Talk:Rogier van der Weyden

Section removed
I have removed a very long section on one work because:
 * a) It was disproportionately long for one work, not usually considered major.
 * b) It was oddly written, not in wiki-style, with no links or paragraphs. Among other things it failed to make clear which work was being discussed - the Houston one? Why "infamous"?
 * c) It would be more appropriate in a separate article on that work, but needs a good deal of editing. Johnbod (talk) 09:25, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Changes
No surviving work of art can be attributed on the basis of fifteenth century documentary evidence to Rogier van der Weyden. This sentence does not read well and I restored the original sentence: Not a single work that can be attributed with certainty (on the basis of documentary evidence) to Rogier van der Weyden survives....Modernist (talk) 22:05, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I've re-written to give sense that Campbell & De Vos consider three paintings by Van der Weyden to be (in Campbell's words) "well-authenticated". I think the former initial sentence "Not a single work that can be attributed with certainty (on the basis of documentary evidence) to Rogier van der Weyden survives." is too absolute. Campbell argues that the 16th century documentation of 'The Deposition' in The Prado, Madrid, demonstrates beyond any reasonable doubt that the painting is by Van der Weyden. He also believes the documentary & technical evidence supporting the 'Crucifixion', Escorial, and the 'Miraflores Altarpiece', now in Berlin, make the 2 pictures "well-authenticated". Campbell further argues that 'The Magdalene Reading' in the National Gallery London, is "one of Rogier's most important early works".Campbell, The Fifteenth Century Netherlandish Schools, National Gallery, London, 1998, p. 405. Haven't had time to do that one. Mick gold (talk) 14:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I think you should add a proviso - as you say above: -

However Campbell argues that the 16th century documentation of 'The Deposition' in The Prado, Madrid, demonstrates beyond any reasonable doubt that the painting is by Van der Weyden. Campbell further argues that 'The Magdalene Reading' in the National Gallery London, is also "one of Rogier's most important early works" etc.

Good work so far! Modernist (talk) 14:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Subject's name
The subject is referred to in the article as "Rogier" and as "Rogelet". The latter looks like a typo, but nl:WP seems to say that it appears in a contemporary document and then seems to discuss whether this is the same person. My limited Dutch doesn't allow me to get further with nl:WP, but fr:WP concludes in a documented note that they are different people. Could a specialist - or at least someone fluent in Dutch, since the discussion in nl:WP seems to be fuller - provide a clarification for en:WP?

He is also referred to as "van der Weyden" and as "van er Weyden". Since the latter does not appear in nl:WP, I have assumed a typo and changed "er" to "der".

"de le Pasture" looks wrong - modern French would be "de la Pâture", and this is used in fr:WP. But "Pasture" could be right for the time and nl:WP has "de le Pasture" throughout. However, fr:WP also refers to "de la Pasture" and, in an note, apparently from a document. The question is not, of course, how contemporaries should have spelt the name, but how they did - and, if they did so inconsistently, which is very possible, that should be recorded. Modern spelling may be in many modern discussions - if so, I think it should be included and specified as modernisation.

fr:WP also jumps around between "Rogier" and "Roger", appearing to find "Maître Roger" in a document, but that may be a modernisation of both words. A quotation in a note has "Maistre Rogier de le Pasture" and "Maistre" looks right for the time. Roger" does not appear in nl:WP. So I would not introduce "Roger" to en:WP.

Roger en uit. --Wikiain (talk) 00:06, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * There's no point trying to record every spelling variant in this period, even when just one language is involved. A no doubt non-exhaustive list is here. Nor should other WPs be used as references. I suggest, for your sanity, you don't even try looking at William Shakespeare. Johnbod (talk) 00:12, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Johnbod: those were not my points.


 * As to spelling, my point was that different spellings are given in the article without explanation. It is at least important, and is treated as important in fr:WP and nl:WP, whether "Rogier" and "Rogelet" are the same person.  I wouldn't think it necessary to cover spellings beyond those used by the man himself, by close family members or in official documents - the list that you link to may go beyond that.  But the selection would need to be that made in publications that are used as sources, or one would be doing OR.  All the same, one should distinguish between contemporary spellings, such as "Maistre", and modernisations.


 * As to other WPs as references: of course.  I meant only to invite someone with knowledge of Dutch to follow up on the discussion in nl:WP, so as to improve the discussion in en:WP from the sources used by nl:WP.  I was treating other WPs as examples or models, not as sources.


 * And, of course, Shakspere's spelling was terrible. --Wikiain (talk) 23:26, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Most of the variant references are using the form in the original source, and we should be wary of tampering with them. Perhaps use "". Most of these come from the old EB text, which is still the main part of the article. Really it all needs a revision using up to date sources, of which there are plenty in English. nl:WP is not a WP:RS.Johnbod (talk) 00:22, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll try and prepare a foot note on this, over the weekend. Ceoil  17:20, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Error in Rogier van der Weyden Biography
Hello, User Ceoil. You added to the lede in Rogier's article the following statement:

By 1439 both Rogier and Elisabeth [his wife] had died, evidenced by documents recording the division of their property amongst their children.

