Talk:Portrait of an African Man

"Balthazar" precedes this man in Western art
The article asserts " it portrays the only black man in early modern European painting in an independent way" Is "an independemt way" a wiggle to exclude representations of the Three Kings? "Balthazar's blackness has been the subject of considerable recent scholarly attention; in art it is found mostly in northern Europe, beginning from the 12th century, and becoming very common in the north by the 15th" (Wikipedia Three Kings). --Wetman (talk) 03:21, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * As I understood the sources "in an independent way" means that the portraited person is the only one present on the painting. Crispulop (talk) 11:32, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I was going to comment that the word "independent" was less than clear. I wondered if it meant the subject was free and of some societal status, as opposed to being portrayed as a savage or slave. I guesss some alternate form of words might be considered Rob Burbidge (talk) 12:45, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

File:African man portrait Mostaert.jpg to appear as POTD soon
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:African man portrait Mostaert.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on February 1, 2016. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2016-02-01. 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) 23:33, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Gallery
I don't think it makes sense that there is at the end of the article, 4 gallery pictures of various depictions of Saint Maurice. Especially because the link to Saint Maurice is slightly dubious. Personally the assertions to me sound like a very unlikely way to paint a saint. Would it be best to remove the four pictures of Saint Maurice, which can simply be viewed looking at the Saint Maurice article? They do not even have an introduction. Anyway I will not remove them myself, I do not think I will ever get away with it if the one who put it there decides to edit war75.73.150.255 (talk) 18:37, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Too true (that you would not get away with removing them). Whether or not the Mostaert is intended to be St Maurice, these are clearly other comparable depiction of black men at this period, and should remain, not least to prevent people claiming that this is the earliest such depiction, which it is not. Johnbod (talk) 19:42, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I do agree with the suggestion that it does not make a lot of sense to have some seemingly randomly four images at the end of the article, without any further explanation. It leaves one guessing why they are there. Especially since St Maurice is just one of several possibilities of the depicted person. Crispulop (talk) 21:40, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The further explanation is the last para of "subject". But if it is puzzling those who don't read the text I will look at it. Johnbod (talk) 05:35, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you, certainly an improvement. Crispulop (talk) 19:33, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

The Editor who added the pictures, and the dubious claim that he was a saint is practicing white supremacy. If a black Africa in the 1500 was educated and wealthy looking, it destroys the narrative of black being only savages and fit for slavery, which is common in western education. So the editor wants to portray him as being a fake figure representing an old mythical roman saint, not a living Black African. most people don't read much, so have the pictures will allow the lazy to justifiy thier claim, that He doesn't represent a Savage 15th century African, but only a old Roman saint myth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:582:4101:5D00:21F4:294:B3DE:116D (talk) 03:21, 17 March 2016 (UTC)