Talk:John Michael Wright

Comments
This article looks very good to me. My comments are going to sound very picky, but that is only because I know you are going to FAC and I know how picky reviewers there can be. Best to get that out of the way, eh?

 no we don't and now done--Docg 20:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I assume we don't have exact birth and death dates for Wright? Is there a way to indicate that? Should there be a footnote making that clear in the lead?


 * I would spend a day reviewing the manual of style. When an article is as good as this one is, reviewers will start to pick at the MOS "violations", as they have started to say. Here is a little list of things that my practiced eye saw right away (and I'm not even a MOS guru!):
 * WP:MOS-L
 * WP:DATE
 * WP:PUNC
 * WP:MOSQUOTE
 * WP:CAPTION
 * WP:DASH
 * WP:MOSNUM


 * Wright is rated as one of the leading indigenous British painters of his generation, with a distinctive realism in his portraiture. - Rated by whom? Contemporaries or scholars or...? And is he rated as leading painter because of his realism? The sentence suggests that, but does not make it explicit.


 * fixed.--Docg 20:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * After the Restoration of 1660, Wright's Roman Catholicism became less of a handicap. - add a clause explaining why


 * fixed.--Docg 20:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The images in the article are lovely, but there may be too many in the "England" section (see WP:MOS for advice about placement). You might think about a gallery instead and also include one or two of the images from the "Artistic legacy" section.


 * I would suggest formatting the "References" in a recognizable style like Chicago or MLA.

This was a fascinating article to read! Thanks so much for writing it. I'm sorry that I don't have more to contribute. Awadewit | talk  16:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for this - picky is exactly what I wanted, and I will work through of all of this, although bringing myself up to speed on the MOS may take a little time. Much obliged for your time.--Docg 18:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Images:
I've taken this out for now - dumping here for possible later use thumb|left|Charles II, Wright's patron, from the [[National Portrait Gallery (United Kingdom)|National Portrait Gallery ]]

Proposal to remove date-autoformatting
Dear fellow contributors

MOSNUM no longer encourages date autoformatting, having evolved over the past year or so from the mandatory to the optional after much discussion there and elsewhere of the disadvantages of the system. Related to this, MOSNUM prescribes rules for the raw formatting, irrespective of whether or not dates are autoformatted. MOSLINK and CONTEXT are consistent with this.

There are at least six disadvantages in using date-autoformatting, which I've capped here:

Removal has generally been met with positive responses by editors. I'm seeking feedback about this proposal to remove it from the main text (using a script) in about a week's time on a trial basis/ The original input formatting would be seen by all WPians, not just the huge number of visitors; it would be plain, unobtrusive text, which would give greater prominence to the high-value links. Tony  (talk)  08:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

British?
Can it be valid to describe anyone in the seventeenth century as British: there was no such nation at that time. I read the controversy over unequivocally describing him as English or Scottish, but surely in the absence of categorical evidence, we should omit nationality rather than make an historically inaccurate attribution. I am alerted to the article from TFA: the preceding day's TFA has no difficulty in avoiding any declarationon nationality, so it is not essential. Kevin McE (talk) 00:38, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It clearly is an anachronism. Before the creation of the Kingdom of Great Britain in 1707, the word 'British' was used, but it usually referred to the ancient Britons or to the contemporary Welsh. For Wright, may I suggest "Anglo-Scottish"? Moonraker2 (talk) 01:22, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

