Talk:Anna van Egmont

Removal of section on 'newly discovered portrait?'

I removed a section on a portrait that some have found resembles a portrait of Anna van Egmont. The text was a long citation of one publicist and therefore most likely copyvio, but furthermore the section was completely speculative and it ended "The women may have known each other. Maybe they were friends. Now that I would posthumously put them together, these women are a perfect match!". This is an article on Anna van Egmont, not some webspace for personal romantic fantasies. Eissink (talk) 10:42, 1 May 2020 (UTC).

I disagree with your removal.

Removing entirely as you did a sourced information is not appropriate.

The fact that you find this information speculative is not a reason. It is first an opinion, your opinion. And second, no one disagrees with the fact that there is a question on the sitter and this resemblance. The title of the paragraph is also clearly indicating that there is an open question on that matter.

Further more, this information is sourced from a serious secondary source, the author being a notorious art historian.

Moreover, and above all, in art history, there are many other paintings where the identity of the sitter is questioned. This is even an important part of academic research, to compare portraits to try to identify a sitter or a painter. Scholars write thesis about elements of comparison, such as the author of this article did. Writing that he expressed a "personal romantic fantasy" is not either appropriate, as it could be understood as a personal attack against him.

You may not be familiar with art history, which would then explain your deletion. But you may not say that an open question on a point of art history is not an encyclopaedic one.

You may not like the fact that this paragraph contains too many citations of the article. But you may not say it is copyvio, since it is clearly indicated that the said sentences are from the article which is cited and explicitly referred to.

I invite you to contribute positively to this article and not in a destructive way. Rather add than delete.

I will myself think in the coming days about your critic about the number of citations , which I find the only acceptable one, and try to rewrite this paragraph. I propose that you wait for my edit of this paragraph, which I will do sometimes in the coming next week, and that you review it then.

Regards, --Emigré55 (talk) 04:14, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

An exemple on how scholars and researchers examine portraits to identify sitters (and/or painters): please read the article on Isabella d'Este and especially the paragraph entitled "Identity of sitter". And also have a close look to the comparison shown here : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portrait_of_Isabella_d%27Este_(Titian)#/media/File:Isabella_d'Este_vs_Margherita_Paleologa.jpg

--Emigré55 (talk) 09:20, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a research platform. If there is some sort of agreement on identity or if there is a well documented dispute pro and contra, then of course there is and should be room for sharing that in a biographical article, but your lengthy, full copyvio addition didn't reflect anything of such and just added flowery, romantic speculations of hardly any or no value. Eissink (talk) 11:27, 6 June 2020 (UTC).

And comparing a similar discussion elsewhere, I get the impression that your main goal seems to be to boost publications related to Gouda Museum. Wikipedia is not a platform to promote local museums, and certainly not in biographical articles. Eissink (talk) 11:33, 6 June 2020 (UTC).

Your immediate new deletion is again totally abusive. And very close to an edit war YOU want to start, only based on what are your personal opinions, not facts.

In doing this, you are already acting contrary to Wikipedia rules and principles, and in particular WP:POV and WP:NPOVVIEW.

Moreover, you should presume good faith as far as I am concerned. And it is sad to see that you just do the opposite, accusing me to promote a local museum, which had nothing to do with Anna van Buren. I consider it as a personal attack. Please respect WP:PERSONALATTACKS. Rest also assured that I am neither an employee of this museum, nor paid by it. Needless to say, this museum never asked me to promote it. This accusation is, to say the least (!), pure speculation from you.

The discussion you raised has nothing to do with the alleged promotion of this museum. Wrong reference, then. WP:POV? WP:NPOVVIEW? In so doing, do you feel you also assume good faith from me? and abide with the rule WP:GOODFAITH??

About the alleged copyvio: I will seek from the author an OTRS permission, so that it is clear to every one that you are totally wrong also on this point.

And then add a modified paragraph on the questioned portrait of Anna van Buren.

--Emigré55 (talk) 13:22, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Sometimes it is helpful to point out possible conflicting one issue contributions, but I did not mean to attack you, so I apologize if my boldness went too far. That said, I have a strong sense that I am far from the only Wikipedian who will not accept one author's essayistic texts filling up articles, no matter how interesting the subject may be, but if you feel you have to spent time and effort to find that out for yourself, don't let me stop you, but – again – it's my experience that Wikipedia does not act as a platform for essays and I do think your efforts will turn out to have been in vain. If you will insert large external texts on art comparison into this biographical article again, I can assure you that I will request measures to be taken on your editing, if that is what is necessary to show that Wikipedia is not an art magazine. If you want to write in more length on a painting by Pourbus that might have a connection to Anna van Egmond, I strongly suggest you make a seperate article on that painting (which is a very interesting painting, indeed), to which you then can shortly refer to in this article, but even in a separate article it is not to be recommended that you just copy and paste large parts of the work of just one author: it should be a balanced exposition on the painting's features, provenance and scientific discussion. I hope this has made my point more clear. Eissink (talk) 14:07, 6 June 2020 (UTC).

Perhaps it is helpful to browse f.i. Category:Portraits of women, where you will find different examples of articles on similar subjects, ranging from elaborate (e.g. Portrait of Adele Bloch-Bauer I) to more sobre (e.g. Portrait of a Noblewoman with a Dwarf). Good luck, greetings, Eissink (talk) 14:16, 6 June 2020 (UTC).

