User talk:Qp10qp/Archive 10

This is an archive of inactive discussions.

Hans Eworth
Hello Qp10qp, I have read that Hans Eworth painted a portrait of Agnes Keith, Countess of Moray as well as the one of her husband, James Stewart, Earl of Moray which is on his page. Yesterday, I created an article on Agnes and would like to upload an image of her. Have you ever seen Eworth's painting? Thank you for your help.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Difficult. I cannot find it anywhere, but it certainly exists. qp10qp (talk) 19:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I did a Google search and it just said he'd painted her portrait, but none of the sites showed it. It's so very frustrating when one knows there is indeed a portrait out there somewhere. Thank you for your help.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * In the Duke of Argyll's collection, if it has survived the fires? Johnbod (talk) 13:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh God no! Which fires? I hope it has not been destroyed forever.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Inverary Castle "was damaged by two major fires, in 1877 and 1975". Johnbod (talk) 17:04, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I have a b&w version of Eworth's portrait of Agnes Keith. I was holding out for a color copy, but I can upload what I have.  Now I just have to remember which book it is in... - PKM (talk) 02:34, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Brilliant! I was going to ask you, because you seem to be able to come up trumps in this sort of thing! qp10qp (talk) 02:46, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Here she is. Have fun. File:Hans Eworth Agnes Keith Countess of Moray.png. It's in Strong's English Icon (and btw used copies of that are suddenly plentiful.  I now have a nice copy for reading to go with my much-abused spineless copy, which I am no longer reluctant to scan from).  - PKM (talk) 03:09, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I've put on my kilt and am dancing round the room playing the bagpipes! qp10qp (talk) 03:38, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Is this a private party or can I come too? Thanks a million, PKM and Qp10qp! Look at the article now with Agnes's portrait. It looks so much more complete. Thanks again. I knew I could count on the pair of you to discover where the treasure is hidden.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:36, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * A private party? In Wikipedia? Not at all.  You're quite welcome. - PKM (talk) 02:09, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * PKM, are you ready for another challenge? Do you happen to know if there are any portraits in existence of Janet Beaton? As you can see I'm on a Scottish kick. Must be due to the fact that I'm currently reading Fraser's bio on Mary, Queen of Scots.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Dorothy Dunnett fan? I'm not sure if there's a portrait of Janet Beaton, but I'd be delighted to look for one. - PKM (talk) 02:13, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I've a couple of Dunnett's books, but have only read Queen's Play. That book was fun but full of historical inaccuracies.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:32, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell
Jonathan Strange is at peer review, if you have a moment to look at it. Awadewit (talk) 18:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Will do in the next few days. qp10qp (talk) 19:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Northern Mannerism
Could you very kindly cast an eye over this? If there is stuff to add re Catherine de M etc, or anything else, please do so. Apart from the excellent prints catalogue I don't have much on this beyond the old Blunt Pelican history of art & Strong's Art & Power. Also do you know any pretty pics of goldsmith's work etc?

I see too the bs is piling high at The Ambassadors (Holbein). One day the best-sellers will have a go at Spranger no doubt. All the best Johnbod (talk) 17:02, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You've been doing wonders with NM: not an easy topic. I'll have a look at it over the next few days. I've just removed a bleeding chunk of esoteric nonsense from The Ambassadors: couldn't even locate the given source. Of course, the article is woefully limited apart from that. It's on my list, but the painting is not one of my favourite Holbeins, to be honest. Two men standing on either side of shelves has never struck me as much of a composition. qp10qp (talk) 23:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I've been reverted. I daresay the anon is the author. Not worth fighting over for the time being. qp10qp (talk) 01:52, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

On goldsmithery, in Zerner there's a nice design by Cousin the Elder (an artist I rate) for a fantastical candlestick holder thingie for Henry II. D'you have that? If not I can scan it up. Worth having on Commons anyway. Are these mannerist (I never quite know): File:Shield of Henry II of France.jpg and File:Armor of Henry II of France.jpg? qp10qp (talk) 03:14, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I should coco! Please scan the Cousin - the book I have is Karen Jacobson, ed (often wrongly cat. as George Baselitz), The French Renaissance in Prints, 1994, p.470; Grunwald Center, UCLA, ISBN 0962816221 which has a big chunk of Zerner, but not on the Fontainebleau prints, where Suzanne Boorsch rather takes issue with him on some matters. Johnbod (talk) 03:26, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Well he doesn't really believe there's such a thing as Mannerism, I suspect, or even a School of Fontainebleau, bless him. qp10qp (talk) 23:17, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Jacob Faber

