Jump to content

Talk:Museo del Prado/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Project

Hi Guys -- doing a spanish project & I need info on Museo Del Prado..is this good information..accurate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.4.20.21 (talk) 21:49, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Well, I visited the museum last December and yes, the information is accurate, albeit scarce. The Spanish wikipedia page on the museum is much more comprehensive (but still not what IMHO should be), so if your command in Spanish is decent enough I recommend it rather than this English one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.145.230.2 (talk) 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Photographs

According to the Spanish pages of the museum, la toma de fotografías y filmaciones no está permitida en las salas del Museo Nacional del Prado ("filming and photographing is not allowed"). The English pages say nothing. This wasn't so earlier. Flashless photography was allowed in the permanent collection. When did this begin? --84.20.17.84 10:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

There was nothing by the 30 April 2006. --84.20.17.84 11:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Prado?

I find this sentence to be confusing: "This "prado" (meaning meadow in Spanish) gave its name to the area (Salón del Prado, later Paseo del Prado), and later still to the Museum itself upon nationalisation." Which meadow is El Museo del Prado built in? I don't think the article ever mentions the meadow by its name. authraw 17:04, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Presumably it was just called "the meadow" Johnbod 14:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, It was called just "The Meadow" or "Salón del Prado". It was an elegant place in XVIII century. Now is going to be a restoration plan directed by Priztker´s Winner, Siza. The area will become a pedestrian quarter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.223.168.62 (talk) 18:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Numbers

I changed "the museum has over 8,200 paintings" (or something like that) to "about 3,000". The accession numbers go up to 7,695 (in 1996) but a) many of these are not paintings I think, and b) these include modern works no longer in the Prado collection, but the Reina Sofia etc. The full listing in the back of: Museo del Prado, Catálogo de las pinturas, 1996, Ministerio de Educación y Cultura, Madrid, No ISBN - suggests about 3,000 paintings are counted in the Prado collection now - nearly 16 pages at 192 entries per page . Johnbod 14:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. Prado have almost 9000 paintings, but They show just 3000. The rest of the paintings are spread in many publics buildings -gobiernos civiles- along Spain. But They are part of Prado´s Heritage.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.223.168.62 (talk) 19:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
No - or they would be in the complete catalogue refed above. They don't display even 3,000 in the museum itself - I would guess 1500-2000 at present. Johnbod 19:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
It was quite easy to find how many paintings Prado has. According to its own web page (http://www.museodelprado.es/en/ingles/collection/description/): "The collection currently comprises around 7,600 paintings, 1,000 sculptures, 2,400 prints and 6,300 drawings, in addition to a large number of works of art and historic documents. At the present time, the Museum is displaying 1,000 works in the main building, while around 3,100 works are on temporary loan to various museums and official institutions. The remainder are in storage." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.85.197.38 (talk) 15:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
NOt actually what it says - 1300 on display etc. The large Museo Reina Sofia collection used to be in the Prado (largely) & the website still seems to be counting them, although the complete catalogue does not. The 1996 catalogue shows the catalogue NUMBERS for paintings go up to 7695, but the introduction explains great numbers of the paintings have been transferred to the Reina Sofia etc. It is the same with the National Gallery and the Tate in London. I suspect the web-site person has missed this point, or there is some civil servants turf-war going on. Johnbod (talk) 02:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, I believe the problem is that lots of Prado museum paintings and objects are shown not in the Prado but in other museums and monuments. For example, all the paintings that decorate the Royal Palace (Palacio de Oriente), the Casón del Buen Retiro (and actual part of the Museo del Prado) or the monastery of San Lorenzo del Escorial (quite a big number of them there) are Prado's paintings, and so are counted on the catalogue (and added to confusion), which shouldn't have increased a lot since 1996. However, the Reina Sofía collection has been separated from Prado for nearly 20 years now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.85.197.38 (talk) 13:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Some, but certainly not all, of the Escorial paintings, are Prado loans - they don't catalogue the El Greco St Maurice for example. I think the Royal Palace is the same. The Prado only catalogue 2 Rigauds, whereas there are more than that in the Royal Palace alone. There is also La Granja, which has many Prado paintings. But all these are included in the figures. Johnbod (talk) 15:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Bartholome Estaban Murillo

Dear Readers:

I'm not sure how to do this, I'm an old person on a computer and I'm not sure how to use a computer I'm wondering if someone could tell me about a painter named Bartholome Estaban Murillo's painting called the Immaculate Conception of de Soult. Does anyone know how many cherubs are in the original painting? Can someone tell me the history of this particular painting?