As you will or have read, I have inserted a new short paragraph about the portraits of Anna Van Egmont. This version does not include external texts. It only cites the sources of what is an important historical and iconographical addition to this no less important person to the history of the Netherlands. On the other hand, I find your suggestion of a separate article dedicated to the newly discovered portrait a good one, and I am preparing one. rgds, --Emigré55 (talk) 12:53, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Emigré55. Your addition now makes a very nice and balanced article. In my opinion, presenting it this way even serves the credibility of Couwenbergs findings a whole lot better. I'm looking forward to the separate article. Regards, Eissink (talk) 13:31, 22 August 2020 (UTC).

I have created a draft article on this painting, as per your suggestion. Of course, it is not yet complete, and I will add to it in the coming days. As far as citations are concerned, I thought that the only one I included in the introduction would allow to nicely stress out the character and importance of this painting in Pourbus' corpus. Rather that using similar words and appear not neutral. Your comments are welcome. Rgds, --Emigré55 (talk) 14:06, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

To be honest, I have removed the speculation about this portrait. The Banner talk 11:21, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Obviously, you are not familiar with art history. It is very frequent that scholars make hypothesis about a painting, based on observations, to attribute it to a painter or identify a sitter. For an example, please look at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Profile_Portrait_of_a_Young_Lady. Such hypothesis cannot be qualified as speculation. Moreover, these articles are facts and valid sources pertinent to Anna Van Buren as well as Pieter Pourbus. As such, they belong to an encyclopaedic entry.

--Emigré55 (talk) 13:53, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

The speculation does not belong here. See: Wikipedia:No original research. The Banner talk 14:43, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

What I did is just "cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented." (op.cit.: the rule you brought up).

You are not applying the rule correctly. The rule only applies to original research coming from me as the writer of the article, which is not the case. Otherwise, a considerable amount of articles such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Profile_Portrait_of_a_Young_Lady would have to be removed from Wikipedia.....

Moreover, you are now going against consensus on this page: see Eissink's comment here above at 13:31, 22 August 2020 (UTC).

--Emigré55 (talk) 19:51, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

LOL, are your arguments that weak that you already have to call in a consensus with a 2-1 stance? That is no consensus but still a discussion. The Banner talk 21:01, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

My arguments are that strong that you did not even respond to them. And you only turn now to a personal attack. Please leave this subject of art history where you obviously have no experience and consider editing other articles.

Please also remember WP:5P4 : "Wikipedia's editors should treat each other with respect and civility":

Respect your fellow Wikipedians, even when you disagree. Apply Wikipedia etiquette, and do not engage in personal attacks. Seek consensus, avoid edit wars, and never disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Act in good faith, and assume good faith on the part of others. Be open and welcoming to newcomers. Should conflicts arise, discuss them calmly on the appropriate talk pages, follow dispute resolution procedures, and consider that there are 6,908,386 other articles on the English Wikipedia to improve and discuss.

--Emigré55 (talk) 21:20, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. It would be mighty nice when you do that. The Banner talk 09:55, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Do not start an edit war on wrong definitions

to User:The Banner|The Banner]] talk:

I reverted your edit because you make an abusive use of the word speculation in it, in all instances.
2 Definitions of the word « speculation » :

• In https://www.dictionary.com/browse/speculation: (...) on speculation rather than facts.
• In https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/speculation: Speculation (countable and uncountable, plural speculations):

1. The process of thinking or meditating on a subject. quotations ▼ 2. (philosophy) The act or process of reasoning a priori from premises given or assumed. 3. A conclusion to which the mind comes by speculating; mere theory; notion; conjecture. quotations ▼

Both definition indicate that the word is used when a reasoning is not based on facts.
Since Couwenbergh is basing his reasoning on facts, which he in addition carerefully describes, it is an hypothesis, not a speculation.

Please, do not engage in a an edit war, simply to push your opinion.
Or I will have to report your actions, and what begins to turn to harassment.
--Emigré55 (talk) 11:39, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

You have no content related arguments? Could you please stop editwarring and POV-pushing! The Banner talk 13:00, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

YOU have no argument. You prove it first here above, not answering but attacking me. and here again, not answering the arguments I gave you on the mere definition of the word "speculation", and which are content related, what you would have realised if you had simply read the article of Couwenbergh in reference instead of POV Pushing.

Don't start an Edit War, or I will report you and your increasing harassment and POV pushing.

--Emigré55 (talk) 13:34, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

I am still waiting for your content related arguments instead of personal attacks and failing to adhere to AGF. The Banner talk 14:15, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Ow, and Marc Couwenbergh is a writer. Not an art historian are something in that field. His blog is not a proper source. The Banner talk 14:36, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Cut it out

@The Banner: @Emigré55: I see templates going to and fro, edit warring and a talkpage full of walls of text. I agree with the Banner, sort of, that possible portraits do not belong on this page, since it is about the woman herself. Possible unknown portraits are very suitable on a page on the painter, not on the page about a historical figure. That being said, if I see either of you reverting the other once more, I shall not hesitate to report both of you. Thank you for your cooperation. Kleuske (talk) 18:33, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

@Kleuske: you seemed to have missed that the painting already has it's own article: Portrait of a Noble Young Lady (Pourbus), and you even didn't remove the image of the painting that you wanted removed, so I will restore the mess. I have asked for a perhaps more informed opinion by a more or less involved sysop (see below), so please do not revert before Hoary's opinion is given. Thanks, Eissink (talk) 19:10, 24 August 2020 (UTC).

