, 2005. This is the version that was promoted. Changes are minor but significant and seem to be positive. Tuf-Kat 04:52, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Excellent article. Changes have been good. Except perhaps this quotation from Francis Bacon added with no reference in the "Second Visit to Italy" section. Otherwise, minor imprefections include numerous red links, placement of the images 'Surrender of Breda' and 'Juan de Pareja', the section "To Madrid (early period)" without any text (see "Velázquez's Italian period" for a good overview of subsections that should exist between section heading and subsections), and the phrase "warm-up" is quoted from somewhere by someone in the "Second Visit to Italy" section. --maclean25 07:24, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Would there be a problem with moving the first sub-section (with or without the title) of "To Madrid (early period)" to "Early Life" and changing the title to "Madrid (early period)"? This would bring the title in line with Manual of Style (headings) standards and eliminate the section with no text. --maclean25 06:52, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Jocundity
The section "Velázquez in modernity" appears to be a joke. But this is due to the disparity between the concept of a serious article regarding fine art and the images of works that were created by painters who obviously lacked Velázquez's ability.Lestrade 00:18, 21 January 2006 (UTC)Lestrade
 * I'm not exactly sure if you're providing a suggestion for change. In another point, I saw the reference to I, Juan de Pareja, the Newberry book, and removed it. I don't think an article about the artist is a proper place for this. Perhaps an article for the book itself linking to Velázquez? Lestrade, if you have something more specific to say rather than that you simply find the section a joke, please do post it. The article was accepted for FA with that section intact, and no one addressed it as a problem then. If you have a concern now..go for it. --DanielNuyu 07:03, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

wrong Maria Theresa
The link for Maria Theresa, wife of Louis XIV, is to Maria Theresa of Austria, rather than to the Wikipedia article on Maria Theresa of Spain. I tried to fix it myself, but, sadly, fell short.

It's not a major error, just a link to the incorrect Maria Theresa. Cheers, Ivonne Rovira missivonne@yahoo.com


 * Fixed it, thanks for pointing this out. --DanielNuyu 00:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Las Meninas
What can you say about this painting? my art teacher asserted it anticipated the lesson of "Ceçi n'est pas une pipe" [Magritte]. Do you agree? 87.7.60.200 20:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)Giovanni
 * What's the lesson? Is it that a painted representation of an object is not the object itself? Some art teachers like to be arcane.Lestrade (talk) 02:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)Lestrade

Funny Period
Is this a joke? This strange title wasn't here a few minutes ago.

Rv contemporary painter
I have removed the work of a contemporary painter's homage to Velazquez. Images by Picasso and Bacon are understandable, but an article about Velazquez is not a portal for contemporary artists to gain publicity. JNW 01:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Article improvement/Peer review
This article was recently demoted from Featured article status. This article appears to be at or near Good article status.

Would any of the editors contributing to this article be interested in assisting in a Peer review, and nomination for Good article process? The intent would be to regain Featured article status. Espana Viva  07:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

To User JNW. Thank you very much for making into a foodnote information about converso origin of Velasquez. User: Tracadero. 3.11. 07

Duplicate?
I know nothing about the subject, but the list of selected works appears to contain two iterations of the same painting, spaced 10 years apart. The 1634 listing links to the painting, while the 1624 listing links to a biographical article which contains an image of the painting...dated to 1634. I would remove this, but the list gives specific dimensions for the painting, as well as a museum that owns it. What's up here? This should be fixed or clarified. 65.190.89.154 22:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