My great grandparents were from Spain my grandfather's last name was Ruiz and my grandmother's maiden name was Prado. It has been said from older family members that my grandfather's family is related to Picasso. I'm retired now and have been researching my families history. So any information re: Murillo painting I would appreciate and about the Ruiz family or Prado families. Please post your response

Thank you for your assistance

Kingsburybrothers —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingsburybrothers (talk • contribs) 18:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I cannot help with your query but I have posted a note to the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spain. I assume you mean the painting Image:La Inmaculada de Soult, 1678, Bartolomé E. Murillo.jpg by Bartolomé Esteban Murillo. The page description states the image was taken by Pablo Alberto Salguero Quiles el Domingo in 2004 without flash and with a long exposure that caused some motion blur. Parts of the painting near the frame are missing from the photograph. My count of the cherubs comes to 29 (10 top left, 11 bottom, 8 right and top-right), but there may be more in the original. -84user (talk) 19:26, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
According to the Prado catalogue it was painted for the church of a hospital in Seville, looted by Marshall Soult in 1813, before going to the Louvre in 1852. It was returned to Spain in 1940 under an exchange arranged by the 2 governments. Johnbod (talk) 20:34, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View

There’s no doubt that El Prado is one of the greatest collections of art, however claims of “greatness” and world prestige (even if sourced), are not adequate for an encyclopedia NPOV. The content of this article is un-encyclopedic. Let’s try to be objective, and remove what is not relevant for the article. Thanks. --Karljoos (talk) 23:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

  • It would be merely misleading not to say that "The Prado has easily the world's finest collection of Spanish painting" - no other collection comes within a million miles of it. Johnbod (talk) 03:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
When you say "The Prado has easily the world's finest collection of Spanish painting" you are making a judgement (also an un-sourced statement). That's not encyclopdic at all!! You will never find something like it in the Britannica. Check the following articles as examples of neutral articles about museums and other art institutions: Museum of Modern Art, Louvre and Juilliard School. The importance of El Prado does not need to be highlighted in an encyclopedia... please leave such comments for touristic brochures. Cheers! --Karljoos (talk) 10:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Nonsense! What do Grove Art say, I wonder? A much better standard than Britannica. I think you need to read WP:V - the statement is not my judgement, and easily varifiable, even if not currentrly referenced. Arguably it falls under Subject-specific common knowledge. Johnbod (talk) 13:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

What I meant is that in the Britannica you can't find judgements such as "finest in the world" etc. I don't see how Subject-specific common knowledge does give you the reason about this. Please read WP:ASF. If you want to say that El Prado is the best collection (or whatever) at least source it, because it is not fact. A fact is "El Prado is a museum in Madrid with a large collection of...." --Karljoos (talk) 19:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Both statements in the article are facts in terms of the guideline's definition: "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." Johnbod (talk) 20:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


How about this (taken from WP:ASF):

By value or opinion, on the other hand, we mean "a matter which is subject to dispute." There are many propositions that very clearly express values or opinions. That stealing is wrong is a value or opinion. That The Beatles were the greatest band in history is an opinion. That the United States is the only country in the world that has used a nuclear weapon during wartime is a fact. That the United States was right or wrong to drop the atomic bomb over Hiroshima and Nagasaki is a value or opinion. However, there are bound to be borderline cases where it is not clear if a particular dispute should be taken seriously and included. When we discuss an opinion, we attribute the opinion to someone and discuss the fact that they have this opinion. For instance, rather than asserting that "The Beatles were the greatest band ever", locate a source such as Rolling Stone magazine and say: "Rolling Stone said that the Beatles were the greatest band ever", and include a reference to the issue in which that statement was made. Likewise, the statement "Most people from Liverpool believe that the Beatles were the greatest band ever" can be made if it can be supported by references to a particular survey; a claim such as "The Beatles had many songs that made the UK Singles Chart" can also be made, because it is verifiable as fact. The first statement asserts a personal opinion; the second asserts the fact that an opinion exists and attributes it to reliable sources.