So? A see-also link is enough. Better than the present speculation. The Banner talk 19:26, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Starting yet another edit war seems a distinctly bad idea, so rest assured, I know the difference between WP:BOLD and WP:3RR. Given the fact that an article already exists, however, only serves to stress the point that the text you restored serves no purpose in an article on a historical figure. A brief mention may be in order, not an entire section. Kleuske (talk) 19:28, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

I didn't say the text couldn't be shorter (or better), but the removals by both of you were brutal and left no space for anything. I might not have interfered if Kleuske's removal hadn't been sloppy, leaving the image, but here we are. I hope you will accept and await the opinion of Hoary, who has shown a deeper interest in the painting's article. When paintings of important historical figures, as Anna van Egmont, are rare (only one of her is confirmed), possible new discovered paintings can be a significant addition to a biographical article, not in the least for readers. Eissink (talk) 19:34, 24 August 2020 (UTC).

So we have a consensus that a short mention is all that is warranted in this article, especially since we have an article on the portrait itself, which can and should include all the details. Righty-ho. Also, I do not much appreciate terms like “brutal” and “sloppy” here. It does seem to imply a lack of good faith. Kleuske (talk) 19:43, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Please don't read too much in those words. 'Brutal' because it left no room for the consensus you just now allege, and 'sloppy' because it was, eh, sloppy, leaving the picture without any reference. No hard feelings. Eissink (talk) 19:47, 24 August 2020 (UTC).

We have an entire talk page of editors, including you, failing to reach any form of compromise or consensus, we have editors templating each others talk pages and edit warring in the article and you do no see any difference between WP:BOLD and brutally leaving no room for consensus? Hard feelings. Very hard feelings. Kleuske (talk) 19:55, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

But I wasn't even involved in the dialogue the last couple of days. Nor were you, by the way. Eissink (talk) 19:59, 24 August 2020 (UTC).

I don’t care. You’re as much a part of this godawful mess as the others. I merely came here because warning templates were flying around and I hate reporting users for edit warring. An apology seems fitting. Kleuske (talk) 20:04, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure who you are addressing. What do you want an apology for? Eissink (talk) 20:11, 24 August 2020 (UTC).

I am addressing you, as the indentation suggests. If you do not know what to apologize for, reread my remarks above. Kleuske (talk) 20:13, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

For using the word 'sloppy'? In Dutch I would have said 'slordig' – should I have said 'onzorgvuldig', 'careless'? Well, read 'careless', if that makes you feel better. And I already explained what I meant by using the words I chose, so I don't know what your goal is, but there is nothing for me to further apologize for. Please calm down. Eissink (talk) 20:21, 24 August 2020 (UTC).

Your remarks were uncivil, your actions in this mess less than commendable and if you do not know the word “brutal” and it’s implications, look it up. You failed to assume good faith by your assumption I would revert on sight, implied my opinions are uninformed whilst being involved in this mess from the get-go. You are hardly in a position to tell me to “calm down”. Kleuske (talk) 20:31, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

I did not imply your opinions are uninformed. Asking for a third opinion, as I did, was because you had already chosen not to seek a midway consensus (you removed all the text). I used 'brutal' in the sense of 'crude' (lomp), like 'coarse', being not subtle (seeking a middle way would have been subtle). As for the rest of your remarks: you are entitled to your opinion, but I don't recognize myself in your judgments, not at all. Have a good night. Eissink (talk) 20:37, 24 August 2020 (UTC).

Calling people “lomp”, crude and coarse is a personal attack. Let’s add that to the list above. Kleuske (talk) 20:50, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

I was talking about the character of the edits, not about persons. And I think you are overreacting tremendously. And there is no list above. Your allegations are totally unreasonable. Eissink (talk) 20:59, 24 August 2020 (UTC).

To reach a compromise, I have added a "third opinion"-request at the dedicated platform. For an independent opinion. The Banner talk 20:01, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

A compromise and a third opinion are not the same thing. Besides, by my count, Eissink requested a fifth opinion, and you number six. Judging from the above, and repeating myself, it seems we do have a consensus that a short mention is in order, but the entire paragraph belongs in the article about the actual painting, were the fact is hardly mentioned at all. Kleuske (talk) 20:11, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

It might be a case of semantics, but in my opinion is a third opinion/third party opinion, an opinion from someone not prior involved in the discussion. The Banner talk 20:14, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

How about addressing the bread and butter of the statement, about actually having a consensus, instead of wasting everybody’s time with semantics? Kleuske (talk) 20:16, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

If you want the bread-and-butter pudding, look at my edit from 19:26, 24 August 2020. The Banner talk 20:31, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Asking for third opinion

Hoary, since you have been engaged in Portrait of a Noble Young Lady (Pourbus), could you perhaps help out here? There has been a very unfortunate edit war going on, unfortunate especially because it involves not just details, but bluntly a whole paragraph. My estimate is that there should be room to mention the Portrait of a Noble Young Lady – what would you say? Thanks, Eissink (talk) 19:02, 24 August 2020 (UTC).

Wikipedia:Third_opinion#Active_disagreements The Banner talk 19:43, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Portrait by Pieter Pourbus

Good morning (my time). When I woke yesterday I had no idea of how much time I was about to spend on the draft→article Portrait of a Noble Young Lady (Pourbus). I was aware that much of it duplicated content within the article Pieter Pourbus. I was unaware that it also duplicated material within this article. I only reached the article on the painting via its appearance (as a draft) within Wikipedia:AfC sorting/Culture/Visual arts. I am a near-ignoramus in both the history of art (I had never heard of Pourbus) and in European history (I'd never heard of this woman), I cannot read Dutch (whether of the 16th or the 21st century), and my ability in today's French is abysmal and in 16th-century French is zero. So my only qualification for commenting on this article is a freedom from personal interest (of the undesirable kind). When going to bed I imagined that I might have to spend a few more minutes on the painting article but that I'd then be through with it. The quantity and vehemence of writing on this talk page astound me. (No, I have only read parts of it, and do not intend to read it all.)