 * Ha ha! Cheers Johnbod. qp10qp (talk) 15:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thank you so much for your helpful review of Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell - perhaps together we should write a proper review of the novel, eh? Awadewit (talk) 22:57, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, crumbs, no—it would mean I'd have to read it! Anything longer than a Chekhov short story and I can't cope. qp10qp (talk) 23:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Martin Luther
I left a message on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Lutheranism and I would like to ask if you or User:Drboisclair are interested. I would help with whatever sources that I have in my university library. --RelHistBuff (talk) 11:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I understand. I wouldn't ask anyone to do something that they find uncomfortable. Unfortunately I have to disqualify myself. Firstly, I believe that there are others who are more qualified (and maybe feel more passionate about the subject) to take the job. Secondly, I don't have access to enough sources. Maybe Drboisclair will do it. Or Pastordavid. I just want to see something semi-decent for such a major character. --RelHistBuff (talk) 22:49, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Edward VI
I don't think Elton meant Edward was not Prince of Wales, just that he was not formally invested as such. When Henry made Edward Earl of Chester at his baptism, he made him effective Prince of Wales, because the one assumed the other. In this portrait, the inscriber assumes that Edward was Prince of Wales, though the inscription postdates Edward's reign, and there are other problems with the drawing, as I've noted on the image description. Both Strong and Hearn have no hesitation in stating that the Windsor portrait in the article depicts Edward as Prince of Wales. Of course, one could argue that it just depicts him as heir to the throne, but the caption now has solid references. qp10qp (talk) 20:32, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. Henry VIII and previously his brother Arthur were both formally invested with the title. The duchy of Cornwall is also always held by the heir to the crown, but Prince Charles was created Duke of Cornwall four years before Prince of Wales and Earl of Chester. The title is not simply assumed, it must be bestowed. Elton's argument is that as part of the reorganisation of Wales Cromwell intended to abolish the distinction and therefore the position. The assumptions of inscribers hardly equate to him actually holding the position. It's curious I know, but I don't think it can confidently be asserted that he was Prince of Wales. JacobJHWard (talk) 21:12, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * On the particular question of the portrait, it only matters that he was depicted as Prince of Wales, which the art historians say that he was. qp10qp (talk) 00:28, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Art historians do, however, tend to be rather more concerned with the history of art than the intricacies of constitutional history and as such are perhaps not the most appropriate authorities to defer to. JacobJHWard (talk) 13:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * On the contrary, they are the best sources for captions. Strong is anyway also an excellent straight historian: I have his books on Henry, Prince of Wales, and on Coronations, and he also wrote a straight history book on Henry VIII. In short, he knows his onions. qp10qp (talk) 13:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Images from NPG
Have you seen these? Scroll down to 31 March. - PKM (talk) 06:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Doh, yeah, I see you are all over it. Never mind. - PKM (talk) 06:35, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Dcoetzee kindly got me those Royal Collection drawings as a request, since I'm planning a Wikipedia list of Holbein's drawings and an article on his drawings. I'll drop you an e-mail. qp10qp (talk) 09:54, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Martin Luther
You can revert it back if you like. I don't edit war and I don't take it personally if my article edits are reverted, it's part of the wiki process. I would opine that if you want his anti-semitic views mentioned in the intro, that you omit the reference to the Nazis. Cla68 (talk) 00:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Learned Hand
Hello! Did you see that the venerable judge is up for the front page on Friday? TFA days fill me with a combination of pride and dread, not sure about you! And thanks again for the kind words and encouragement in January. It meant a lot. I hope your garden is doing well. I have snowdrops and bluebells and the beginnings of daffodils. Spring comes in such a rush here. If it gets too hot too fast, the daffodils are finished before they've begun, so I almost hope for a cool spring! --Slp1 (talk) 22:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * No, I didn't see that. Erk! The first FA I had on the main page was wrecked because people messed about very diligently with the reference formatting. Since then, not too bad, though. I tend not to follow it all day but just to check the damage afterwards.