So, if that the Beatles were the greatest band in history is an opinion then "'one of the world's finest collections of European art'" is also an opinion, don't you agree? --Karljoos (talk) 21:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Certainly not. "The Beatles were one of the most successful bands of the 1960s", which is a comparable statement, is also a fact. You should check out the lead para of The Beatles - a useful reminder that understating the importance of a subject is as much POV as overstating it. Johnbod (talk) 03:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Las Meninas

I'm no art historian, and perhaps I'm just a Philistine, but is Las Meninas really the most famous painting in the museum? Not Earthly Delights, Third of May, Adam and Eve, for example? (I guess this is "subject specific common knowledge" as mentioned above...) Adam Bishop (talk) 18:20, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

yes it is - it is also famously there, not somewhere else. Our article on it got 30K hits in the last 30 days, over twice what The Third of May 1808 got. I admit The Garden of Earthly Delights got 25k, but Adam & Eve got less than 2k. If you've been there, you may remember where the big crowds were standing. Johnbod (talk) 19:27, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, they were at Earthly Delights and Third of May :) (But I admit I had never even heard of Las Meninas before now, so I wasn't looking for it and I actually don't remember seeing it, although there were of course large crowds in the Velazquez rooms too.) Adam Bishop (talk) 22:38, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, it's probably on the cover of the guidebook... Johnbod (talk) 00:30, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Maybe, the little free one has Fra Angelico's Annunciation though. Anyway, I asked some other people what they thought the most famous work would be, and they looked at me like I was crazy... Adam Bishop (talk) 13:30, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Opening paragraphs

Is it just me, or does the second paragraph of the article repeat the first with slightly different numbers. Helixer (hábleme) 02:37, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Indeed; now fixed, I think with the correct figures. Johnbod (talk) 03:11, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Removal of copyvio

(repeated from VA project talk) I have just had to gut all the collections section here (40K bites) since it seemed to be a straight lift from the museum website pages like this - courtesy of User:P. S. Burton back in 2010 - hey thanks! We will need to rewrite, and be careful about referencing, though these pages are one source - a publisher's guidebook would give a bit more independence. I think we should only mention individual works with articles, of which there about 100 in Category:Collections of the Museo del Prado. Hey ho. Johnbod (talk) 19:09, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

crosspost - Image change request from the Prado Museum - Request for community input

In September 2016 Wikimedia Foundation legal counsel shared a request from the Prado Museum for Wikipedia to remove high-quality images of public domain works for which the Prado owns the original images. A discussion began at Commons:Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2016/09#September_20. The discussion is sort of ended there, but also not resolved, and is not continuing anywhere at present but might be raised again. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:05, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Museo del Prado. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:36, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Reviving the "best-known work" discussion re Las Meninas

I see this was discussed in 2011, but why does the lede assert that Las Meninas is the best-known work in the Prado's collection? The claim is not cited, and I don't see how it could be cited, since "best known" in the context of a collection as vast as the Prado's is not susceptible of precise definition.

I think the sentence should simply be removed; alternatively, we could generate a list of perhaps 5-10 of the most notable or famous individual works and refer to them as "some of the best-known." SS451 (talk) 19:03, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Why does the lede assert that Las Meninas is the best-known work in the Prado's collection? Because it's true. Wikipedia views, crowds around the picture, postcard sales (if known, some museums publih these) are all ways of establishing it. "A list of perhaps 5-10 of the most notable or famous individual works" would very likely involve OR, or relying on a dubious tourist website. Johnbod (talk) 20:34, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
This "crowds around the picture" metric certainly sounds like original research, unless you have a citation for that. As for Wikipedia views, that's not exogenous to the spotlight it receives in this lede. Speaking for myself, I had never heard of the painting before reading this article, and so I naturally clicked through to the Wikilinked page to find out what it was.
In any event, you've proposed at least one verifiable way this could be established--want to take a stab at doing so? Just asserting that it's so is not up to Wikipedia standards. Also, I don't think you were justified in reverting my edit to point out that there's no citation for this claim in the article, but I'm not interested in getting into back-and-forth editing. SS451 (talk) 23:50, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi, if you (or anyone else) are not going to make an effort to support this claim, I'm simply going to remove it. Unsourced claims don't belong in Wikipedia articles. The idea of adding other works was really meant as a compromise, since it seems like editors have some strong feelings about keeping Las Meneinas in the lede, but I agree—it doesn't make to assert what the best-known work on display is in a collection of thousands of pieces. SS451 (talk) 15:04, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Ok, the claim is out. It shouldn't be added back unless a reliable source is provided along with it, per WP:V. SS451 (talk) 15:33, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Disputes