The sources call him British. Besides, what's helpful to the reader is to designate roughly where he came from. Pedantically "British" may be an anachronism, but we are not trying to communicate exactly what the political state of the British Isles was at the time, merely give the reader a sense of where the subject came from - and he came from "Great Britain" or "the British Isles". There is not a more accurate term to use which doesn't end up communicating less, so it will have to do. The article's text describes his relationship to the Nation States of the time (or at least as far as we know). --Scott Mac 01:32, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Anglo-Scottish is a made up word. Whilst the "Kingdom of Great Britain" didn't legally exist before 1707, the concept of Britain did, and it did not refer to "ancient Britons or Welsh". In 1606, James VI and I was proclaimed "King of Great Britain and Ireland". In any case, we are not trying to communicate with people who lived prior to 1707, but to modern readers who get the sense of what we mean by British.--Scott Mac 01:34, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If this were harmless, I might tend to agree that what matters is communication with "modern readers", and there is no other kind, I suppose, but it isn't harmless. From describing a 17th century man as "British", contributors begin to describe 17th century institutions as "British", when they weren't, and that misleads people and may even help them to fail examinations. James I did of course try to promote the concept of Britain as a political as well as a geographical entity, but he had little success, apart from the creation of a Union Flag which was used mostly at sea. I agree that in the 17th century the word "Britain" did not refer to "ancient Britons or Welsh", but the word "British" generally did, as an adjective for the island of Great Britain was hardly ever needed. That is not the important point here, it's a rather minor one. Moonraker2 (talk) 08:51, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I would avoid "British" here; he was apparently English by birth and later residence, and described himself also as Scottish, despite not really spending long there. His family may have been more Scottish than we realize. There's nothing wrong with "English and Scottish" Johnbod (talk) 13:24, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, this is pretty trivial, but I think the objections are pedantic and invalid. He was perhaps born in England, (we can't be sure) perhaps to Scottish parents (we can't be sure) he trained in Scotland, worked in England and Ireland and was Employed by the Commonwealth of England (which included Scotland) and the King of Great Britain (legally King England, Scotland and Ireland). The best way of denoting that is "British" as is pertaining to the British Islands or various British national authorities. The claim that we can't use this because the "Kingdom of Great Britain" was not formed until 1707, makes the mistaken assumption that we are speaking only about legal citizenship. That is simply an anachronism itself. We are not. We are talking about provenance. In terms of Art history (which is the relevant consideration here - not the technicalities of state legality) he is British as opposed to Continental/European. It is important to flag that up to the reader. The technicalities of his relationship to the structure of Britain at the time are covered, as much as they are known, in the body of the article. British is the best description of where he needs to be situated within his relevance to his field - and it is the term the sources use. If anyone with a knowledge of art history wants to say otherwise, I will be happy to be advised. This is really the type of ill-informed pedantic nonsense quarrel that makes people give up writing academically informed articles.--Scott Mac 15:48, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You already have been! You are perhaps unaware of the extreme sensitivity of this issue on WP - see talk at Francis Bacon (painter) and Art of the United Kingdom etc. Usually the complainers have a far worse case than here. You do not find books on "British Medieval Art" but on English, and occasionally Scottish or Irish, art. In the early modern period it is a bit different, but for example Ellis Waterhouse mostly covers Scotland in seperate chapters or sections until long after the Act of Union. Johnbod (talk) 15:55, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Could I suggest that the article should state that he was 'either English or Scottish' and have a note that explains how 'the way he signed made the matter uncertain in the light of lack of hard evidence of his nationality'? Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 17:44, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Most of us here agree on avoiding "British". Fishiehelper2's suggestion of "either English or Scottish" is a little like mine of "Anglo-Scottish". Perhaps, as someone suggested, the answer is not to state a nationality in the lead. In reply to "British as is pertaining to the British Islands or various British national authorities", there was no British nation and there were no British authorities, that's why this is such a slippery slope. Once we start to go down it, it leads to very unhappy distortions of the truth. Moonraker2 (talk) 20:13, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