So, I take a look:

The only painting depicting Anne Van Egmont, in the royal collections of Holland[9], could in fact be a copy of a lost painting.

So there's only one painting under discussion.

Actually no. There are two. The commas around "in the royal collections of Holland" are misplaced. This is a simple mistake by somebody for whom English is not a first language. I don't intend to ridicule it or the person who made it. But I wonder why nobody here bothered to fix it.

I'd (ignorantly) assume that very many, perhaps most, surviving portraits from the period could in fact be copies of lost paintings. So why say this about this one? Perhaps because an authoritative source has pointed out that it's particularly likely for this portrait. But if so, then why no reference?

[T]he art historian Marc Couwenberg published a detailed article [...]

Unfortunately I cannot read https://marccouwenbergh.nl/anna-van-bueren-versus-de-mona-lisa-van-pieter-pourbus-meester-schilder-uit-gouda/ and I do not trust Google Translate for such purposes. A mere glance suggests that this is a blog entry. For all I know, it may be a very erudite and fastidious blog entry, but I do wonder why so much attention is paid here to an article published where the author also posts such material as "Mijn eerste marathon". Yes, highly significant insights can be made by highly qualified authors on their own blogs; but if this is an example, I'd expect commentary elsewhere about this blog entry, or a later article by Couwenberg published in an academic journal or similar.

Marc Couwenbergh describes this painting in another article as the "Mona Lisa" by Pourbus.

I do not understand how this description, however well justified, helps our readers understand who this woman was. So I don't know why it's here.

More generally, this article should say little about the portrait by Pourbus, instead referring the reader there; just as the article about the portrait should say little about the woman, instead referring the reader here. -- Hoary (talk) 01:34, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Good morning, and Thank you, Hoary, for your time on this, and useful comments.

In order to go ahead and follow your recommandation, in your last sentence above, I propose to delete 2 sentences, and hence the following version for this paragraph:

The portraits of Anna Van Egmont

The only painting depicting Anne Van Egmont in the royal collections of Holland could in fact be a copy of a lost painting.

The "Portrait of a noble young Lady", painted by Pieter Pourbus, exhibited for the first time in 2017 in Bruges, then at the Gouda museum in 2018, could be the portrait of Anna van Egmont.

Further information on Portrait of a Noble Young Lady: Portrait of a Noble Young Lady (Pourbus)

--Emigré55 (talk) 06:33, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

What to do:

• Is she "Anna", or "Anne"?
• Is there a reliable, published source in which an expert says (experts say) that it is particularly likely that this is a copy of a lost painting? If so, say so, of course presenting the source. If not, skip any mention of the copy-of-lost-painting possibility.
• If you're going to cite either or both of those catalogues, please copy the versions that I created yesterday (complete with italics, ISBNs, etc). However, I don't know why you're saying that this painting was exhibited in Bruges and Gouda: readers can learn this from the article about the painting.
• The main claim here about the portrait by Pourbus is that it "could be the portrait of Anna van Egmont". Provide evidence for this possibility: a source in which an expert (sources in which experts) say so.

-- Hoary (talk) 07:29, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

@ Hoary: Thank you for your comments, advice and guidance. As a somewhat newcomer ( my first contribution dates back only to last February), I must say I am learning a lot from you and your comments.

I am also grateful, because of the way you do it. Without systematic and/or brutal revert. Also without any aggressiveness. Quite a nice change for me, especially comparing to some unpleasant recent experiences....

On our subject, taking into account your above-mentioned suggestions would give this amended version:

The portraits of Anna Van Egmont

The only painting depicting Anne Van Egmont in the royal collections of Holland could in fact be a copy of a lost painting.

The "Portrait of a noble young Lady", painted by Pieter Pourbus, exhibited for the first time in 2017 in Bruges, then at the Gouda museum in 2018, could be the portrait of Anna van Egmont, according to Marc Couwenbergh.

Further information on Portrait of a noble young Lady: Portrait of a Noble Young Lady (Pourbus)

What do you think?

I am digging on your comment about the “copy”, which I have read somewhere. Although it is obvious to me (and many..) that it is a copy, mainly taking into consideration the low quality of execution of the face of the sitter. Not to mention the fact that it was common, at the time, that copies were made in ateliers, not only for the purpose of training apprentices, but also for high ranking nobilities, because their portraits was offered to other people.

So, more to follow...as usual.

And TY again.--Emigré55 (talk) 10:34, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Well, it would be OK, except for two things. First, you're still claiming that the painting acknowledged to be of her "could in fact be a copy of a lost painting" despite presenting no evidence for this. Secondly, you're depending on a blog entry by Marc Couwenbergh. Who is he? -- Hoary (talk) 12:14, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

On the issue of "a copy", one can read on the Rijksmuseum's website, here, about this portrait: "Portrait of Anna van Buren, first wife of William of Orange Heliograph, 1895-1896, after a painting made c. 1555, attributed to Marcus Gheeraerts"."(...)after a painting(...)" means that it is considered as a copy.--Emigré55 (talk) 11:07, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

@ Hoary: Adding to the above, with my apologies, I should have mentioned that this is from the heliograph of the painting belonging to the Royal collections in The Hague.

On the issue of a copy, moreover, one can also read on the Rijksmuseum's website, there, and this time precisely about the painting of the Royal collections: "Current attribution possibly after Antonio Moro, zie Van Luttervelt 1959" and below "Rejected attribution Marcus Gheeraerts (I) zie veiling 1895" (name the heliograph was referring to at the end of the 19th century).