Copied from my talk: Heya Johnbod, just wondering why you changed my edit of the opening section of Museo del Prado to be very similar to what it was before I edited it whilst removing the copyedit tags for promotion in a subjective matter. I went back in the edit history and saw that from when Justlettersandnumbers added the tag to the current revision there have been no substantive edits to merit the tags being removed. Just a reminder that stating the Prado has one of the greatest collections of European art without providing a source is pushing up against WP:PEACOCK and maybe even WP:SOAP. Thanks, Epikourios Alitheia talk 19:08, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, that's bullshit. Are you entirely serious? "stating the Prado has one of the greatest collections of European art" pretty much falls into WP:SKYISBLUE. Why don't you do something useful like looking for a source for this very basic statement? Johnbod (talk) 21:44, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
I’m going to ping @Justlettersandnumbers (who added the tags) to ask why they did so and to serve as a third opinion. On a side note, please stop the snide comments—I’m trying to work with you to find a solution, not create more problems. Epikourios Alitheia talk 23:18, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
Clearly he's not a 3rd opinion as I reverted him too! I'll ask the relevant projects what they think. I'll copy this to the talk for context. Any more comments there. Johnbod (talk) 01:33, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
copied section ends.
  • This concerns what seems to me to be the very innocuous claim that "It is widely considered to house one of the world's finest collections of European art", which I restored, removing in the same edit the tags added by Justlettersandnumbers in this edit last month, which seemed unjustified to me. The article certainly needs better referencing in some places, and expansion on the collection. I think the buildings and the collection need disentangling in the history section, and more should probably be brought in from Spanish royal collection, which I expanded a couple of years ago.
  • This article is a magnet for peacock-hunters. There is a section further up (2 in fact) disputing that Las Meninas is the best-known work in the Prado's collection, which has now been removed. Restoring that with a ref might be nice. The section above this one is probably on firmer ground in querying "the museum's fine collection of Italian masters to Spain, now the largest outside Italy." Well, I'll change that to "one of", but a ref would be good.
  • Thoughts by others on these claims would be very welcome, and good references even more so. The questions:
  • Hmm those tags added in July--I can see something of a reason for the PEACOCK tag, though it's a very mild case--pruning the gallery could have solved that for the most part. I don't see much validation for that copy edit tag. If it's the tone of the "Nearby museums" section, that's easily fixed. "We can find" derives, I bet, from a translation from the Spanish, and fixing that takes as much time as placing the tags. There were lengthy unverified paragraphs without citations, so I can see that point, and that's still an issue of course, in the History section--but I do not think the lists of works in those paragraphs could be termed "promotional". I think Velazques's keen eye should be tweaked, sure, but tagging this as "needlessly promotional" is too much. I also do think that the gallery should be pruned--and the title changed, since "Selected works" here is "selected by the editors", and that's not a great thing to point at. Drmies (talk) 02:16, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
    Thanks - I did a rearrangement & part ce earlier, rewriting the "Nearby museums" section. The gallery is large, but I would hope if the sections on the collection are expanded, it can be split to smaller ones. The article is very short compared to those on its peers. Of course "fixing that takes as much time as placing the tags" is very true, but we know there are people who tag things, and people who fix things! Johnbod (talk) 02:27, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
Normally the lede introduction summarises the main article. To be honest, though I have a strong interest in art and am fully aware the Prado is a major international art gallery, I would expect some sort of sourcing (reviews etc.) to back up the claim that it's "widely considered to house one of the world's finest collections of European art". It's a bold claim. Widely considered by whom? Possibly the 'Further reading' will back up some of the claims and language used in the article, but certainly for a major museum, the sourcing and referencing needs improving. Sionk (talk) 12:33, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Largest collection of Italian masters outside Italy?