 * I spent the weekend gardening, the weather is gorgeous, my back's still aching. Bluebells and snowdrops you've got! My bluebells are out but the snowdrops were over long ago: that's OK because I can have them both in the same place. At the moment the garden's a sea of primroses; they've loved the two wet years and have self-seeded all over the place in nooks and crannies. My mum went on holiday to your country (Vancouver) and brought me back some packets of seeds, so I've sown them and hope for the best. Just been out in the dark with a torch, deslugging the Little Carlow daisies, which will be noshed off before they get going if I don't watch out. The neighbours think I'm mad, of course. I live above the moor line, so it's a slug paradise because of the moisture. Don't think I'd like to live in a country with a hard winter: there's something flowering here all year round. I had Cornish mallow still out at Christmas, and by then the hellebores were opening. qp10qp (talk) 22:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I was on my way over to offer congratulations as well! Awadewit (talk) 22:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Now that the FAC is archived, I wanted to thank you for defending me when User:John Carter made that ad hominem. I don't think I said anything uncivil while stating my case for the mid-level importance of the article, so seeing his attack on the FAC was quite a shock. I also wanted to thank you (and Awadewit) for helping me to pursue, what is effectively, a little hobby. I learned much from both of your valuable comments, pre-FAC, on-FAC, and post-FAC, on the past four FAs and this nomination. Seeing the section above though, perhaps gardening is a more rewarding activity! --RelHistBuff (talk) 07:09, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It's a shame the FAC was shelved, because it would have made it in the end. All it needs is a little hewing. You may have noticed that I've been copyediting a bit of it here and there when I've had time; I would have supported once I'd finished. I'll continue, and I hope you'll persist with your work on the article, especially towards getting Xander onside. I suggest some more cooking time and then resubmission. qp10qp (talk) 12:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Holbein Drawing

 * Qp10qp, what is that on your user talk page: a Holbein drawing of the 16th century version of Modern Romance?!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:42, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm Forever Blowing Bubbles. qp10qp (talk) 10:59, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Learned Hand
Thank you very much for all your hard work on this article. Best regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:42, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Finding out about him was really fascinating. Worked on it with User:Slp1. qp10qp (talk) 00:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Shakespeare
No problem... I freely admit that I am approaching this from a policy standpoint, and not as someone who knows the quality of the various sources. My point is simply to say that the alternative views on who Shakespeare was do need to be discussed in the article... and that the source in question does (just) pass RS. If there are better sources than the papers published by the Shakespeare Fellowship, then obviously you should use them instead. Blueboar (talk) 14:42, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * We'll have to agree to differ on whether that's a reliable source or not. I think I will retire from the wretched Reliable sources/Noticeboard now, forever. Very dismaying. The last thing we need is a board that encourages rubbish sources and provides crumbs of hope to those who wish to use them. I'm sure Paul Barlow (who, by the way, is a published art scholar) raised the issue of the source there to have it put to bed not to have it given credibility. The field of Shakespeare portraiture is particularly riddled with amateurish speculation.qp10qp (talk) 14:54, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Religious articles
Qp, sorry I am a bit late to the conversation but I want to know what you think of my response to the discussion your participated in here.  Nancy Heise    talk  20:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Qp, thanks for your comments. I agree with your latest comment on RelHistBuf's talk page and my problem might be because I have a reputation for fighting but you have to consider what has happened at RCC. If your articles were given the same comments that mine got you might get a bit frustrated too. I have asked BrianBolton for help at the next FAC for RCC since I am not really a very good responder and he seems to be a lot better at it than I am. If you would like to help navigate the next RCC FAC, I would welcome your help. We are not considereing a renom until after summer break because of a current mediation regarding the page name that is winding down and needs time to ferment on the talk page first. Let me know what you think. Thanks.  Nancy Heise    talk  22:26, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, I only have a narrow book collection (largely 16th- and early-17th-century history and art), and the RCC is much too big a subject for me. I don't think it's that you have a reputation for fighting but that nothing will doom an FAC more quickly than pugnacity, so it's not a good technique for getting one's way. qp10qp (talk) 23:04, 9 May 2009 (UTC)