The use of the word "after" means definitely that it is a copy. and "possibly after", that it is a copy "possibly" of a lost painting by Antonio Moro (also called Anthonis More) --Emigré55 (talk) 14:49, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

@ Hoary: On Marc Couwenbergh: « Marc Couwenbergh (1958) is a political scientist and writes about art, culture and history as a journalist. Marc has written several books on these topics. »

« Marc Couwenbergh writes with a clear pen, without the usual jargon, and with extensive knowledge of art and cultural-historical subjects. »

translated from: https://decorrespondent.nl/marccouwenbergh

--Emigré55 (talk) 14:54, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

I would suggest the following text:

It is suggested that the "Portrait of a noble young Lady", painted by Pieter Pourbus, could be another portrait of Anna van Egmont.

And then off course backed up by a reliable source, not by a blog. There is no evidence that Couwenberg is an art historian at all. Not even his own Linkedin-page makes that claim. The Banner talk 11:51, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

No: unless I'm making a big mistake, the Rijksmuseum page is saying that the (monochrome) image we're looking at is [a digital reproduction of] an 1890s copy -- specifically, a heliograph and therefore of course monochrome -- of "a painting made c. 1555, attributed to Marcus Gheeraerts I". Of course paintings can be traditionally/previously/popularly/mistakenly attributed to this or that painter; but if one of these or some other warning adverb were appropriate, I think that the page would supply it. As the page does not qualify "attributed", I'd take this to mean that the Rijksmuseum experts believe that it's likely (but uncertain) that the portrait you're discussing was painted by Marcus Gheeraerts the Elder, and anyway was executed circa 1555. Of course it could be a copy all the same, but the Rijksmuseum does not indicate this. If I wanted to be more certain, I'd look for a catalogue raisonné for Gheeraerts and look within it for a chapter about attributions. ¶ Why does any of this matter so much for the reader's understanding of this person? -- Hoary (talk) 12:14, 25 August 2020 (UTC) reformatted/rewritten 12:18, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

My understanding is that already at the end of the 19th century, the expert were thinking that this painting (out of which the heliograph) was "after" a lost original by Marcus Gheeraerts the Elder, and not even "attributed to" him...

Anyhow, this is of no use, because current consensus (at least at RKD) is that this painting is now "after" an original by Anthonis Mor (also called Antonio Moro). So we are still talking of a copy anyway.--Emigré55 (talk) 18:37, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Diving a bit deeper into the subject matter, it turns out that there are several paintings of Anna, most likely all after one original that was formerly attribute to Marcus Gheeraerts, but is now thought to have been painted by Anthonis Mor – see RKD. The painting currently heading the article is not the best copy, in my opinion. This makes me think that it would be good to have a small gallery in a paragraph Portraits of Anna van Buren [/ Egmond / Egmont], with a short description of the uncertainties surrounding the provenance. But it would take some time to make that a conscientious paragraph, time that I lack at the moment. I'm starting to think that it might be better for now to skip the whole paragraph until someone comes up with a short but decent piece of text on the portraits (one suggested source, but there has to be more) – just mentioning one copy in Dutch collection and then redirecting to a possible portrait doesn't seem to do justice to a paragraph "Portraits of ...". Eissink (talk) 13:00, 25 August 2020 (UTC).

I would personally not say that there are "several painting of Anna", but several copies of a portrait of Anna. And I agree with you that it is certainly not a good copy, whoever is the original painter (not sure it is Antonio Moro...). I will think about your suggestion to list all copies. However, art historians usually do not report on or even list copies, unless they are strikingly good, such as some made by Rembrandt's pupils, for exemple, or from older masters by a renowned painter/old master. But this takes us also relatively far away from the hypothesis of a direct painting of Anna by Pourbus, which is in my view more the subject, interesting to the person of Anna van Buren too, because we would then look at her real face, and not an idealised or fantasied face. --Emigré55 (talk) 18:37, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Couwenbergh art historian

I can find no evidence that Marc Couwenbergh is an art historian. Not to mention being a notable art historian. The Banner talk 16:47, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

@Emigré55: Do you have any evidence that Marc Couwenbergh was/is an art historian? The Banner talk 09:55, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

General carelessness

I'm struck by apparent carelessness aside from the matter of portraiture. Here, I'll merely comment on the name of the biographee -- I could have commented on other matters as well.

• Anna van Egmont (March 1533 – 24 March 1558), better known as Anna van Buren

If this is true, I'd expect the article to be titled "Anna van Buren". This does not mean that it must be so titled -- there could be a good reason for it not to be -- but it's distinctly odd.

At least twice in the article she's referred to as "Anna van Egmond", with a "d" at the end.

In the (disputed) second on portraits, she's referred to as "Anne Van Egmont", with a capital "V".

Couwenbergh is approvingly cited, but he refers to her has "Anna van Bueren", with an extra "e".

I wouldn't be surprised if each of these ways of writing the name was used at the time and therefore that they're all "correct". I also know that in English of around the same period, people insouciantly varied the spelling of a name even within the same short document; so no surprise if this was common in Dutch too. But we're writing for the 21st century, so please use one version of the name (other than in direct quotations), while acknowledging that the others exist and not pretending that the one version is the best. -- Hoary (talk) 01:34, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

The funny thing is that the Dutch, German, Spanish and French article do not call her "better known as Anna van Buren". But when I remove that, I get templated for edit warring. The Banner talk 09:53, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Publications

There's a list of eight "publications", in chronological order. Each is only sketchily informative -- is "Thera Coppens, Buren, Egmond en Oranje. Over heren, graven en prinsen (Buren 1989)", for example, a book, or what? -- but also I don't know why the list is here. If it's a list of likely resources for future, more energetic editors of this article, then it might be moved to the talk page. -- Hoary (talk) 01:34, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

I've deleted this list, which seemed to be no more than an unthinking copy from "Anna van Egmond (1533-1558)". -- Hoary (talk) 02:13, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

@Hoary: Yes, it is a copy of the list I found in Huygens. And I must honestly confess that I did not check it. I included it precisely for the purpose you mention, "likely resources for the future".