Does the Prado really hold the largest collection? In terms of actual numbers, figures? Both the Musée du Louvre and the Budapest Museum of Fine Arts hold particularly large collections of Italian masters as well. In the case of Budapest, these are mostly second-rate paintings, even if there are several first-rate paintings and a few undisputed masterworks too, but in effect they are more than in Vienna, Munich, Dresden, Berlin, and probably London. Anyway, are there current numbers as of 2022 for comparison? --Edelseider (talk) 14:18, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Changed to "one of", but yes, refs would be nice. Johnbod (talk) 14:05, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Prado (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 00:02, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Project

Hi Guys -- doing a spanish project & I need info on Museo Del Prado..is this good information..accurate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.4.20.21 (talk) 21:49, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Well, I visited the museum last December and yes, the information is accurate, albeit scarce. The Spanish wikipedia page on the museum is much more comprehensive (but still not what IMHO should be), so if your command in Spanish is decent enough I recommend it rather than this English one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.145.230.2 (talk) 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Photographs

According to the Spanish pages of the museum, la toma de fotografías y filmaciones no está permitida en las salas del Museo Nacional del Prado ("filming and photographing is not allowed"). The English pages say nothing. This wasn't so earlier. Flashless photography was allowed in the permanent collection. When did this begin? --84.20.17.84 10:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

There was nothing by the 30 April 2006. --84.20.17.84 11:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Prado?

I find this sentence to be confusing: "This "prado" (meaning meadow in Spanish) gave its name to the area (Salón del Prado, later Paseo del Prado), and later still to the Museum itself upon nationalisation." Which meadow is El Museo del Prado built in? I don't think the article ever mentions the meadow by its name. authraw 17:04, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Presumably it was just called "the meadow" Johnbod 14:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, It was called just "The Meadow" or "Salón del Prado". It was an elegant place in XVIII century. Now is going to be a restoration plan directed by Priztker´s Winner, Siza. The area will become a pedestrian quarter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.223.168.62 (talk) 18:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Numbers

I changed "the museum has over 8,200 paintings" (or something like that) to "about 3,000". The accession numbers go up to 7,695 (in 1996) but a) many of these are not paintings I think, and b) these include modern works no longer in the Prado collection, but the Reina Sofia etc. The full listing in the back of: Museo del Prado, Catálogo de las pinturas, 1996, Ministerio de Educación y Cultura, Madrid, No ISBN - suggests about 3,000 paintings are counted in the Prado collection now - nearly 16 pages at 192 entries per page . Johnbod 14:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. Prado have almost 9000 paintings, but They show just 3000. The rest of the paintings are spread in many publics buildings -gobiernos civiles- along Spain. But They are part of Prado´s Heritage.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.223.168.62 (talk) 19:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
No - or they would be in the complete catalogue refed above. They don't display even 3,000 in the museum itself - I would guess 1500-2000 at present. Johnbod 19:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
It was quite easy to find how many paintings Prado has. According to its own web page (http://www.museodelprado.es/en/ingles/collection/description/): "The collection currently comprises around 7,600 paintings, 1,000 sculptures, 2,400 prints and 6,300 drawings, in addition to a large number of works of art and historic documents. At the present time, the Museum is displaying 1,000 works in the main building, while around 3,100 works are on temporary loan to various museums and official institutions. The remainder are in storage." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.85.197.38 (talk) 15:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
NOt actually what it says - 1300 on display etc. The large Museo Reina Sofia collection used to be in the Prado (largely) & the website still seems to be counting them, although the complete catalogue does not. The 1996 catalogue shows the catalogue NUMBERS for paintings go up to 7695, but the introduction explains great numbers of the paintings have been transferred to the Reina Sofia etc. It is the same with the National Gallery and the Tate in London. I suspect the web-site person has missed this point, or there is some civil servants turf-war going on. Johnbod (talk) 02:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, I believe the problem is that lots of Prado museum paintings and objects are shown not in the Prado but in other museums and monuments. For example, all the paintings that decorate the Royal Palace (Palacio de Oriente), the Casón del Buen Retiro (and actual part of the Museo del Prado) or the monastery of San Lorenzo del Escorial (quite a big number of them there) are Prado's paintings, and so are counted on the catalogue (and added to confusion), which shouldn't have increased a lot since 1996. However, the Reina Sofía collection has been separated from Prado for nearly 20 years now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.85.197.38 (talk) 13:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Some, but certainly not all, of the Escorial paintings, are Prado loans - they don't catalogue the El Greco St Maurice for example. I think the Royal Palace is the same. The Prado only catalogue 2 Rigauds, whereas there are more than that in the Royal Palace alone. There is also La Granja, which has many Prado paintings. But all these are included in the figures. Johnbod (talk) 15:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Bartholome Estaban Murillo

Dear Readers:

I'm not sure how to do this, I'm an old person on a computer and I'm not sure how to use a computer I'm wondering if someone could tell me about a painter named Bartholome Estaban Murillo's painting called the Immaculate Conception of de Soult. Does anyone know how many cherubs are in the original painting? Can someone tell me the history of this particular painting?

