Jump to content

Talk:Rembrandt/Archive 1

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

Year of Birth

The year of Rembrandts birth is usually thought to be 1606. This comes from an old book about the city of Leiden (his birth place). Day and year were supposedly named by a brother or sister. There also exist two documents, signed by Rembrandt himself stating his age (a marriage document and a testimony). From these two documents his year of birth appears to be 1607. (See de Volkskrant, zaterdag 6 augustus; het Betoog p7) -- Daniel 16:05, 6 August 2005 (UTC)


Moved

I moved the content to Rembrandt Harmenszoon van Rijn in light of the disambig that was needed here. uriah923(talk) 18:58, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Nuts! It's going back. ToP Dab case if there ever was one.
--Jerzy•t 02:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

the edit histories are all mucked up. almost all the edits to the article about the painter are under Rembrandt (disambiguation); the history here begins with the initial redirect from Rembrandt Harmenszoon van Rijn, then skips two years, then picks up again in mid-February. this is why cut-and-paste moves are Not Allowed.

I'll try to sort it out. —Charles P._(Mirv) 21:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

think it's all fixed now. there might be one or two hiccups in the history here, but the majority of edits are now where they belong. —Charles P._(Mirv) 21:27, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Moved from article

Moved the following from the article space. --BillC 23:03, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Like It is said above that it has always been suggested that Rembrandt's own studio practice is a major factor in the difficulty of attribution... It is highly likely to myself that there will never be universal agreement as to what and what does not constitute a genuine Rembrandt, unless other means are to be used.

Well,... I vanrijngo (Bob Miller) half assed artist, art researcher, collector of fine art and a pain in the ass guru, can believe this last statement on which will be universally agreed upon in the future, about what is and what isn't Rembrandt's. Of course there could be the option of using science and new technologies that are in place today that could make these determinations correctly,.... But the way that it is looking to me today,... these new processes will never be used or excepted in the near future by these supposed so-called MFA expert that seem to be incharge,... just because of their super natural means of intuitive hands on inspections, only which could be used supposedly by themselves. Wouldn't it be great to spend your life studying under these super natural beings and fashioning yourselves after them only to find out in the future or afterwards that they were barking up a wrong tree?

Blogs and diary of vanrijngo.com - a non-affiliate member of this world's art expertise will give you other alternative studies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.222.111.71 (talk)

I would like to add our company link to your Rembrandt External Links.

We represent the complete collection of Rembrandt etchings by Amand-Durand, featuring Rembrandt's self portraits, landscapes, biblical scenes and other portraiture. Our website is www.rembrandtart.com.


Thank You, www.rembrandtart.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artpub (talk • contribs) 17:02, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Why is the article located at www.anthonychristian.co.uk/ezine14.html not relevant enough to be included in the external links?

It is written by a very well known art-historian and makes the interesting point that Rembrandt did, in fact, use impressionist techniques 400 years before the impressionist movement.

Mike Hannon 22.05.06 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.92.175.246 (talk) 15:26, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Cultural depictions of Rembrandt

I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information. I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list. Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article. Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this as a model for the editors here. Regards, Durova 15:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Rembrandt's Mistress

I had a lecture in medical school some time ago that mentioned that one of Rembrandt's works featured a lady. Painted in the nude, she exhibited a bulge and pitting in the skin over her breast, signs of breast cancer. This was noticed by a surgeon admiring the painting, who eventually went on to write a book about this. I've found the painting to be Bathsheba at her bath, and Rembrandt's model for this was his then-wife, Hendrickje Stoffels, who was found to have eventually died probably from breast cancer. Wouldn't it be interesting to mention this in the article? She was after all, his wife at the time. Possibly just a sentence as the work is already mentioned in his list of paintings. Or perhaps, someone could add an article on it. I am in no way qualified to do this. Squiggle 15:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Leonardo da Vinci

Did Rembrandt really picture Leonardo da Vinci dissecting? Of so, can you include it in the article. Thanks. --Eleassar777 16:11, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Maybe you are thinking of doctor Nicolaes Tulp? The anatomy lesson of doctor Nicolaes Tulp. For your information, Leonardo lived from 1452 to 1519. Rembrandt probably lived from 1607 to 1669. ChristianGL 04:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Ok, but he was a genius. Actually, they were both geniuses and great artists and probably communicated via muse.

--Eleassar777 23:21, 6 Dec 2012 (UTC)

"Expert assesment"

I'm not really sure what this theorizing about Rembrandt's vision adds to the understanding of Rembrandt. There always seems to be some professor saying something about the eyes of an old master to explain how they paint in their own characteristic style, for instance also El Greco with his elongated human figures.

I partially agree with you. But I think expert assesments should be included in the article. Although, it should be a fact that the article about Rembrandts life is ridiculously small! There exists no articles about Rembrandts paintings besides from the one about the nightwatch! ChristianGL 04:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Signature and optics

I have re-structured to renew sections on R's signature and optics: neither sits appropriately under the 'works' heading, nor does either merit placement so high up in the article. If either is to remain, for now I think they read best lower in the entry, as separate concepts. JNW 01:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion

The European Library presents more than 150 online objects of or related to Rembrandt — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.85.27.96 (talk) 22:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Polish Rider

I've read Zygulski's article, from JSTOR, Vol. 21, No. 41. (2000), pp. 197-205. He cites a number of theories from various art scholars regarding the rider's identity: one thought he was Jonasz Szlichtyng, a Polish freedom fighter who was in Amsterdam in the 1650s. Another believed he was Szymon Karol Ogiński, who married a Dutch woman. Yet another, Juliusz Chrościcki, perceived the sitter to be Marcjan Ogiński, a corporal in the Lithuanian army when Ferdinand Bol painted him in the 1650s. It does not seem that any of these conclusions are yet accepted as definitive. The Frick considers the research inconclusive, as do, I suspect, most scholars--it does not fit easily within the iconography of equestrian portraiture. JNW 02:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Birth