However, I am not sure that it would be useful to put it in the talk page. First because readers do not go all to the talk page, and more important because it might/will be lost among commentaries/disputes, which begin to be so long that it can prevent anyone to read them all and find this useful information. Not sure what to do. I leave it to your decision; you have more experience than I have on this. Rgds, --Emigré55 (talk) 06:53, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Just skip it. (See the section immediately below.) I cannot read Dutch (and, as I've said, am uninterested in nobles). If you can read Dutch, perhaps you can make a start: reading one of the eight and summarizing its relevant and new content (of course with scrupulous citations, quotation marks, etc). -- Hoary (talk) 07:40, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

More resources (in Dutch)

Editors will find a list of eight Dutch-language resources, published from 1859 to 2001, at the foot of "Anna van Egmond (1533-1558)".

So, what can be said about her?

I've made quite a pile of grumpy comments about carelessness and other problems in material that mostly turns out to be by Emigré55.

I don't retract any of it, but I'd like to put it in context. This version, of 30 July 2019, is the last before Emigré55 arrived. It says that she was "countess" of this and "lady" of that, without saying what, if anything, either of these meant. (Just "wife of a 'count'" and "wife of a 'lord'", perhaps?) And it says something about breeding: she was the daughter of X and Y, and the mother of A, B, and C (two of whom had "no issue"). And that's all. So just 13 months ago she sounded like a mere item in a pedigree chart. None of this came with any reference whatever.

I have never pretended to be interested in "nobility", and this woman still seems a blank to me. But perhaps some of the passion displayed on this talk page could beneficially be diverted into digging up significant things to say about her, and backing these up with solid references. All the best! -- Hoary (talk) 02:47, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

You suggest to revert to the version of 04:52, 30 July 2019‎?? The Banner talk 21:46, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Stop it

I do not like it when somebody takes to harassing of other editors to push his/her own POV. No, Anna is not "better known as Anna van Buren", at best as "also known as Anna van Buren". Editor still have not given evidence that Mar Couwenbergh is an art historian, so I have no choice than to dismiss those sources as unreliable.

I propose to revert the article to the last reliable version, that is the one of 30 July 2019. The Banner talk 08:36, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Why systematically ignore the multiple sources, such as ?

Why not seriously dig on Marc Couwenbergh, and ignore:

• « Marc Couwenbergh (1958) is a political scientist and writes about art, culture and history as a journalist. Marc has written several books on these topics. »
• « Marc Couwenbergh writes with a clear pen, without the usual jargon, and with extensive knowledge of art and cultural-historical subjects. »

translated from: https://decorrespondent.nl/marccouwenbergh

--Emigré55 (talk) 10:37, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I do not ignore your sources, they just do not say what you think they say.

And about Couwenbergh: somebody who writes about art is not necessarily an art historian. And I have checked his Linkedin page. Even there he does not claim to be an art historian. And the person itself seems to be a reliable source for this. The Banner talk 11:40, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

How can you seriously propose to go back to This version, of 30 July 2019??

• Version which had no reference, whereas I added 10 solid references since?
• to such a short unsourced article, whereas I (mostly) expanded the article in details, to the point that it is now rated "B"?

Are you serious? Or do you just want to pursue in your "deletion only" and negative only, even denigrating, comments and actions?--Emigré55 (talk) 13:24, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Because your version is unreliable. With three sources from a supposed art historian while there is no proof of that and three sources (one double with the earlier three) what say something different that you read in it, I assume because you rely on Google Translate. And I have now twice asked you to stop your harassment. This is now the third time: STOP HARASSING ME, assume good faith. The Banner talk 14:23, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Source 1: names her "ook wel Anna van Buren" what translates as "also Anna van Buren"

Source 2: her as "vooral bekend als Anna gravin van Buren", translated as "best known as Anna countess van Buren"

Source 3: Marc van Couwenbergh, unreliable source as it is from a blog without solid evidence that Couwenbergh is an art historian, as is claimed in the article

Source 4: indeed a good source

Source 5: 47 letters are known, so you get a source that gives you 12985 letters.

Source 6: just a picture with no explanation whatsoever

Source 7: non-electronic exhibition catalog, so I assume good faith

Source 8: non-electronic exhibition catalog, so I assume good faith

Source 9: Marc van Couwenbergh, unreliable source as it is from a blog without solid evidence that Couwenbergh is an art historian, as is claimed in the article

Source 10: Marc van Couwenbergh, unreliable source as it is from a blog without solid evidence that Couwenbergh is an art historian, as is claimed in the article

Nope, sorry. The Banner talk 14:52, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Marc Couwenbergh

Is there any evidence that he is really an art historian? As of now, he just seems to be a blog-writer and not a reliable source. The Banner talk 09:34, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

I am afraid you do not look for the right sources in Google on this author. Or want to deliberately ignore them?? Just read, for instance, here: "Marc Couwenbergh, Journalist specializing in art - Marc Couwenbergh - Biography : Marc Couwenbergh (1958) is a political scientist and writes about art, culture and history as a journalist. Marc has written several books on these topics." (translated into English from the Dutch page).Sorry --Emigré55 (talk) 19:39, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Another source on Couwenbergh, commenting on one of his book about Vermeer and the women (not art history? really??). Sorry----Emigré55 (talk) 19:39, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Reliable sources

See: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Marc_Couwenbergh. A short quote: There is no consensus that Couwenbergh is considered sufficiently prominent that we can use self-published sources, so the default is to exclude. The Banner talk 18:01, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Your quote is not "a short quote". Your quote is an incomplete quote. And therefore, your quote is a biased quote.