You are right. The entry for the 1624 portrait mistakenly linked to an article with an image of the 1634 portrait. I've un-linked it. Thanks. JNW 22:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Velazquez not Spanish?
So, now Velazquez is Portugese? Let me see, Santiago Ramon y Cajal, Pablo Casals, etc., etc. I'm still looking for any Spanish person of note who isn't billed as "not Spanish" by Wikipedia. Seems there's just an aversion to admitting any person of Spanish ancestry is worth a hoot!Cd195 (talk) 17:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Weird as it may seem, Velasques is neither Portugese nor spanish; he is Portuguese, the son of a Portuguese man who went to Seville and impregnated yet another flamenco gipsy dancer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.180.33.200 (talk) 02:00, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Innocent pictures
Although the new one (Image:Velazquez.innocent-x.jpg) looks better enlarged, the old one (Image:Diego Velázquez 048.jpg) is brighter & looks better (350 setting) as a thumb on my screen. In truth neither is a very high quality image. I've seen the original too! Johnbod (talk) 23:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The older one has too much brightness, the one i added is not colourful enough. Found a better one from the museums site, will add it instead (Image:Innocent-x-velazquez.jpg) Mlaoxve (talk) 01:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's certainly the best; nice one! Johnbod (talk) 02:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I prefer old to new and newest to both. Good job. Modernist (talk) 03:30, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * One look at the handling of the background drapery confirms that the 'newest' version is best. The transcription of color and brushwork is unacceptable in the first version, ambiguous in the second, and only approaches clarity in the latest image. Good work. JNW (talk) 03:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Date of birth/baptism
Born in Seville, Andalusia, Spain early on June 6, 1599, and baptized on 6 June, 
 * Question: We know he was baptised on 6 June. How do we know he was also born that same day?  --  JackofOz (talk) 07:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

In the olden days babies were typically baptised the day they were born in the Catholic Church, since a baptised baby will not go to purgatory if it dies. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 23:44, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Wrong link for "The Adoration of the Magi" under Diego Velázquez' Selected Works
The link for the "The Adoration of the Magi" under Selected Works sends the user to "The Adoration of the Magi" by Bartolomé Estéban Murillo. There is a Wikipedia entry for "The Adoration of the Magi" by Diego Velázquez, but it appears to be available in Spanish and Italian only. The link to the Spanish entry is as follows:

http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adoraci%C3%B3n_de_los_Magos_%28Vel%C3%A1zquez%29

Regards, Hippitydoo (talk) 18:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Modern references
The reference to Picasso and the others is totally inappropriate. Why is it included? Did the author think it validated Velázquez in some way? There are many present day artists of the traditional school who would find the notion absurd and insulting. What is the point? Jive Dadson (talk) 07:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Not at all inappropriate. Such references are standard for articles on the masters, and the references to Picasso, Dali, and Bacon deal with well-known works that clearly are indebted to Velazquez, whether or not they meet with the approval of 'traditionalists' like myself. JNW (talk) 19:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Upon reading the lead, it seems that rather than expunging mention of 20th century artists, the introduction can be a great deal more fulsome, with much-deserved elaboration on V's stature as one of the great masters of western painting. Britannica is laudatory in its assessment, and there is a long way to go here. JNW (talk) 21:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

If mention is to made of Velasquez's influence, why is no mention made Of Sargent? His "El Jaleo," as well as many of his early portraits, are much more truly inspired by Velasquez than the facile rip-offs of Picasso and Bacon.Orapronobis (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:46, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Jewish ancestry
I have remove from the article this: Recent archival investigations carried out by Mendez, Ingram and others not only reject his aristocratic origins, but have brought to light that he belonged to the Jewish converso lineage.

Which documents, how they came about and what do they say ?, the reference is not very enlighten. Velázquez supposedly Jewish ancestors can not be more than a theory contradicted but well know facts

These are the facts : - REFERENCE YOUR so called FACTS please sounds to much like your opinion...Modernist (talk) 01:22, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

1. By the time Velázquez was born Jews has been expelled from Spain for more than a century (the were expelled from Spain in 1492 and from Portugal six years later). Those few who decided to stay were forced to convert to Christianity. Usually despised, they were called marranos in Spain. Seen with suspicion, many perished under the iron rule of the inquisition that was in full swing at that time

2. Velázquez wanted to obtain and finally received the order of Santiagoo. Two mandatory requirements to get the order were:

a) noble ancestry

b ) purity of the blood (meaning no Jewish or Arab ancestry in seven generations). It took years to clear Velázquez ancestry until he was given the order. It can be seen displayed in his chest (the red symbol) in the portrait las Meninas. --Miguelemejia (talk) 18:17, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I have referenced his Jewish ancestry with reliable sources - Wikipedia requires reliable sources - if it's referenced than it stays in the article!...Modernist (talk) 01:26, 25 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I think the possibility of Jewish ancestry should at least be mentioned as a theory. Here is Peter Schjeldahl in The New Yorker reviewing Anthony Bailey's new book on Velazquez Velazquez and the Surrender of Breda: The Making of a Masterpiece.