The sources are clear that part of his significance is that he's an indigenous painter as opposed to a continental European one, although unlike his contemporary "British" painters he had strong European influences. That's a very pertinent facet of his significance that ought to be in the opening sentence. His providence defines him. Some of the sources do describe him as "English" (perhaps the majority) but you'll get very strong objections if you use that. Calling him "Scottish or English" isn't good either, because it makes two much of his nationality which is rather beside the point. It appears that he himself was comfortable (as many were) with being quite vague about that. Anglo-Scottish is something else entirely, since we have no sources suggesting he was an Anglicized Scot.--Scott Mac 20:41, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Only one editor seems to be in favour of the word British: propose that we remove any mention of nationality from the lead, where there is not room to discuss the issue, and leave the latter explanations. Nationality is not essential: many historical figures do not have an attribution of nationality. Kevin McE (talk) 23:11, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It is usual to say something, & if you leave it out people will only add it. He is not "either English or Scottish" but "English and Scottish"; I can't imagine why anyone would object to him being described as English. What he was not was British. Johnbod (talk) 23:16, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No sources say he was English AND Scottish. Actually most merely call him English. What is important is that he was indigenous to the British Isles as opposed to Continental. But please don't make sudden changes here on the eve of a TFA. It has been settled for 4 years, and a FA process. So, let's agree a form of words rather than sudden changes. We need to retain the sense of him NOT being European but important indigenous. Can you suggest a form of words that does that?--Scott Mac 23:25, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I did not make "sudden change": I raised the matter on the talk page as soon as I became aware of it, and 23 hours later, having found that the majority of contributors to the discussion agreed, made what seemed to be the least controversial possible incorporation of the change that most agreed was necessary. It happened just before TFA precisely because errors on the main page should be avoided, and if they can only be avoided at the 11th hour, that is better than not at all. Kevin McE (talk) 23:55, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually the Getty ULAN, which is generally the best source on these matters, says just that, though I admit they have "British" as "preferred", though then calling him just "English" in their heading. Johnbod (talk) 23:30, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. Again, we could just call him "English" and allow the Scottish stuff to speak for itself in the body. But you just know some people would object to that. My main point is I don't want to loose the stress he was indigenous to the British nations, as that's actually quite remarkable for a painter favoured at the court at that time. I can be flexible on the wording if someone can find a way to reconcile that. However he was not "Anglo-Scottish" which is something quite different.--Scott Mac 23:35, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * How about: "John Michael Wright (May 1617 – July 1694)[2] was a portrait painter in the Baroque style who described himself as both English and Scottish. Probably born in London, Wright trained in Edinburgh under the Scots painter George Jamesone, and acquired a considerable reputation as an artist and scholar during a long sojourn in Rome. ...." Johnbod (talk) 23:45, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I could live with that. Although "who described himself variously as English and Scottish" would be more accurate or "described himself at various times as either..." or perhaps "described himself interchangeably as ...". (He never described himself as "both English and Scottish" - but used one or the other). We then would keep all references to "indigenous" but without any qualifier being needed.--Scott Mac 23:51, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I still think "British" is better btw, and Getty supports me.--Scott Mac 23:53, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * This seemed to come to a fairly abrupt stop. I have put Scott's second favourite who described himself variously as English and Scottish in as being that which seems to best fit the observations of others, and gone with his indigenous without other qualification (not sure that I like this: everyone is indigenous to somewhere: I would have preferred rated as one of the leading painters from the British Isles of his generation, but I'll defer)  Kevin McE (talk) 07:33, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

CopyVio?
I note that the National Portrait Gallery's article on Wright seems to have almost exactly the same text? See http://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/person.php?search=sa&LinkID=mp07767 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.45.170.210 (talk) 20:57, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yup. They have violated my copyright. If you look, they assert (c) NPG 2011. This text was written some years before that. I've raised the issue on Wiki-en-1.--Scott Mac 20:59, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * This has popped up at WP:ERRORS as possibly needing switching out as TFA for Monday 21. After looking into it quickly though I don't think this is a copyvio by an editor here at Wikipedia. What I have written over there is this: "The text in the lead of John Michael Wright has built up over time. The majority of it developed with this edit in December 2007 and hasn't changed much since. Given that the text was developed piecemeal over a month I don't think it was copied from the NPG. The NPG updated and revamped their site in late 2008, early 2009 according to the wayback machine. Given that, I think they have copied from us. I read the reaction of the major contributor on the articlee talk page to mean that his copyright as a contributor to the page has been violated, not that it was his text specifically. I could happily envisage an intern being told to write a blurb for that page and copying it straight from wikipedia." Woody (talk) 22:55, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * For the avoidance of doubt. I am the user formerly known as User:Doc glasgow. I wrote nearly all of the text of this article and thus am the copyright holder. The NPG have carelessly or otherwise infringed my copyright by using the text of this article without using fulfilling the terms of the CC licence under which the material was released to Wikipedia. I am a long-standing contributor to Wikipedia, and there being no evidence to say otherwise, and plenty evidence to support my copyright that should be enough to end this discussion.--Scott Mac 23:09, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Given they are not pursuing the National Portrait Gallery and Wikimedia Foundation copyright dispute they may feel entitled to "share & share alike", but of course we at least credit them. Johnbod (talk) 23:10, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