Please read further: "that would default to the usual presumption of reliability and WP:BRD with the WP:ONUS on editors seeking to include disputed or controversial content, to achieve consensus." --Emigré55 (talk) 18:59, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

And you are quoting selectively. The part that I did not quote, because it was not about the contested blog posts, is There is insufficient input to rule either way on Couwenbergh as a source when published by reputable publishers, so that would default to the usual presumption of reliability and WP:BRD with the WP:ONUS on editors seeking to include disputed or controversial content, to achieve consensus. Editors are reminded to assume good faith and remain civil. The Banner talk 20:33, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

I think this clearly says "There is insufficient input" to rule out Couwenbergh as a source. And that means there is a status quo, as of now, that should be respected. Eissink (talk) 20:47, 4 October 2020 (UTC).

when published by reputable publishers. But this is about two self-published blog-posts. And the verdict of the closer is that those sources should not be used. The Banner talk 21:02, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

"so that would default to the usual presumption of reliability and WP:BRD with the WP:ONUS on editors seeking to include disputed or controversial content,": that is exactly what I am doing with this information in this article.--Emigré55 (talk) 08:33, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

That is indeed what you claim to do. But unfortunately, you still fail to prove that Couwenbergh is a reliable source. And certainly you fail to prove that his self-published, non-peer reviewed blogposts are reliable sources. The Banner talk 08:54, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Couwenbergh is a reliable source (A summary of the arguments and secondary sources)

Reliable as per WP:RS/SPS :

« Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. »

List of 3 arguments corroborating the rule:

1/ Definition of an expert in Wikipedia : « An expert is somebody who has a broad and deep competence in terms of knowledge, skill and experience through practice and education in a particular field... An expert, more generally, is a person with extensive knowledge or ability based on research, experience, or occupation and in a particular area of study. » 2/ Couwenbergh is endorsed by his peers at De Correspondent as an expert on art: "Marc Couwenbergh schrijft (...) en met grote kennis over kunst- en cultuurhistorische onderwerpen. Tomas Vanheste". "Marc schreef verschillende boeken over deze onderwerpen." Which translates as: "Marc Couwenbergh writes (...) and with great knowledge about art and cultural-historical subjects. Tomas Vanheste". "Marc has written several books on these topics." In: De Correspondent, (circulation: more than 50,000 paying subscribers in the Netherlands) 3/ His books have been reviewed by respectful other sources and medias: E.g: His book on Vermeer's and the women in his corpus, reviewed by Nederlands Dagblad (article / archived copy). Book also reviewed by this other source, in this article, from Algemeen Dagblad (circulation: 350,000 readers)

List of books on art written by Couwenbergh and collected by the Research library of the RKD in The Hague

The Rijksmuseum library website cites no less than 6 books on art and history written by Marc Couwenbergh and published in established publishing houses] ;

List of his books included in the Research Library of the Rijksmuseum:

1/ August Willem van Voorden 1881-1921 : een Rotterdammer in Kortenhoef / tekst: Marc Couwenbergh ; redactie: Désirée Koninkx. By: Couwenbergh, Marc [aut] Contributor(s): Koninkx, Désirée [edt]| Oude School Kortenhoef [his] | Kunst aan de Dijk [cur] Publisher: Kortenhoef : Stichting Kunst aan de Dijk, [2015] Description: 35 pagina's : illustraties ; 26 cm. Content type: tekst Media type: zonder medium Carrier type: band ISBN: 9789081403863 (paperback). 2/ De liefde voor het naakt : Theo Beerendonk 1905-1979 / Marc Couwenbergh By: Couwenbergh, Marc Contributor(s): Luinstra, E.A Publisher: Zoetermeer : Beerendonk Uitgeverij, 2011 Description: 95 p. : ill. ; 25 cm. ISBN: 9789081739504 (geb.). 3/ Tussen kunst, sociaal engagement en ironie : een kroniek van de familie Van Norden / Marc Couwenbergh. By: Couwenbergh, Marc Contributor(s): MuseumgoudA [his] Publisher: Gouda : museumgoudA, 2008 Description: 112 p. : ill. ; 21 cm. ISBN: 9789072660060. 4/ A.J. Groenewegen, 1874-1963 : 'licht, leven en ruimte' / Marc Couwenbergh, Paul Groenewegen. By: Couwenbergh, Marc Contributor(s): Groenewegen, Paul | Hoeve Rijlaarsdam [his] | Marie José Bies Fine Art [his] Publisher: Maastricht : Adriaan Groenewegen Stichting, 2007 Description: 96 p. : ill. ; 31 cm. ISBN: 9789090216355. 5/ Piet Zwiers 1907-1965 : schilder van Giethoorn / Marc Couwenberg. By: Couwenbergh, Marc Contributor(s): Stedelijk Museum Zwolle [his] Publisher: Zwolle : Stedelijk Museum Zwolle, 2007 Description: 80 p. : ill. ; 30 cm. ISBN: 9789073429130. 6/ Werkpaarden en dienstmeiden : het Rotterdam van August Willem van Voorden 1881-1921 / Marc Couwenbergh. By: Couwenbergh, Marc Contributor(s): Historisch Museum Rotterdam [his] Publisher: Venlo : Van Spijk Art Projects, 2006 Description: 112 p. : ill. ; 30 cm. ISBN: 9062165214.