There is contradictory information on the year of R's birth, as well as number of siblings and familial context. Nearly all literature lists July 15,1606, as his date of birth, so I have reverted the mention of a likelihood of 1607; there needs to be stronger sourcing to support this claim. The sibling issue is tricky: I've reverted the 'fourth of six surviving children' information, even though it derives from Britannica, because several print biographies accompanying recent exhibitions (Rijksmuseum, 2006, Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, 2004) state that he was the ninth of ten children. One anticipates further reversions, but reliable cites will be necessary. JNW 12:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

List of paintings

Can we be bold and cut all the redlinks? They are very biased to the Anglosphere anyway. Personally I rarely like these lists, certainly for artists with large catalogues. Johnbod 03:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

  • I don't like these lists, either--the only thing more disheartening is a trivia list. If am fine with the red links eliminated, though there are a few works of prominence which ought to be included if the list remains (Aristotle, Bathsheba, the Syndics, and Claudius Civilis, for example), maybe in black type. Cut away. JNW 03:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Pas ce soir! Keep up the good work. Johnbod 04:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • By the way, I plan on dropping in something about his etchings soon; there is hardly anything there now, and that's just wrong. If you want to add something first, feel free. JNW 04:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead, but there's certainly room for more. JNW 14:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's been on my ever-expanding "to do" list for some time now. Johnbod 14:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
This GA nom (just added) seems premature to me, I must say! Johnbod 23:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

GA Review

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

And you thought no one would review it for weeks! It is a very good article, but there are some concerns that need to be addressed before I would feel comfortable in promoting this to GA status.

  1. The Hundred Guilder Print image overlaps some of the text in the etchings section – this needs to be fixed.
Looks ok on my set-up - can anyone fix please. Johnbod 18:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC) I swopped two pics left for right & vv; I don't know if that has helped? Johnbod 18:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
It's fixed now. Cheers, CP 20:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  1. The final attribution in the lead should be a note of some sort (foot, end, reference) and not in the body of the text itself.
Ok, or could be junked. Johnbod 18:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes. A non-sequitur, and a lukewarm assessment to boot, so I cut it.JNW 02:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  1. Under "Works," everything in the second paragraph beginning with "More recent scholarship..." requires a citation, as does the last paragraph under "Works"
All done. Johnbod 18:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  1. I would start the article with the Life section, as it is somewhat disconnected to go from Works to Life to Specific Works through the course of the article.
Agreed - Done. Johnbod 18:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  1. There are many paragraphs in "Life" that lack citations. Even if the citation for the next paragraph is the same for the one previous, you still need to have at least one citation per paragraph (the ref name function can help you cut down the amount of repeats in the notes section at the end)
All now done. Johnbod 18:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  1. The same goes for periods, themes and styles section: eg. "Stylistically, his paintings progressed from the early 'smooth' manner, characterized by fine technique in the portrayal of illusionistic form, to the late 'rough' treatment of richly variegated paint surfaces, which allowed for an illusionism of form suggested by the tactile quality of the paint itself." and "In later years, biblical themes were still depicted often, but emphasis shifted from dramatic group scenes to intimate portrait-like figures (James the Apostle, 1661). In his last years, Rembrandt painted his most deeply reflective self-portraits (from 1652 to 1669 he painted fifteen), and several moving images of both men and women (The Jewish Bride, ca. 1666)--- in love, in life, and before God ."
At the least, I can furnish a citation for the sentence re: 'smooth' and 'rough' treatment--it, too, comes from van de Wetering, but it is a non-controversial assessment nonetheless. JNW 00:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  1. Calling Self Portrait, 1658, "a masterpiece of the final style" requires a citation, otherwise it sounds POV (I may have missed it in the body of the text - just point it out to me if it is there please).
Universally agreed to be so - I will dig up a reference. Johnbod 18:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC) Now Done Johnbod 18:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  1. The last paragraph in Etchings needs a citation
The existing note covered all the statistics etc; now clarified. Johnbod 18:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  1. Selected works should be a Level 3 heading under Museum collections, and only those with articles should be listed. I would also move both of these to the last section of the article, as they are the most "current" (or ongoing) aspects of his work (as in, the museums still operate, whereas expert opinion is a sort of past work). The Museum collections needs citations too, of course.
After a major clear-out we agreed (above) to include only those paintings with articles, and a handful of very important works that don't have them yet, but are likely to in the future. Johnbod 18:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. Cheers, CP 20:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  1. Personally, I would get rid of the "Night Watch" section, which is an unnecessary addition to an already large article (especially since Night Watch (painting) has its own article
It is (rightly or wrongly) his most iconic work, and I think more detail on at least one specific work is a good thing. I note the article was described as "incredibly short" when it was demoted from FA. I must say I would tend to agree with that. Compared to other FA articles on artists, there is very little discussion of major works, so frankly this seems a step in the wrong direction. Anybody else? Johnbod 18:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Same here. Keep. JNW 00:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Again, fair enough. Plus it doesn't look so bad now that the pictures have been arranged. Cheers, CP 20:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  1. The expert assessments section is almost completely unreferenced, as are the Name and Signature and Optical Theory sections.
Done - the latter was refed in the text, but is better in the notes as now. Johnbod 18:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

There is a significant lack of citations in the article, and I teetered on whether or not to fail it outright, or give you the benefit of the doubt that you could fix the citation problem within a week. Given your recent work, and your concern for having this nominated for GA, I am going to put it on hold for a period of up to seven days, after which it can (and will) be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. Cheers, CP 16:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

A significant amount of referencing has been added & I think this & your other concerns have been addressed. Johnbod 18:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary break after concerns have been addressed

Well, the article looks great now, at least good enough for GA status. There are still some unreferenced points but, as you've pointed out, it's mostly uncontroversial stuff. If you were hoping to get this up to A Class or FA class, citing even the obvious and uncontroversial would be the first thing to look at.

