Jump to content

Talk:Rembrandt

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Rembrandt/Comments)
Former featured articleRembrandt is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Good articleRembrandt has been listed as one of the Art and architecture good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 24, 2004.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 19, 2004Refreshing brilliant proseKept
February 16, 2005Featured article reviewDemoted
October 4, 2007Good article nomineeListed
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on July 15, 2004, July 15, 2006, and July 15, 2017.
Current status: Former featured article, current good article


Posthumous

[edit]

JAMA Ophthalmology published articles in 2018 and 2019, theorizing, then refuting, that both Rembrandt and Leonardo may have had undiagnosed exotropia (commonly, "walleye"), a type of strabismus—an eye misalignment. Exotropia typically leads to favoring one eye, leading to vision resembling those seen when painted on a flat canvas.[1][2]

  1. ^ Bates, Sofie (9 December 2019). "Why Rembrandt and da Vinci may have painted themselves with skewed eyes". sciencenews.org. Scince News. Retrieved 27 July 2022.
  2. ^ Ahmed F. Shakarchi and David L. Guyton (27 November 2019). "A Geometric Analysis of Eye Dominance Suggesting That Rembrandt and Leonardo da Vinci Had Straight Eyes After All". JAMA Ophthalmology. 138 (1). American Medical Association JAMA Network: 101–102. doi:10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2019.4603. Retrieved 27 July 2022.

I've removed this section as WP:UNDUE (and it was placed far too high). All top artists are plagued by this sort of thing. Note that a) the journal backed down, and b) as usual it was in the Christmas issue of the journal, no doubt alongside the studies on which chocolates the nurses take first from mixed boxes. Johnbod (talk) 15:59, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Moved discussion on captions

[edit]

Why do you consider the caption edit "unscientific?" First of all, it's the incorrect name for the painting, which is "Winter Landscape" not winterlandscape. Second, there's no need for "Rembrandt only" in the description; it makes no sense. Knightoften (talk) 23:10, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to discuss this childish nonsense.Taksen (talk) 06:04, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you leave a message on my talk page? I cannot take you seriously, you are a beginner; the discussion should be here! Besides deleting is easier than adding, something that bothers me for years. Some Wikipedians like to think: What I don't know or have never heard of is unimportant and can be deleted, a dangerous attitude.Taksen (talk) 06:02, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At some time I added: Rembrandt's only known seascape, The Storm on the Sea of Galilee (1633). This does not stand alone. There is another caption: The Shell (a cone snail) is the only known still life Rembrandt ever etched. Why didn't you change those too? Is it because your action is arbitrary? Between 1643-1647 Holland had a row of severe winters which influenced him. Taksen (talk) 05:04, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Taksen What? I left you a message because you reverted my edit. In order to avoid an edit war, it was best to speak with you personally. I did not delete anything.
Well, for starters, you can pull up the image yourself and see the source, which plainly lists the painting's title, "Winter Landscape." This is the official name. Second, I did not change the others because they make sense grammatically. You did not write "Rembrandt's only known winter landscape," you wrote "Rembrandt only winterlandscape." There are no problems with those other captions; they are written grammatically correct in English. I think you are misunderstanding the issue.
Lastly, I should warn you that beginning an edit war is cause to be blocked on WP. Knightoften (talk) 20:11, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I hope everyone is happy with this. Johnbod (talk) 20:34, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why a "Dutch Golden Age Painter"?

[edit]