His publications pertinent to the article

are valid sources and constitute a positive and well argumented information.
In the first article, he which draws attention to many similarities between this portrait and the portrait of Anna van Egmont belonging to the royal collection of The Hague, which is considered to be a copy of a lost painting by Anthonis Mor.
In a second article, he describes this painting as the "Mona Lisa" by Pourbus..

--Emigré55 (talk) 09:07, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

As you still have failed to prove that Couwenbergh was an art historian of note, his non-peer-reviewed blogposts are not reliable sources. Conform Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_314#Marc_Couwenbergh: There is no consensus that Couwenbergh is considered sufficiently prominent that we can use self-published sources, so the default is to exclude. The Banner talk 09:55, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

You are wrong again. RKD, the most reliable source for art history in the Netherlands, mentions not only Couwenbergh, but also Couwenbergh's hypothesis about the sitter and his article on the subject, adding to the description of this picture, " it has been suggested that the sitter is Anna van Bueren; see: https://marccouwenbergh.nl/anna-van-bueren-versus-de-mona-lisa-van-pieter-pourbus-meester-schilder-uit-gouda " here.--Emigré55 (talk) 13:51, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

An endorsement? I would call it a passing mention.

In fact this only shows what we already now: he writes about art. For the rest Couwenbergh is unknown. The Banner talk 14:11, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

This is your opinion only. Nothing to do with the fact that RKD, the most reliable source on art history in the Netherlands, now makes a mention on the fact that this painting could be the portrait of Anna van Buren. You cannot deny this source and this fact.I will report this in the article. --Emigré55 (talk) 14:26, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

As you can see it is just a passing mention. He is not endorsed, as you claim. Sorry. But I admire your willingness to go on and on on the wrong avenue. Just show that the blog posts are peer reviewed and that Marc Couwenbergh is a notable art historian. That tune is still the same as in the beginning. The Banner talk 14:34, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

It is now very clear that, in order to exclude the hypothesis made by Couwenbergh, you ADD to the very definition (although recalled in the section here above, but which you of course ignored) in demanding :

• that Couwenbergh should be "of note". Whereas WP:RS/SPS DOES NOT require that "of note" characterisation. Only that he is "an established expert", which is definitely not the same. read the rule again, here above. "of note" is hence a pure fabrication of yours.
• that his blog should be "peer reviewed". Whereas WP:RS/SPS DOES NOT require this. Only that "work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications". No "peer review" required, a condition you purely have fabricated, in order to make your case. Read the rule again.

To me, and putting aside your personal attitude towards me, you are purely gaming the system.--Emigré55 (talk) 07:49, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

• I am not ignoring a community decision, something you do. The Banner talk 09:56, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

I see that you are now only goading me to another subject.

a new provocation ? or a personal attack ?

or is it only to try to avoid answering precisely to my 2 points raised before, as you did previously, ignoring the section on WP:RS/SPS, and continue gaming the system ?--Emigré55 (talk) 10:26, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Ever heard of a watchlist? And why do you ignore the outcome of the discussion on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard? The Banner talk 12:57, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Again a personal attack?

For your consideration, here is the definition: "Ad hominem (Latin for 'to the person'), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a term that refers to several types of arguments, most of which are fallacious. Typically this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself. This avoids genuine debate by creating a diversion to some irrelevant but often highly charged issue. The most common form of this fallacy is "A makes a claim x, B asserts that A holds a property that is unwelcome, and hence B concludes that argument x is wrong".

Why don't you answer my 2 points here above ? --Emigré55 (talk) 13:07, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

"Ever heard of a watchlist?": Are you, also, trying to threaten me now, in some way? --Emigré55 (talk) 13:26, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

WP:WATCHLIST. Jesus, no wonder you've got everything backwards. EEng 14:43, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

RKD is a reliable source for art history

I therefore propose the following wording for this paragraph:

The portraits of Anna Van Egmont

The only painting depicting Anne Van Egmont in the royal collections of Holland could in fact be a copy of a lost painting.
The "Portrait of a noble young Lady", painted by Pieter Pourbus, exhibited for the first time in 2017 in Bruges, then at the Gouda museum in 2018, could be the portrait of Anna van Egmont, as mentioned by the RKD .
Further information on Portrait of a Noble Young Lady: Portrait of a Noble Young Lady (Pourbus)

---

• Oppose' The last source is a desperate attempt to reintroduce a link to the blogposts of Marc Couwenbergh, already shot down at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive_314#Marc Couwenbergh as being unreliable. The Banner talk 13:00, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

None of the reasons cited here above for opposing are valid:
* The new source I include is independent of the other previous source, 
* The new source reliability has not to be linked to the other, for whatever reason the former's was, rightly or wrongly, challenged.
* The new source is the most prestigious, and most authoritative, source in art history for Dutch art.
* The source is new since the debate at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive_314#Marc Couwenbergh, and was not (could not be) discussed as such at this debate.
* Most important: the subject of the source is not the previous source, but the fact mentioned that the painting could be a painting representing Anna van Bueren.
--Emigré55 (talk) 13:40, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

As usual I am wrong in your view, but the RKD-source is still based on the shot down blog post. The Banner talk 14:31, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

• This is not an independent source. Please stop this, it is becoming exceptionally disruptive. Guy (help! - typo?) 18:09, 28 October 2020 (UTC)