My great grandparents were from Spain my grandfather's last name was Ruiz and my grandmother's maiden name was Prado. It has been said from older family members that my grandfather's family is related to Picasso. I'm retired now and have been researching my families history. So any information re: Murillo painting I would appreciate and about the Ruiz family or Prado families. Please post your response

Thank you for your assistance

Kingsburybrothers —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingsburybrothers (talk • contribs) 18:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I cannot help with your query but I have posted a note to the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spain. I assume you mean the painting Image:La Inmaculada de Soult, 1678, Bartolomé E. Murillo.jpg by Bartolomé Esteban Murillo. The page description states the image was taken by Pablo Alberto Salguero Quiles el Domingo in 2004 without flash and with a long exposure that caused some motion blur. Parts of the painting near the frame are missing from the photograph. My count of the cherubs comes to 29 (10 top left, 11 bottom, 8 right and top-right), but there may be more in the original. -84user (talk) 19:26, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
According to the Prado catalogue it was painted for the church of a hospital in Seville, looted by Marshall Soult in 1813, before going to the Louvre in 1852. It was returned to Spain in 1940 under an exchange arranged by the 2 governments. Johnbod (talk) 20:34, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View

There’s no doubt that El Prado is one of the greatest collections of art, however claims of “greatness” and world prestige (even if sourced), are not adequate for an encyclopedia NPOV. The content of this article is un-encyclopedic. Let’s try to be objective, and remove what is not relevant for the article. Thanks. --Karljoos (talk) 23:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

  • It would be merely misleading not to say that "The Prado has easily the world's finest collection of Spanish painting" - no other collection comes within a million miles of it. Johnbod (talk) 03:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
When you say "The Prado has easily the world's finest collection of Spanish painting" you are making a judgement (also an un-sourced statement). That's not encyclopdic at all!! You will never find something like it in the Britannica. Check the following articles as examples of neutral articles about museums and other art institutions: Museum of Modern Art, Louvre and Juilliard School. The importance of El Prado does not need to be highlighted in an encyclopedia... please leave such comments for touristic brochures. Cheers! --Karljoos (talk) 10:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Nonsense! What do Grove Art say, I wonder? A much better standard than Britannica. I think you need to read WP:V - the statement is not my judgement, and easily varifiable, even if not currentrly referenced. Arguably it falls under Subject-specific common knowledge. Johnbod (talk) 13:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

What I meant is that in the Britannica you can't find judgements such as "finest in the world" etc. I don't see how Subject-specific common knowledge does give you the reason about this. Please read WP:ASF. If you want to say that El Prado is the best collection (or whatever) at least source it, because it is not fact. A fact is "El Prado is a museum in Madrid with a large collection of...." --Karljoos (talk) 19:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Both statements in the article are facts in terms of the guideline's definition: "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." Johnbod (talk) 20:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


How about this (taken from WP:ASF):

By value or opinion, on the other hand, we mean "a matter which is subject to dispute." There are many propositions that very clearly express values or opinions. That stealing is wrong is a value or opinion. That The Beatles were the greatest band in history is an opinion. That the United States is the only country in the world that has used a nuclear weapon during wartime is a fact. That the United States was right or wrong to drop the atomic bomb over Hiroshima and Nagasaki is a value or opinion. However, there are bound to be borderline cases where it is not clear if a particular dispute should be taken seriously and included. When we discuss an opinion, we attribute the opinion to someone and discuss the fact that they have this opinion. For instance, rather than asserting that "The Beatles were the greatest band ever", locate a source such as Rolling Stone magazine and say: "Rolling Stone said that the Beatles were the greatest band ever", and include a reference to the issue in which that statement was made. Likewise, the statement "Most people from Liverpool believe that the Beatles were the greatest band ever" can be made if it can be supported by references to a particular survey; a claim such as "The Beatles had many songs that made the UK Singles Chart" can also be made, because it is verifiable as fact. The first statement asserts a personal opinion; the second asserts the fact that an opinion exists and attributes it to reliable sources.