I am just about ready to pass this article, but I have one small question about this: "His prints, traditionally all called etchings, although many are produced in whole or part by engraving and sometimes drypoint, have a much more stable total of slightly more than 300. It is likely he made many more drawings in his lifetime than 2,000, but those extant are more rare than presumed." I think that this merits a citation, as it's likely to be challenged without one. Once that's done, let me know and I'd be happy to bump this to GA status! Cheers, CP 20:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Done those - thanks! Johnbod 21:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Ahhh... dammit, sorry. I caught another one that's potentially controversial: "The two were considered legally wed under common law, but Rembrandt had not married Henrickje, so as not to lose access to a trust set up for Titus in his mother's will. A number of the church Elders, however, were among those to whom Rembrandt owed money, and sought to apply pressure indirectly." After that one, I'll pass it. Scout's honour. Cheers, CP 01:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Needs sourcing

The first bit is in all the books & now refed. I don't have an equivalent of A number of the church Elders, however, were among those to whom Rembrandt owed money, and sought to apply pressure indirectly. in any of my sources, so I've cut it out & put here, until someone can ref it & add it back. I'm sure it's correct, as all the old life stuff was, but I don't know where it came from. Not really vital, I think. Johnbod 02:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Excellent! It is now my pleasure to upgrade this to GA status. Congratulations! In addition, I seriously hope that my suggestions will help you get this to A Class or FA Class because, if nothing else, you certainly deserve it for the amount of effort that you have put into this article thus far! Good luck with future improvements, and thanks for re-affirming my faith people's dedication to work on Good Article nominations! Cheers, CP 02:33, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

and thanks to you for a very reasonable, and quick review! Johnbod 02:48, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Rembrandt in science fiction

This section was added at the end of February 2008. Does it actually help us in understanding Rembrandt and appreciating his importance? I would prefer to have it removed, but let's see if there is a consensus for inclusion or exclusion of this section. Fram (talk) 15:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Your motion is seconded. JNW (talk) 15:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Rembrandt as symbol

Another recently added section, this with a narrow reference to German nationalism and a foreign language link. I propose removal, but would like a consensus. JNW (talk) 13:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Various comments

About the dutch quote and translation(die meeste ende di naetuereelste beweechgelickheijt.): I disagree with both interpretations, he probably meant what we now call 'livelyness'. The best(most) and most(best) natural livelyness ' is the best modern interpretation in english i can think off. The connotation of (political) 'movement' and 'beweging' is also still there in dutch.'bewogen' also means 'moved'. But technically the one major superoustanding aspect of his art is: the natural livelyness , so why not keep it at that. btw. i think in this aspect michelangelo compares in his sculpture.onix80.57.243.72 03:30, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

_____

I would like to see some mention of Carrvaggio influence...if its real..it seems so to me, but I dunno maybe its conicidence.

___________

Hmm - Caravaggio? Velasquez? Etruscan sarcophagus carvers? I can think of lots of candidates. Please don't go all emotive - art history is a field of serious inquiry. The initial entries is what professionals call with condescension "art appreciation". --MichaelTinkler

Needs more.. Plus, given what I've seen of naming conventions here of late, shouldn't this be redirected to Rembrandt rather than the other way around? Rgamble

I'd like to see some justification for the pronunciation given. It doesn't make much sense to me, and I don't know how "rijin" is supposed to be pronounced, but it doesn't seem like the Dutch pronunciation for "Rijn" - more like English "rain" or "Rhine" - was attempted. Is it another internationally accepted pronunciation? --Iceager 22:25, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

Does the night watch really require a seperate article? It seems like mostly duplicate information, and should all be in one place. --IYY 02:22, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

Agree, there is not much new in that article. Erik Zachte 02:46, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

I removed "It was recently parodied (albeit gently) for the dust jacket of Terry Pratchett's 2002 Discworld novel Night Watch." This is irrelevant trivia fact. There are hundreds of parodies on all major works of art. Erik Zachte 02:46, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

Chuck Close was a few months ago interviewed by NPR and was asked what he thought of Rembrandt. One of the interesting things Close said was "Rembrandt had great lines". I have been fortunate enough to have seen some works of both Rembrandt and Titian. Personally, for my part, I respond much more favorably to Rembrandt's etchings and drawings. Strange and I cannot say why. The smaller format I think seemed to work in Rembrandt's favor. Titian was a deft painter. It is a horse race but Titian takes the prize. Titian was a better painter than Rembrandt. Interestingly, Delacroix, the 19th c. great romantic painter, in his journals thought of Rembrandt surpassing Raphael in fame over time. Delacroix was right. Mark Faraday 03:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

"The Man In The Golden Helmet" seems like it should have its own article, since it can't be tied to any particular artist yet doesn't seem to have any presence on wikipedia except in Rembrandt's article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.32.141.169 (talk) 01:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Numerous Theft Attempts Globally

Something ought to be mentioned about the numerous attempts of theft on Rembrandts worldwide. I think it is important to mention this to some degree as it reflects upon the high demand of Rembrandts artistic works.

ApsbaMd2 (talk) 13:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. It goes hand-in-hand with my suggestion below, too. --Ragemanchoo (talk) 07:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Polish "Ironies"

I've cut this addition, for a number of reasons:

" Some portraits or Ironies (studies of heads), may well reflect contact with Poland, and 'The Noble Slav' (e.g. Portrait of the Polish nobleman, 1637).[1]"

  1. ^ (in English) Thomas Tuohy (Sept, 2006). "The art of making a deal..." findarticles.com. Retrieved 2008-08-27. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

- firstly, although the ref indeed says "Ironies", this is surely a misprint for Tronies? - and what the Noble Slav? sentence incomplete? - It seems to me a minor point, not clear or helpful to the general reader dropped in like this. Johnbod (talk) 11:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Missing works?