This statement cannot be correct, as Rogier is recorded as living until 1464. I do not know how the error arose, but I will be deleting the statement altogether. Nandt1 (talk) 04:01, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Did you mean his parents maybe? Johnbod (talk) 19:25, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I have the source (LC's big book) witin two feet, will fix. Prob a typo or something. Ceoil  sláinte 20:42, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Artist's infobox
Rogier van der Weyden like Bruegel has enough info to merit an old masters infobox. Rizalninoynapoleon (talk) 15:04, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not a question of that. An infobox takes up space needed for images and, as with many art articles, the local editors prefer not to have one. Johnbod (talk) 15:17, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that this article would be better without a box. -- Klein zach  00:20, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * i think you are trying to hold back the linked open data tide. Duckduckstop (talk) 18:35, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Why? There are no Wikipedia rules for that one for the article of the artist's to have the infobox. And for another cause it is so too disappointing to trash out that I already made infobox for this artist.  Je Bon Ser  (talk &#124; sign) 05:35, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

GA nomination
i'm nominating for GA since the revscore indicates FA https://ores.wmflabs.org/scores/enwiki/wp10/711866543/ -- Duckduckstop (talk) 18:34, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Duckduck. The article has never been given serious attention and is weak, though it has most of the facts. Its underdeveloped for GA, though I would love to see that happen at some time. Ceoil (talk) 22:15, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Given the assessment by someone who has made over 100 edits to the article—exactly the reason that potential nominators who have not edited the article are supposed to consult here prior to nominating—I'm removing the nomination. It's yet another demonstration of why the revscore algorithm is insufficiently accurate for basing nominations: as the article is underdeveloped for GA, the FA prediction is clearly wildly off. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:12, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Rogier van der Weyden. 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/20091001230613/http://www.museu.gulbenkian.pt/obra.asp?num=79ab&nuc=a9&lang=en to http://www.museu.gulbenkian.pt/obra.asp?num=79ab&nuc=a9&lang=en
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://xv.kikirpa.be/database/van-der-weyden-rogier-test.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061214152518/http://www.nga.gov/exhibitions/diptychinfo.shtm to http://www.nga.gov/exhibitions/diptychinfo.shtm

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) 08:21, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Infobox again

 * No, we still don't want one. Johnbod (talk) 15:24, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Is it necessary to have a votation first for this action before it will be implemented?  Je Bon Ser  (talk &#124; sign) 15:45, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Well you have added one & been reverted twice, so it seems time for another discussion. Given the previous discussion, consensus for a box is needed. I might add there are a number of issues with the box you added, but the main principle comes first. Johnbod (talk) 16:15, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It is not necessary to have a consensus for this and it is not part of the WP rule anymore. Are you making a rule that is not part of the WP. Then, if it is a WP rule, then list down it here.  Je Bon Ser  (talk &#124; sign) 04:04, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

"The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article. Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article." Johnbod (talk) 13:29, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I think having an infobox here make sense. The lead currently doesn't mention his place of birth, death or burial, and these details would naturally fit into an infobox. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 13:56, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Those are easily fixed - the lead is now only 3 paras. If we have an infobox it would not be as added by JeBonSer, which has various problems. Johnbod (talk) 14:11, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * What were the problems? 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 14:44, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, its too long and arbitrary for starters. I have no real preference re infoboxes or not, but lean against here as as said too long and random. I'd, at min, loose "Education:Robert Campin (disputed)" as its a theory (and we know little of Campin anyway; many of the attributions are debatable), and the Patron(s) section. Have a real prob with "Notable works" for major artists, ie how are they selected, and how many are included. Ceoil (talk) 21:39, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree; too long, and infoboxes have a way of making doubtful information and educated guesses look definitive. Ewulp (talk) 00:06, 3 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment I've attached a candidate infobox to this discussion. I've removed the "training" and "patrons" sections and reduced "notable works" to two undoubtedly famous works. Does anyone object to anything here? 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 08:47, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Certainly much better, but I'd still rather not have one, and add this info to the lead. The dubious imaginary "portrait" from a century+ after his death already takes up a lot of space at the top. That could go much lower, imo, and the misleading caption "Rogier van der Weyden, portrait by Cornelis Cort, 1572" reworked. And can't the Latin verse be cropped? Johnbod (talk) 16:14, 3 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose infobox on this article. Art historians don't know when or where he was born; for a long time he was identified under a different name; for a long time confused with Robert Campin (who was also confused/misidentified); I've never seen art historian define Early Netherlandish Art as a movement; the "Notable works" is subjective and will need tending. Strip all of that away and we're left with "Resting place" - which is a misnomer. It's better not to have one than to try to fit incorrect dates/place of birth/etc. into a box which will go out into mirror sites. Victoria (tk) 16:30, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Is there currently any doubt about his identity? The article doesn't give that impression: "Rogelet de le Pasture (Roger of the Pasture) was born in Tournai (in present-day Belgium) in 1399 or 1400. His parents were Henri de le Pasture and Agnes de Watrélos. ... In 1426, Rogier married Elisabeth ..." -- there's no "possibly" or "probably" here. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 03:20, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose, Sorry Ficaia, your reduced infobox is much better, and appreciate the thought and effort, but remain weary of inclusion per Victoria's comments. Ceoil (talk) 01:05, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Wary as well as weary, I expect! Hope your summer is going ok, Johnbod (talk) 02:14, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * All is well thanks, although this heat! Ceoil (talk) 09:16, 4 September 2022 (UTC)