So, if that the Beatles were the greatest band in history is an opinion then "'one of the world's finest collections of European art'" is also an opinion, don't you agree? --Karljoos (talk) 21:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Certainly not. "The Beatles were one of the most successful bands of the 1960s", which is a comparable statement, is also a fact. You should check out the lead para of The Beatles - a useful reminder that understating the importance of a subject is as much POV as overstating it. Johnbod (talk) 03:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Las Meninas

I'm no art historian, and perhaps I'm just a Philistine, but is Las Meninas really the most famous painting in the museum? Not Earthly Delights, Third of May, Adam and Eve, for example? (I guess this is "subject specific common knowledge" as mentioned above...) Adam Bishop (talk) 18:20, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

yes it is - it is also famously there, not somewhere else. Our article on it got 30K hits in the last 30 days, over twice what The Third of May 1808 got. I admit The Garden of Earthly Delights got 25k, but Adam & Eve got less than 2k. If you've been there, you may remember where the big crowds were standing. Johnbod (talk) 19:27, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, they were at Earthly Delights and Third of May :) (But I admit I had never even heard of Las Meninas before now, so I wasn't looking for it and I actually don't remember seeing it, although there were of course large crowds in the Velazquez rooms too.) Adam Bishop (talk) 22:38, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, it's probably on the cover of the guidebook... Johnbod (talk) 00:30, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Maybe, the little free one has Fra Angelico's Annunciation though. Anyway, I asked some other people what they thought the most famous work would be, and they looked at me like I was crazy... Adam Bishop (talk) 13:30, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Opening paragraphs

Is it just me, or does the second paragraph of the article repeat the first with slightly different numbers. Helixer (hábleme) 02:37, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Indeed; now fixed, I think with the correct figures. Johnbod (talk) 03:11, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Removal of copyvio

(repeated from VA project talk) I have just had to gut all the collections section here (40K bites) since it seemed to be a straight lift from the museum website pages like this - courtesy of User:P. S. Burton back in 2010 - hey thanks! We will need to rewrite, and be careful about referencing, though these pages are one source - a publisher's guidebook would give a bit more independence. I think we should only mention individual works with articles, of which there about 100 in Category:Collections of the Museo del Prado. Hey ho. Johnbod (talk) 19:09, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

crosspost - Image change request from the Prado Museum - Request for community input

In September 2016 Wikimedia Foundation legal counsel shared a request from the Prado Museum for Wikipedia to remove high-quality images of public domain works for which the Prado owns the original images. A discussion began at Commons:Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2016/09#September_20. The discussion is sort of ended there, but also not resolved, and is not continuing anywhere at present but might be raised again. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:05, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Museo del Prado. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:36, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Reviving the "best-known work" discussion re Las Meninas

I see this was discussed in 2011, but why does the lede assert that Las Meninas is the best-known work in the Prado's collection? The claim is not cited, and I don't see how it could be cited, since "best known" in the context of a collection as vast as the Prado's is not susceptible of precise definition.

I think the sentence should simply be removed; alternatively, we could generate a list of perhaps 5-10 of the most notable or famous individual works and refer to them as "some of the best-known." SS451 (talk) 19:03, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Why does the lede assert that Las Meninas is the best-known work in the Prado's collection? Because it's true. Wikipedia views, crowds around the picture, postcard sales (if known, some museums publih these) are all ways of establishing it. "A list of perhaps 5-10 of the most notable or famous individual works" would very likely involve OR, or relying on a dubious tourist website. Johnbod (talk) 20:34, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
This "crowds around the picture" metric certainly sounds like original research, unless you have a citation for that. As for Wikipedia views, that's not exogenous to the spotlight it receives in this lede. Speaking for myself, I had never heard of the painting before reading this article, and so I naturally clicked through to the Wikilinked page to find out what it was.
In any event, you've proposed at least one verifiable way this could be established--want to take a stab at doing so? Just asserting that it's so is not up to Wikipedia standards. Also, I don't think you were justified in reverting my edit to point out that there's no citation for this claim in the article, but I'm not interested in getting into back-and-forth editing. SS451 (talk) 23:50, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi, if you (or anyone else) are not going to make an effort to support this claim, I'm simply going to remove it. Unsourced claims don't belong in Wikipedia articles. The idea of adding other works was really meant as a compromise, since it seems like editors have some strong feelings about keeping Las Meneinas in the lede, but I agree—it doesn't make to assert what the best-known work on display is in a collection of thousands of pieces. SS451 (talk) 15:04, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Ok, the claim is out. It shouldn't be added back unless a reliable source is provided along with it, per WP:V. SS451 (talk) 15:33, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Disputes