Weren't several Rembrandts (among other paintings) stolen during a daylight robbery in the US some years back? Aren't there a handful of missing Rembrandt paintings, ones that have been out of sight for decades? This would make an interesting addition to the article. --Ragemanchoo (talk) 07:05, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Only 2 Rembrandt paintings, but since we show the picture of one of them I will add it there. Johnbod (talk) 01:06, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Last Name

I'd hate to break it to you, america. But his last name is actually written Van Rhijn. He alternated his spelling between Rhijn and Rijn, but his birth register names him Van Rhijn. Being part of the Van Rhijn Family myself, i did enough research and it seems this page is gonna need a complete overhaul. 86.87.28.191 (talk) 22:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I hate to break it to whomever is breaking it to America, but I have also done a lot of research on Rembrandt's name and signatures (see [1] on this subject). If we were to go by the extant documents mentioning Rembrandt during his lifetime, we would still be calling him "Rembrant." Rembrandt seldom used the spelling "van Rhijn" himself in his signatures on works or on legal instruments, and "Rijn" can be found spelled in any number of ways in the abovementioned documents. As far as I know, the "van Rijn/Rhijn" patronym was adopted ad hoc by Rembrandt's father, probably to give himself a better status, as his prosperity may have warranted. Whether this appellation was justified by the fact of his owning shares in a windmill on a tributary of the Rhine in Leiden remains to be proved. There was a lot more freedom in using (and spelling) names at the time than there is today. Only a statistical analysis, and no document, can decide which, if any, was the correct spelling of "Rijn." Further information (and confusion) on this topic can be found in the Strauss/Van der Meulen 1979 edition of "The Rembrandt Documents."JMC.

Since the point has been raised that the information on the last name/signatures is not duly referenced, I would like to stress the fact that all of my assertions concerning Rembrandt's name and signatures in this article can be checked in "The Rembrandt Documents" referred to above. Further information can be found in the articles on the signatures in each of the first three volumes of the Corpus of Rembrandt Paintings by the Rembrandt Research Project. I have simply clarified and reformulated this information to give it the emphasis and significance that it lacks in the abovementioned publications. JMC / 21 Oct. 2008 (PS: it is diffcult to give an approximation of the Dutch pronunciation of "Rijn," but I would suggest something like "rein" with more air in it). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.59.106.65 (talk) 21:22, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Naive question... how is 'Van Rijn/Rhijn' pronouced? Van Rine, rhyming with 'vine'? --Ragemanchoo (talk) 07:05, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
.... Still wondering --98.232.182.66 (talk) 11:13, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Lazy eye theory

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3665670.stm --Sonjaaa 06:08, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

To prove it, you might want to find some:
* Living great artists who have lazy eyes.
* Living miserable artists who show great improvements after a failed eye surgery.
-- Toytoy 06:38, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

I can't comment on this in relation to Rembrandt, but generally. If you look at a picture with marked perspective with one eye closed, the perspective (surprisingly) becomes far more marked. The reason for this is that the picture is itself flat, and stereoptic vision therefore doesn't help see its motif three-dimensionally. In fact it probably hinders, because the brain is getting conflicting signals. A (functionally) one-eyed painter would see the world flat (but of course with the perspective effects) and reproduce this flat world on a flat canvas. If he is competent, he will reproduce the perspective effects of the real world accurately, and probably more so than a two-eyed artist, whose perception of three-dimensionality is aided by his stereoptic vision. But precisely for this reason he (the two-eyed artist) will be less aware of the perspective effects. That is the theory. I don't know whether it applies to Rembrandt. Escoville (talk) 16:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

It seems frankly ridiculous to make a physiological feature (defect) responsible for a quality so culturally valued and yet so nebulous as creativity or "genius." At the very most, as the previous commentators have noted in their own way, the reduction of vision to one eye can play a technical role (for all painters) in the process of pictorial illusionism. Although it comes from an unexpected side (science, and not commerce), this affair seems a blatant attempt to cash in on Rembrandt's name (celebrity) and deserves mention only as a curiosity (which the Rembrandt literature is quite full of). JMC, October 24, 200889.59.110.190 (talk) 11:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

WHAT IS THERE IN Self portrait by Rembrandt?

Hello every one,

Currently I see a picture of some animal eating from tree as a 'Self portrait by Rembrandt (1661)'

Can you check what's wrong?

Some one has played around with the page i think.

Regards, Pradeep —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.124.211.153 (talk) 09:14, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

It was some vandalism which has since been reverted. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 09:26, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Religious heritage

The article does not reference the religious background of the van Rhijn or van Zuytbrouck families, or whether the painter had any confessional allegiance or opinions.

207.38.199.150 (talk) 17:12, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Rembrandt was a member of the Dutch Reformed Church[2]. However, he was no fanatic, and had admiration for many great Roman Catholic painters, like the article shows.82.154.81.215 (talk) 18:01, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Surely this is incorrect

The text includes this:

for Rembrant Harmenszoon; i.e. "son of Harmen"

I don't speak Dutch, however, is not "zoon" associated with "son", so it might be more appropriate to say

for Rembrant Harmenszoon; i.e. "Rembrant, the son of Harmen"

Can someone who speaks Dutch help here? --Filll (talk | wpc) 15:04, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't say "incorrect" -slightly less clear. Johnbod (talk) 15:43, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Of course you're both right. It's simply more clear/appropriate whith "Rembrant, the son of Harmen". Fixed it. /Karl 84.153.224.138 (talk) 11:28, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Rembrandt signatures / footnote 63

The information that I contributed on Rembrandt's name and signatures back in 2006 (I think) has been moved to a separate section and a footnote added that reproduces a PDF file from my website without any reference to this source. I would have edited the footnote myself, but the footnote page appeared as a blank. Therefore, I would kindly request whoever is responsible for this article to change footnote 63 by adding "Source: www.rembrandt-signature-file.com" or a credit line to that effect. Thank you. Jean-Marie Clarke, November 27, 2009.89.59.70.247 (talk) 23:38, 26 November 2009 (UTC) I thought Rembrant was born in Holland? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.209.199.232 (talk) 21:38, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Done Joost 99 (talk) 11:05, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Birth place