 * Here is what Schjeldahl writes: "Bailey lays out recently surfaced evidence that the artist's Portuguese ancestors were plebian and very likely Jewish, which, since 1492, had been grounds for banishment, if not worse, at the hands of the Inquisition. That self-wounding policy, for the nation, was compounded between 1609 and 1614, when Philip III banished hundreds of thousands of Christian-converted Moors... An intervention by Philip secured Velazquez his knighthood..." -- An d Re w 19:32, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources indicate Velázquez had Jewish ancestors JSTOR, The Jewish Ancestry of Velázquez and this. ..Modernist (talk) 20:55, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Hang on - Jews were not "forced" to convert, they could CHOOSE to either convert or leave the country. In the Baltic in 2015 there are ethnic Russians who can not chose, for they suddenly (after the breakdown of USSR) have no more citicenship in the new EU-memmber states. Always look close at things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.112.177.58 (talk) 12:54, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

3.Definite talk about the jewish ancestry trend: first of all, it doesn't really matter the gibberish talk about jews in spain, since people are making up jewish ancestry through is Portuguese side - the father's side. The few jews that remained in Portugal were forced to convert, yet they weren't in Porto area, they were mainly in the border with spain. Plus, there is nothing jewish in his known genealogical tree: http://geneall.net/pt/nome/138153/diogo-velasquez/. Since he received the order of Santiago, he couldn't have neither jewish nor arab ancestry, although he might not have noble ancestry, because corruption, stardom, famous painter, close to the royal family, you know the drill. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.180.33.200 (talk) 01:24, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm taking out the "Spaniards of Portuguese-Jewish ancestry" category tag. Because speculation about him having Jewish ancestors is simply a THEORY, this tag has absolutely no business being here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:A7D4:1930:B97D:8DB7:E47B:2978 (talk) 22:11, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Output?
Reading this article, I feel it might be useful to mention Velazquez's relatively small body of work : less than 120 known works, depending on who you ask. I have a good citation for this information, but I'm not sure which section would be suitable. My first thought is to include a sentence or two at the beginning of the "selected works" list. Any thoughts from regular contributors to this article? -- Docether (talk) 15:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It could go either there or in the opening. JNW (talk) 04:24, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the input; I've added some prefatory text to the "selected works" list, but feel free to move it to improve the article's flow. -- Docether (talk) 14:39, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Did he have kids?!?!?!?!?!
Did he, if so put them in the article with dates of life and facts. 66.158.68.102 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:45, 6 May 2010 (UTC).

Velasques Portuguese roots
Velasques father was born in Portugal and his names and his parents' names are not spanish names, since they were Portuguese and were born in Portugal; therefore: João Rodrigues da Silva, Diogo Rodrigues and Maria da Silva. Source? The most important Portuguese (and spanish, AFAIK) genealogy website: http://geneall.net/pt/nome/138153/diogo-velasquez/ That Jewish trend of magically finding Jewish ancestry in some known spanish (take Miguel de Cervantes, for example) is just a trend, which lacks evidence in most cases. In case of Velasques, since some people are tracing back is jewish roots to his Portuguese side, and since the same people are claiming nobility at the same time, there is a contradiction right there for a start, since noble people didn't mix with jews, back then, in Portugal. Besides, there is nothing jewish in his relatives' names (both first name and family name). The jewish community in Porto, at the time, was pratically inexistent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.180.33.200 (talk) 00:59, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The Getty ULAN is considered authoritative. It lists 56 different forms of Diego Velázquez's name (count them here) and neither "Velasques" nor "da Silva" appear anywhere among them. Notice that under the heading "Biographies" are eleven examples showing how his nationality is handled by reliable sources, and he is not identified by any of them as Portuguese-Spanish. Wikipedia follows reliable sources.