Copied from my talk: Heya Johnbod, just wondering why you changed my edit of the opening section of Museo del Prado to be very similar to what it was before I edited it whilst removing the copyedit tags for promotion in a subjective matter. I went back in the edit history and saw that from when Justlettersandnumbers added the tag to the current revision there have been no substantive edits to merit the tags being removed. Just a reminder that stating the Prado has one of the greatest collections of European art without providing a source is pushing up against WP:PEACOCK and maybe even WP:SOAP. Thanks, Epikourios Alitheia talk 19:08, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, that's bullshit. Are you entirely serious? "stating the Prado has one of the greatest collections of European art" pretty much falls into WP:SKYISBLUE. Why don't you do something useful like looking for a source for this very basic statement? Johnbod (talk) 21:44, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
I’m going to ping @Justlettersandnumbers (who added the tags) to ask why they did so and to serve as a third opinion. On a side note, please stop the snide comments—I’m trying to work with you to find a solution, not create more problems. Epikourios Alitheia talk 23:18, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
Clearly he's not a 3rd opinion as I reverted him too! I'll ask the relevant projects what they think. I'll copy this to the talk for context. Any more comments there. Johnbod (talk) 01:33, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
copied section ends.
  • This concerns what seems to me to be the very innocuous claim that "It is widely considered to house one of the world's finest collections of European art", which I restored, removing in the same edit the tags added by Justlettersandnumbers in this edit last month, which seemed unjustified to me. The article certainly needs better referencing in some places, and expansion on the collection. I think the buildings and the collection need disentangling in the history section, and more should probably be brought in from Spanish royal collection, which I expanded a couple of years ago.
  • This article is a magnet for peacock-hunters. There is a section further up (2 in fact) disputing that Las Meninas is the best-known work in the Prado's collection, which has now been removed. Restoring that with a ref might be nice. The section above this one is probably on firmer ground in querying "the museum's fine collection of Italian masters to Spain, now the largest outside Italy." Well, I'll change that to "one of", but a ref would be good.
  • Thoughts by others on these claims would be very welcome, and good references even more so. The questions:
  • Hmm those tags added in July--I can see something of a reason for the PEACOCK tag, though it's a very mild case--pruning the gallery could have solved that for the most part. I don't see much validation for that copy edit tag. If it's the tone of the "Nearby museums" section, that's easily fixed. "We can find" derives, I bet, from a translation from the Spanish, and fixing that takes as much time as placing the tags. There were lengthy unverified paragraphs without citations, so I can see that point, and that's still an issue of course, in the History section--but I do not think the lists of works in those paragraphs could be termed "promotional". I think Velazques's keen eye should be tweaked, sure, but tagging this as "needlessly promotional" is too much. I also do think that the gallery should be pruned--and the title changed, since "Selected works" here is "selected by the editors", and that's not a great thing to point at. Drmies (talk) 02:16, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
    Thanks - I did a rearrangement & part ce earlier, rewriting the "Nearby museums" section. The gallery is large, but I would hope if the sections on the collection are expanded, it can be split to smaller ones. The article is very short compared to those on its peers. Of course "fixing that takes as much time as placing the tags" is very true, but we know there are people who tag things, and people who fix things! Johnbod (talk) 02:27, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
Normally the lede introduction summarises the main article. To be honest, though I have a strong interest in art and am fully aware the Prado is a major international art gallery, I would expect some sort of sourcing (reviews etc.) to back up the claim that it's "widely considered to house one of the world's finest collections of European art". It's a bold claim. Widely considered by whom? Possibly the 'Further reading' will back up some of the claims and language used in the article, but certainly for a major museum, the sourcing and referencing needs improving. Sionk (talk) 12:33, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Largest collection of Italian masters outside Italy?

Does the Prado really hold the largest collection? In terms of actual numbers, figures? Both the Musée du Louvre and the Budapest Museum of Fine Arts hold particularly large collections of Italian masters as well. In the case of Budapest, these are mostly second-rate paintings, even if there are several first-rate paintings and a few undisputed masterworks too, but in effect they are more than in Vienna, Munich, Dresden, Berlin, and probably London. Anyway, are there current numbers as of 2022 for comparison? --Edelseider (talk) 14:18, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Changed to "one of", but yes, refs would be nice. Johnbod (talk) 14:05, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Prado (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 00:02, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Museo_del_Prado/Archive_1&oldid=1236985269"