 * A quick example of another NPG page with the same problem - William Dobson (NPG) - as corroboration that other articles have independently been reused. I've checked about twenty before finding one, so it's not overly common, but it's there. I wonder what other sources may have been reused for the other 95%! Shimgray | talk | 23:59, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Percy Frederick Seaton Spence shares some wordings with Percy Spence, but both seem to have drawn from the same public domain source.
 * I'm preparing a story about this for today's Signpost, more examples are welcome. Regards, HaeB (talk) 00:42, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe some of the WMF/WMUK GLAM volunteers will be having a quiet word with their NPG contacts (it is important to remember that we are in fact on speaking terms with the NPG) about this first thing Monday morning, and I would expect correct credit or withdrawal of the text in extremely short order - David Gerard (talk) 00:26, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

My god that's scary.
Clicked on the article and expected to see the man himself in the top portrait, but instead I see that...Oh well me being scared is irrelevant, but shouldn't a self-portrait of the man himself be in the lead? Τασουλα (Shalom!) (talk) 11:57, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * None exists.--Scott Mac 12:11, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, that's a shame. Did one possibly exist at one time? (And you know that Witch is going to boil those children alive, just look at her...?) --Τασουλα (Shalom!) (talk) 13:15, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Lots of things are possible long ago. However, I have never seen any image mentioned in any of the research I have read.--Scott Mac 14:51, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Portrait or self-portrait would be good, but it seems there is none.--DThomsen8 (talk) 16:41, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Self-evidently it would be good. Trust me, there is none. I've read most of the works on him (there are not many) no pictures whatsoever.--Scott Mac 16:53, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The man's a mystery. Still, the wicked witch of the west will do as it is his work. (My nickname for her, original? Perhaps not, I like the painting but it still creeps me out) I love the article by the way so good job. --Τασουλα (Shalom!) (talk) 20:11, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John Michael Wright. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090120082934/http://www.nationalgalleries.org/common/search/?globalSearch=John+Michael+Wright&submit=&submit=1 to http://www.nationalgalleries.org/common/search/?globalSearch=John+Michael+Wright&submit=&submit=1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:44, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on John Michael Wright. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110718023542/http://www.weissgallery.com/DesktopDefault.aspx?tabid=52&tabindex=51&objectid=32757&categoryid=2636 to http://www.weissgallery.com/DesktopDefault.aspx?tabid=52&tabindex=51&objectid=32757&categoryid=2636
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nationalgalleries.org/common/search/?globalSearch=John%20Michael%20Wright&submit=&submit=1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:37, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John Michael Wright. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080511234015/http://www.piobmhor-of-scotland.co.uk/hdhistory.htm to http://www.piobmhor-of-scotland.co.uk/hdhistory.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:08, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John Michael Wright. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110516094618/http://www.huntsearch.gla.ac.uk/cgi-bin/foxweb/huntsearch/DetailedResults.fwx?collection=all&SearchTerm=555&mdaCode=GLAHA&reqMethod=Link to http://www.huntsearch.gla.ac.uk/cgi-bin/foxweb/huntsearch/DetailedResults.fwx?collection=all&SearchTerm=555&mdaCode=GLAHA&reqMethod=Link

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:38, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Spanish quote
I've been reading this article to check the Portuguese version, and noticed that in the second paragraph of the section "Antiquarian for Leopold of Austria", there is a Spanish quote from Wright's passport: "Juan Miguel Rita, pintor Ingles, qua va a Inglaterra a procurar pinturas, medalas, antiguedades, y otras costa señaladas, que le hemosencargado..." There are some mistakes in the Spanish text, which I don't know actually existed in the original passport, or were made in the preparation of the article: Since it's a featured article, I preferred not to make myself the revision, and request the English contributors to evaluate the subject. Claudio M Souza (talk) 01:48, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Ingles -> Inglés
 * antiguedades -> antigüedades
 * costa -> cosas
 * hemosencargado -> hemos encargado