 * Numerous sources state (or speculate, with evidence) that Velázquez was of Jewish ancestry, and these sources should be acknowledged. As far as I know, the issue has never been settled conclusively. I am able to view only the first page of one of the sources our article cites (Edgar Samuel, "The Jewish Ancestry of Velasquez") and so cannot evaluate it. Another source, diegovelazquez.org, says "Recent archival investigations carried out by Mendez, ingram and others not only reject his aristocratic origins, but have brought to light that he belonged to the Jewish converso lineage." In a recent exhibition catalogue (Carr et al. 2006, Velázquez, London: National Gallery, pp. 22–23), John H. Elliott takes a more cautious approach to these same sources. Elliott writes: "There are strong indications that Velázquez may have falsified the identity of his maternal grandmother in his application for admission to the Order, and that those witnesses who attested to the nobility of his Portuguese ancestors were lying ... On the paternal side, too, it is likely that his family were originally in trade, and it is at least possible that, as with so many of the Portuguese immigrants who settled in Seville, Jewish blood ran in his veins", citing "Ingram 1999, pp. 69–85, based on new archival information, and suggesting Jewish origins. Cómez (2002, pp. 383–8) argues instead for possible Moorish origins. See also Méndez Rodríguez in Seville 1999." Here is the Kevin Ingram article mentioned. The contradiction you allege ("some people are tracing back is jewish roots to his Portuguese side, and since the same people are claiming nobility at the same time, there is a contradiction") is not there; these sources say his ancestors were tradespeople. Ingram believes Velázquez was being deceptive in claiming his ancestors came from Porto, and says they probably came from the easternmost part of Portugal, where many conversos resided. Ewulp (talk) 03:19, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

About his name: you posted an unreliable source, plus an anglo-saxon source, written by people that doesn't have a clue about Portuguese family names and/or are influenced by the spanish inquisition trying to force spanish ancestry through his father side, by magically making his father born in Seville and not in Porto. Do you have any clue about the differences between Portuguese family names and spanish family names? By the way, i wrote Velasques in this new section title on purpose, as you can see in the article, where i wrote his last name correctly, since that name comes from his spanish side and since the issue is about the rest of the names. About his racial ancestry, i admit he might not have noble roots, yet, those so called investigators might have a political and/or religious bias - it is juicy to attack Roman Catholic church and Europe's monarchies/nobles - therefore that doesn't mean much. Besides, most of the accusations are based in beliefs, not actual evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.214.184.54 (talk) 22:00, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Las Meninas full image has virus infection?
According to Symantec, Bloodhound.Exploit.314 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.4.14.58 (talk) 15:32, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Pronunciation
"Velaskwez" is a horrible, jarring, simply wrong pronunciation. I've certainly heard educated people saying it that way, but it's wrong. Should the article report incorrect pronunciations (as it does in a footnote), or should it just report the correct one? I do not think it's useful to describe things that people get wrong, but only the correct and verifiable facts. 124.150.164.201 (talk) 22:49, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Citation style
As citations proliferate, a change to short citations would seem a good move and I propose to make the change if no objections. Ewulp (talk) 02:53, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok. The less templated html nonsense the better. Its very hard to edit through that stuff. SFN fine by me. Ceoil  (talk) 03:06, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes - preferably not sfn though. Johnbod (talk) 03:11, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Its great to see work on major articles, as seen on my watchlist, however. Ceoil  (talk) 07:40, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It's languished a while; still quite a lot of EB 1911 here ... I too avoid templates in favor of the Smith 2010, p. 1. model. Ewulp (talk) 22:54, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Much better now! Johnbod (talk) 04:33, 16 August 2019 (UTC)