The birth place of Netherlands in the infobox was removed, and then restored. The The National Gallery says, "Rembrandt Harmenszoon van Rijn was born in Leiden in the Netherlands in 1606."[3] Ty 01:06, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

What style does Rembrandt paint in —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.202.105.177 (talk) 14:43, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Archive

Could someone kindly set up an archive for the page (but not an automated one). Just leave a couple of sections, old though they are. Thanks Johnbod (talk) 12:19, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

The NGFA holds some originals of Rembrandt's etching, I think it's worth to mention it in the article. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 11:57, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Bearded Old Man

New reclassification. o0drogue0o 11:56, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Relations

...For all you researchers, Rembrandt is according to D. A. Story of the book 'The DeLancey's' "A Romance of a Great family" is stated he is a cousin link to the Courtlandt family. Marriage of Ann Van Courtlandt to {Ettiene} Stephen DeLancey in New York City around the turn of the 17th Century. Maybe some links of these families and others can prevail some of Rembrant's history.David George DeLancey (talk) 05:16, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Night Watch

An interesting theory on the significance of certain elements of Rembrandt's most famous painting, the Night Watch, is featured in (both) Peter Greenaway's movie Nightwatching and documentary Rembrandt's J'Accuse, were the painting is thought to have actually been painted this way with the purpose to accuse the people dipicted in it of murder. 88.193.111.215 (talk) 13:05, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Rembrandt van Rijn - Self-Portrait - Google Art Project.jpg to appear as POTD

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Rembrandt van Rijn - Self-Portrait - Google Art Project.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on May 19, 2013. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2013-05-19. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:44, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Rembrandt
Rembrandt (1606–69) was a Dutch painter and etcher generally considered one of the greatest in European art history. The artist attained fame as a portrait painter, although he later painted numerous Bible scenes. In this 1659 self-portrait, known as Self-Portrait with Beret and Turned-Up Collar, he depicts himself in a way which shows "the stresses and strains of a life compounded of creative triumphs and personal and financial reverses".Painting: Rembrandt
Archive – More featured pictures...

Pictures

Removed some pictures from the gallery, it was to big, and also added some representative and famous pictures that were not there, while most the removed ones are on the list of selected works with a blue link. Also removed some of the self-portraits because many are similar and just take a lot of place, making the gallery overwhelming. Hafspajen (talk) 01:13, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Considering the gallery size, I think that the visibility was much better as it was before. I don't think those new replacements today were an improvment. they are much to dark. Possible that the other ones were much to light, but one if has to chose, take rather the light ones. One has to consider that small galleries have a restricted visibility. Hafspajen (talk) 14:15, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

  • original, in the article before blue discolouration
    original, in the article before blue discolouration
  • replacement - a frame around, not so good Google art project version, there is no frame, that is the edge of the canvas
    replacement - a frame around, not so good Google art project version, there is no frame, that is the edge of the canvas
  • File:I don't think frame is not good.
  • Man in Armour, Original grainy, everything is red
    Man in Armour, Original grainy, everything is red
  • replacement, doubt that the original colour is so trong. Colours are correct, crisp detail
    replacement, doubt that the original colour is so trong. Colours are correct, crisp detail
  • Nr 3 Grainy, everything is red
    Nr 3 Grainy, everything is red
  • Susanna and the Elders terrible colour issues, lack of detail
    Susanna and the Elders terrible colour issues, lack of detail
  • replacement Clear colours, dark areas - not sure if this is a night scene though
    replacement Clear colours, dark areas - not sure if this is a night scene though
  • Nr 3 Poor detail, everything is yellow
    Nr 3 Poor detail, everything is yellow
  • The Return of the Prodigal Son, High resolution but has reflection issues
    The Return of the Prodigal Son, High resolution but has reflection issues
  • replacement Google Art Project, best available, gigapixel
    replacement Google Art Project, best available, gigapixel
  • Not the full picture, low level of detail
    Not the full picture, low level of detail

And I replaced them with something in between. Hafspajen (talk) 14:28, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

In general the replacements are better, & eg for the Prodigal Son; the originals were mostly awful old Yorck project washed-out book scans. Johnbod (talk) 15:02, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
I made these replacements with the best quality versions available, usually Google Art Project ones if available. The previous versions, and the alternate versions above have *terrible* detail and/or colours. I strongly oppose their use. Johnbod, sorry, your versions are also terrible. (Hohum @) 16:05, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't have any versions! I'm agreeing with you, numbskull! Johnbod (talk) 16:15, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Apologies, thought the versions put back into the article were your suggestions. (Hohum @) 16:39, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
OK, J, lets discuss, for the moment there are some compromise pics in the article. Hohum, don't revert to your . Let's just chose, 1, 2, 3... Hafspajen (talk) 16:28, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Crisco 1492, you are not involved and have a good pic judgment, try chose from this. Hafspajen (talk) 16:35, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

A compromise would be versions we could all bear equally. The ones you have put back again are *awful*. They are poor detail and poor colour, exactly what shouldn't be there. Based on your criteria we'd need to change the lead infobox image to File:Rembrandt Harmensz. van Rijn 131.jpg instead of the featured picture currently there. (Hohum @) 16:39, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
OK, if in general the replacements are better, we don't have to do anything, because that is what we have right now. any objections? anyone? Hafspajen (talk) 16:53, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Personally I think the "Other pictures" gallery is probably too large, is unselected, and without proper captions explaining why images are significant. For example I think the Man in Armour is not needed at all, though I prefer the replacement version. I'd rather sort out the choice of images first, before moving on to the choice of photos. Johnbod (talk) 16:59, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Go ahead. But make it look good. (And the Man in Armour is there simply because it is a good but unknown picture. Everybody knows the Man in a Golden helmet, but not this one.) I don't care much for The Philosopher in Meditation, 1632; Descent from the Cross, 1634The Archangel leaving Tobias, 1637; Ahasuerus and Haman at the Feast of Esther, 1660; Portrait of a foreign admiral, 1658; Jacob Blessing the Sons of Joseph, 1656; there are two pics of his father, one would be fine. And Hohum, I have chosen the light pictures, you have chosen the dark ones, I think this compomise in not bad. One have to remember that the pictures were not quite this dark, like you chose them, when they were new. Hafspajen (talk) 17:09, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
The Google art images are the best photos available. The ones you have given have very low level of detail, and are badly discoloured (generally very red); in the face of that, being lighter is an irrelevance, your versions are utterly unacceptable. The gallery is also too large, and should be reduced to the more important examples. (Hohum @) 13:34, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Yes, the other 2 gallery sections are 2 rows of 5 each, with the "other paintings" (as it should be called) now 6 rows of 5. I think it should be 3, or 4 at most, as selected paintings are most of the text images. Google files are the best, though very big, and I do worry about the loading factor. Generally Yorck project (some currently in) are the very worst as they are scans from art books that are so old they were already out of copyright (50 years +?) about 20 years ago when Yorck launched. The washed out red tone comes from the limitations of ye olde colour printing, plus 50 years of fading. It is true that at thumb many better (more accurate) photos of Rembrandts do look very dark - there is a case for having a different photo in the gallery with a link to a google as a "larger image". Johnbod (talk) 13:56, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't think there is a case for having manipulated images for gallery size previews. The best source image should always be used so a simple click goes to the best version available. If an image is dark, it is dark. (Hohum @) 14:01, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
I prefer 4 to 5; (I'll make that change); Google files where available - and I've avoided artbook imagery for years; unless absolutely necessary...Modernist (talk) 14:09, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Ooops, sorry, was away and didn't noticed this discussion. Why do you prefer them 4 ? It looks displaced on my computer (most regular full screen.) They all gather to the left leaving a big white space to right. Hafspajen (talk) 16:39, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Rembrandt/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

See Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/Rembrandt. Errabee 03:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Last edited at 03:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 15:39, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

4 or 5 pictures per row + new additions

Young Girl at the Window, Hendrickje, 1651 REMOVED

As it is now with 4 pictures per row + additions we have a gallery that has 12 rows + the drawings,= that makes it 15 rows! - and that is an enormous gallery. Before, with 5 pictures per row we had a gallery that was 6 rows + the drawings. I strongly oppose these changes, they are not an improvment.

I like pictures and galleries but one has to make a selection, and this supposed to be a good article. 12 rows plus the drawings it is just a big, giant, and even more unselected gallery as it was before, with a lot of pictures that are NOT famous or representative for Rembrandt. Themes are repeating themselves, a good deal of the new pictures are unsignificant works, their visibility is extra bad due to the small size and the dark quality of Rembrandts works. When we were talking about the gallery, above, were talkig removing a few more pictures, not adding some new pictures. If not getting any response, (as usual) start an Rcf, soon. Hafspajen (talk) 13:11, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Agree; I've trimmed 3 rows I think. How over 4 per row works on smaller screens etc I'm not sure. Otherwise I'm in favour. Johnbod (talk) 14:18, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
That looks fine...Modernist (talk) 14:21, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

If we take 3 per row, we will have even more rows, it will be long-long and small. We must select the pictures that are representative and look good in the gallery. Hafspajen (talk) 14:24, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that I added a few very important paintings including his first painting - Rembrandt is one of the most important painters in European art history - get off it...Try reading this:WP:OWN...Modernist (talk) 14:31, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Now, now, exacly when I thought we were having a civilized discussion here. Hendrickje, that was his second - woman, we can't remove her. And his first picture it doesn't look much in the gallery, it probably looks better in the article, if we have to have that one. Try reading WP:OWN yourself, it is you who take things personally. And WP:POLITE too. I don't care about ownership, I care about quality. I know very well that Rembrandt is one of the most important painters in European art history, that is why we have to make it good. I read enought art history to know that. As long as the changes are for the better, fine. Hafspajen (talk) 14:34, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Make a section of early paintings and since the first painting also includes a self-portrait; write that up as well; and remove it from the gallery. I think the article is fine right now...Modernist (talk) 14:39, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, for example, that is a good idea. Hafspajen (talk) 14:42, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Try it...Modernist (talk) 14:43, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

..No, I will NOT. I know quite a lot about art history and I am an academic but English is not my first language. I can write that kind of things in Swedish, but in English, that will not work well - but that doesn't mean that I am not good at arts, because I am. And some of the Rembrand that I added were pictures which, while not particularly well known, were none the less wonderful examples of Rembrandt's art. This kind of things I can judge. And I probably can write better in English than you in Swedish. Hafspajen (talk) 14:51, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Ahasuerus and Haman at the Feast of Esther, 1660 - THIS LOOKS GOOD AT BIG SIZE BUT SHOWS NOTHING IN GALLERY.
Ahasuerus and Haman at the Feast of Esther, 1660 - THIS LOOKS GOOD AT BIG SIZE BUT SHOWS NOTHING IN GALLERY.
Ahasuerus and Haman at the Feast of Esther, 1660 - THIS LOOKS GOOD AT BIG SIZE BUT not quite at thumb size .
  • Like these, REMOVED
    Like these, REMOVED
  • REMOVED
    REMOVED
  • REMOVED
    REMOVED
  • Young Girl at the Window, REMOVED
    Young Girl at the Window, REMOVED

These are not so good reproductions for small size - but are in the gallery.

  • Ahasuerus and Haman at the Feast of Esther, 1660 - THIS LOOKS GOOD AT BIG SIZE BUT SHOWS NOTHING IN GALLERY.
    Ahasuerus and Haman at the Feast of Esther, 1660 - THIS LOOKS GOOD AT BIG SIZE BUT SHOWS NOTHING IN GALLERY.
  • The Blinding of Samson, 1636, which Rembrandt gave to Huyghens THIS ONE IS A RATHER POOR QUALITY FILE.
    The Blinding of Samson, 1636, which Rembrandt gave to Huyghens THIS ONE IS A RATHER POOR QUALITY FILE.

One has to think over certain paintings placement, shall it be in the gallery, or not. Shall it be in the article or create a single row of a possible bigger gallery? As someone said: putting together galleries that look good takes a lot of work. Jamming together every picture after a timeline is not always best. You need to choose high quality images that sit well together and you need to arrange them as if you were hanging works in a real gallery. - Hafspajen (talk) 15:15, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

OK; hope I explained how I was thinking, and sorry if i was a bit sharp, but it is not so nice to hear one of the most important painters in European art history - get off it. - I am good at art articles in my own way, and can help. Hafspajen (talk) 17:15, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Selection

I am not entirely satisfied with our selection of his works. We say: Having achieved youthful success as a portrait painter, Rembrandt's later years were marked by personal tragedy and financial hardships. Yet his etchings and paintings were popular throughout his lifetime, his reputation as an artist remained high ... Rembrandt's greatest creative triumphs are exemplified especially in his portraits of his contemporaries, self-portraits and illustrations of scenes from the Bible. Well, selfportraits we have to many of in the gallery really, but we removed portraits lately. We should have more portraits, more organized after themes and not entirely timeline, more - of the great works he had, genre painting, portraits, and so on.

Just as Nabokov had no use for social, moral or political advocacy in art, he was equally disinterested in classifying art by themes or generalities, looking instead into the details of a work of art in order to extract its essence.


  • St. Bartholomew, 1661
    St. Bartholomew, 1661
  • Young Girl at the Window,
    Young Girl at the Window,
  • Even our selfportraits are many the same composition - this has a different theme.
    Even our selfportraits are many the same composition - this has a different theme.

Hafspajen (talk) 20:05, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Rembrandt. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:20, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rembrandt. 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) 09:45, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rembrandt. 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) 04:16, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Rembrandt's legacy and influence so great, why we have not a (least) section for him?

The literature on Rembrandt's life and artistic output is huge and could fill a small library! So why:

+ This 'good' article lacks extensive sections about Rembrandt’s extraordinary achievement as a draftsman (see notes by David Hockney in his interviews about Rembrandt's draughtsmanship) and as a printmaker (he was the greatest etcher of all time , and along Durer, one of the greatest and most original printmakers in history).

+ This 'good' article lacks an important section about Rembrandt's legacy and influence (both contemporary and posthumous) on art and intellectual world in general, especially in France and Germany (19th century-20th century). Please read quotes of Francisco Goya (I have had three masters, Nature, Velázquez, and Rembrandt), Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (Rembrandt the Thinker), Eugène Delacroix (Perhaps we shall one day find that Rembrandt is a greater painter than Raphael), Auguste Rodin (Compare me with Rembrandt! What sacrilege! With Rembrandt, the colossus of Art! What are you thinking of, my friend! We should prostrate ourselves before Rembrandt and never compare anyone with him!), Marc Chagall (Neither Imperial Russia, nor the Russia of the Soviets needs me. They don't understand me. I am a stranger to them. I'm certain Rembrandt loves me.)

+ This 'good' article lacks an important section about cultural depictions of Rembrandt‎ (in novels and films). zingvin (talk) 20:00, 10 Jan 2017 (UTC)

This article has been monopolized by someone?! zingvin (talk) 20:10, 15 Mar 2017 (UTC)

This lazy link is not just crappy writing, it's insulting: 

"In the same year, Rembrandt became a burgess of Amsterdam and a member of the local guild of painters."

Since this is the only link I clicked, I suspect more laziness. Why think? Cheers!
--2602:306:CFCE:1EE0:19AB:AF78:7BB2:AAE7 (talk) 04:18, 13 October 2018 (UTC)Doug Bashford

Distinguishing between notes and refs

I'm sorry for any disruption, but it is very helpful for articles to distinguish between 'explanatory notes' and standard citations. Simply putting them all as numbered refs prevents the more informational refs from being seen by the casual reader. Johnbod, to which part of WP:CITEVAR are you referring? UpdateNerd (talk) 02:19, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Seriously? "Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, to make it match other articles, or without first seeking consensus for the change. The arbitration committee ruled in 2006:

Wikipedia does not mandate styles in many different areas; these include (but are not limited to) American vs. British spelling, date formats, and citation style. Where Wikipedia does not mandate a specific style, editors should not attempt to convert Wikipedia to their own preferred style, nor should they edit articles for the sole purpose of converting them to their preferred style, or removing examples of, or references to, styles which they dislike.

As with spelling differences, it is normal practice to defer to the style used by the first major contributor or adopted by the consensus of editors already working on the page, unless a change in consensus has been achieved. If the article you are editing is already using a particular citation style, you should follow it; if you believe it is inappropriate for the needs of the article, seek consensus for a change on the talk page. If you are the first contributor to add citations to an article, you may choose whichever style you think best for the article. ...." Yes, THAT PART!

You have your preferences re notes & citations, and others have theirs. Don't just drive-by and switch them. Johnbod (talk) 03:06, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

I see. I could care less about the reference "style", as far as how they are formatted or whether they use "refn" or some other under-the-hood method. However, explanatory notes are very different from works cited, and they should appear differently for viewer convenience. I'm not sure that this goes against the guideline you brought up, so it would be helpful if you could clarify which portions of my change you objected to. The part you quoted doesn't speak to notes, which is the more important change in my view. UpdateNerd (talk) 04:00, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
As I say, that's purely your view. Both styles are entirely acceptable in FAs for example, and no guideline prefers one to the other. That one is more useful or convenient for the reader is very dubious. Johnbod (talk) 18:20, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
FAs aren't template articles. Per WP:CS, it's considered helpful to put "some of the citations in footnotes and others as parenthetical references". Informational footnotes and references only pointing to sources aren't the same thing. It's less of a matter of preference than convenience; not all editors are familiar with the 'efn' templates. Over time, articles evolve, and become easier for readers to use. The appearance of letters to distinguish from refs calls attention to which notes are informational, not just citations. It is in no way detrimental to the article to change them. You can say it's just opinion/preference, but that's because Wikipedia doesn't dictate how to edit; we can still put our heads together and agree on what's more beneficial per WP:IAR. Thanks UpdateNerd (talk) 04:18, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
That is a gross and blatent distortion of WP:CS, which refers to "some of the citations in footnotes and others as parenthetical references" (ie refs in the text, so-called "Harvard style") as an example of an "article with inconsistent citation styles". I'm finding it pretty impossible to believe this wild misreading was made in good faith. No idea what "FAs aren't template articles" means. Well, we've put our heads together and can't agree, so I suggest you drop it, & if trying the same thing elsewhere, get consensus first, and don't mislead people as to what policies actually say. Johnbod (talk) 14:16, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
I see my error & where you were coming from. The guideline says it's acceptable, but not necessary to separate notes and refs. Many GAs separate them. I'll walk away, but leave the discussion open for possible consensus either way. Outriggr might care to comment. UpdateNerd (talk) 15:27, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks - that policy wording should perhaps be made clearer, which I'll raise when I get a moment. Johnbod (talk) 15:30, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Consensus call

Is there any opposition to changing footnotes to a visibly unique letter-style, as in this edit, rather than leaving them mixed in with standard citations? UpdateNerd (talk) 18:00, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, there is. See above. Johnbod (talk) 18:32, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
I thought your opposition was just to make sure guidelines were followed and consensus was achieved first. Do you actually view the style change as detrimental? UpdateNerd (talk) 18:39, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Yup. You're getting there. Johnbod (talk) 18:49, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
To my mind, the numbered refs only indicate a citation, unless the prose indicates something like a direct quotation, which may sometimes be found there. Lettered citations are more like footnotes in a book, actually providing more context and sometimes even having their own embedded citations, "proving" the information. So IMO they are not really equivalent, and probably were only done that way because the <ref> tags are more familiar to novice editors than the more advanced {{efn}} templates. UpdateNerd (talk) 18:55, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Footnote does not appear to make sense

Footnote 11:

This version of his first name, "Rembrandt" with a "d," first appeared in his signatures in 1633. Until then, he had signed with a combination of initials or monograms. In late 1632, he began signing solely with his first name, "Rembrant". He added the "d" in the following year and stuck to this spelling for the rest of his life. Although we can only speculate, this change must have had a meaning for Rembrandt, which is generally interpreted as his wanting to be known by his first name like the great figures of the Italian Renaissance: Leonardo, Raphael etc., (who did not sign with their first names, if at all).

The part "who did not sign with their first names" does not seem to make sense in the context.

Also, it reads at first as if "this change" means adding the "d", whereas it seems it must mean signing solely with his first name.

Also, the comma after "etc." is wrong.

Don't see problems 1 & 2: Raphael did not sign works as "Raffaello". I don't see that "it seems it must mean". I'll cut the brackets at the end. Johnbod (talk) 19:44, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, but I think you need to look again. Perhaps the intention made sense to the writer somehow, but the result does not make sense to the reader.

Reference 79

The reference 79 (John Russell (1 December 1985). "Art View; In Search of the Real Thing". New York Times.) is not a good one. It does not contain any reasoning about its claim, it does not even give a reference where a good reasoning could be found. It simply states an opinion. It doesn't seem to me up to any scientific standard.

No, it states a fact about recent attribution lists, though not giving further details or references. Johnbod (talk) 15:10, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Adoration of the Magi

I just created an article for the recently discovered painting Adoration of the Magi (Rembrandt). Any help improving the article would be appreciated. Thank you, Thriley (talk) 22:39, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Goya Quote

I'm not a native Spanish speaker, but is there a better translation of Goya's quote that respects the negation aspect? I think there's a slight, but significant difference in meaning between, "I have had" and "I have had no other". Again, not a native speaker, but I think a more literal translation would be "I haven't had other masters than..." 2600:1700:2950:7B90:84:94CD:C69C:3B60 (talk) 06:15, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Greatest Artists in History

"he is generally considered one of the greatest visual artists in the history of art and the most important in Dutch art history" Either remove this sentence or assert the same in Michelangelo's page. That this ascription was removed from Michelangelo's page means that it can't be on any other artist's page. Adopt a set of consistent rules. Michelangelo is perhaps the greatest artist to have ever lived. Rembrandt is a dwarf compared to Michelangelo. And yet his opening paragraph asserts that he's one of the greatest visual artists in history, whereas Michelangelo's doesn't. 67.71.31.191 (talk) 03:30, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Tone Down the Superlatives

"Rembrandt's portraits of his contemporaries, self-portraits and illustrations of scenes from the Bible are regarded as his greatest creative triumphs."

Who writes this bullshit? This article needs to be heavily toned down. In proportion, Rembrandt was a middling painter considering the talent that the era produced. Compare the introduction written to Caravaggio, without whom Rembrandt would not exist and who is at least ten times greater than Rembrandt, which is devoid of these subjective superlatives and bombastic statements.

I know that some Northern Europeans inflate Rembrandt's value for lack of many artists of high stature hailing from the regions, but the deification of this average painter in this article is heavily unwarranted. 67.71.31.191 (talk) 09:52, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Sources for this? Johnbod (talk) 15:59, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rembrandt/Archive_1&oldid=1227552340"