Surely we can agree that a "Dutch Golden Age Painter" is not a nationality. The problem with this is, of course, that not all people who were part of the "Dutch Golden Age" were actually Dutch. Granted, most painter were, but definitely not all of them, and most definitely not all scientists or philosophers. Secondly, apart from Jan Steen and Frans Hals, I don't see this practice in many other articles. The article on Johannes Vermeer for instance says something completely different, the same goes for Gerard ter Borch or Samuel van Hoogstraten. It would've been much better to include this at a later moment in the lede. Nico Gombert (talk) 21:41, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No it isn't a nationality, but it is what Rembrandt was and by far the most useful link to have at the start of the article, and includes his nationality. There are PLENTY of other articles starting like this - if you see some that don't it would be helpful to change them, if helpful edits are what you do! WHY would it "have been much better to include this at a later moment in the lede"? Do we really want to send people off to read Dutch people or even Dutch Golden Age?? Your first sentence: "Surely we can agree that a "Dutch Golden Age Painter" is not a nationality. The problem with this is, of course, that not all people who were part of the "Dutch Golden Age" were actually Dutch. Granted, most painter were, but definitely not all of them, and most definitely not all scientists or philosophers. " is both irrelevant and off-topic. What has this to do with it? Please explain. Johnbod (talk) 17:51, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that "Dutch Golden Age Painter" is the more useful context. Note that MOS:FIRSTBIO uses the lead sentence of Petrarch as a good example: "a scholar and poet of Renaissance Italy", not "Italian scholar and poet" or "Aretine scholar and poet". Similar case. Ewulp (talk) 23:04, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My entire point is that it doesn't include his nationality. And it objectively doesn't, because there were lots of people who were part of the Dutch Golden Age who weren't Dutch. Why does this need explanation? Descartes was part of the Dutch Golden Age, just as Pierre Bayle, John Locke and Clara Peeters; yet they weren't Dutch. There are indeed other articles that write "a Dutch Golden Age painter", but there are also lots of articles who don't do this. My point is that it would be better to change the first category rather than the second.
In that light the example you gave of Petrarch is telling. First of all, there are plenty of articles of the Italian Renaissance who don't start like that (Michelangelo, Da Vinci and Dante are all Italian) and secondly the Italian Renaissance is (of course) fundamentally different from the Dutch Golden Age. (In that light the example is flawed.) Nico Gombert (talk) 12:06, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Dutch Golden Age Painter" has a certain convenient ambiguity (as to "Dutch"). I wouldn't use it for eg the German Ludolf Bakhuizen, though he only took up art in Holland. We have a similar useful redirect for Italian Renaissance painter which is often used, and should be used more. You've made your position clear, but so have Ewulp & I, preferring the version we've had for years, here and elsewhere. Back it goes. Johnbod (talk) 15:12, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So Ewulp and you are dictating what happens on Wikipedia? Your arrogance is really astonishing. First of all, this discussion has just been opened and I have only heard the opinion of one other person who hasn't even responded to my response (Ewulp). Secondly, your arguments make no sense whatsoever. The example you give of Bakhuizen is exactly an argument for my reasoning, namely that there are painters who are not Dutch, but are still part of the Dutch Golden Age. How do you intend to make that difference clear by only stating "Dutch Golden Age painter"?
Moreover, your statement "We have a similar useful redirect for Italian Renaissance painter which is often used" is simply not true, as I've proved above. Nico Gombert (talk) 19:15, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your edit summary on 30 May, reverting me, said "There is a discussion now on the talk page for some time.." - now it hasn't started yet, apparently! Frankly none of your last makes any sense at all - please rephrase comprehensively. I don't know how many people you were expecting to join the discussion - 3 isn't a bad turnout these days, especially when two are extremely experienced editors in this area (though one has fewer than 20 edits). Johnbod (talk) 21:27, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is your problem with this pathetic behavior? I obviously meant that I initiated a conversation on the talk page - which you insisted - but you refused to participate. Can you please explain your rude and pathetic reaction?
Apparently if you have fewer than 20 edits your opinion doesn't count? Up until now I haven't heard one sensible argument from the extremely experienced editor that you claim to be. Nico Gombert (talk) 11:03, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Painters who are identified with the Dutch Golden Age but are not Dutch are identified in the lead sentence as German (Bakhuizen), Flemish (Peeters), etc. which eliminates ambiguity, just as non-Italian artists active in Italy during the Italian Renaissance are identified (e.g., Giulio Clovio, Jacques Arcadelt). Your allegation that the redirect for Italian Renaissance painter is not often used is hardly proven by checking three articles; try googling "was an Italian Renaissance painter" site:en.wikipedia.org & notice copious results. To insist on a change with no consensus looks like "dictating what happens on Wikipedia". Ewulp (talk) 01:11, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not disputing that people are using it, however, the three most important figures of that period are not being referred to as such (Michelangelo, Dante, Da Vinci). The same goes for Botticelli, Brunelleschi, Donatello, Raphael and Masaccio. So really, what are you talking about? By far the most important figures do not adhere to the practice you claim is being used.
And also, how can consensus be reached if it isn't even attempted (by reacting on each others arguments for instance, by engaging in a rational conversation). The practice at the moment seems to be that John, who considers himself very experienced on Wikipedia, is therefore more entitled to seeing things go his way? That my friend is "dictating what happens on Wikipedia". With sentences like: "You've made your position clear, but so have I. Back it goes." It's almost comical. Nico Gombert (talk) 11:06, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that's clever! But depressingly few actually used the Italian Renaissance painter link (more now - see my last edits). Readers were linked to Italians, Renaissance, Italian Renaissance, List of Italian painters, and painting. If, as is probably the case, Nico Gombert can't see what's wrong with that, I give up. Please remind me why two very experienced art editors reverting to keep the long-established text is 'astonishingly arrogant', but an editor who has only ever edited two art pages reverting them to restore his new text is not. Johnbod (talk) 01:57, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clever at all in my opinion, because people who don't know that practice (which is logical, since they don't read all those other pages) are not aware that there is a difference. I'm baffled that someone with the gigantuous experience that John has, is apparently not capable of seeing that. Apart from that, the Italian Renaissance is vastly different from the Dutch Golden Age (i.e. the DGA was far more international and multi-cultural). Especially for the Dutch Golden Age it should be made clear that there is a difference between nationality and participation to that specific cultural-historical period. This is impossible to achieve with your suggestion, because people won't check pages like that of Bakhuizen to see if there's a difference in nationality. Nico Gombert (talk) 11:13, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just not seeing your problem at all: We say "Ludolf Bakhuizen[1][2] (28 December 1630 or 1632 – 7 November 1708) was a German-born Dutch painter, draughtsman, calligrapher and printmaker.[3] He was the leading Dutch painter of maritime subjects after Willem van de Velde the Elder and Younger left for England in 1672." I have to say "the DGA was far more international and multi-cultural" seems a most dubious statement! Johnbod (talk) 14:18, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What's dubious about it? It seems to me to be a completely logical and uncontroversial statement.
Secondly, I'm not departing from Bakhuizen's article, because I'm in agreement with that. His background is indeed perfectly clear when you read that article. However, if one reads "Rembrandt, a Dutch Golden Age painter", then one is a. not aware of the fact that "a Dutch Golden Age painter" is not the same as a "Dutch painter" and (logically) b. it isn't entirely clear if Rembrandt belongs in that category or another.
Ewulp wrote "Painters who are identified with the Dutch Golden Age but are not Dutch are identified in the lead sentence as German (Bakhuizen), Flemish (Peeters), etc. which eliminates ambiguity". But this is problematic since readers of the article are not at all aware of the fact that this distinction is being made. How does a reader who has no clue of Dutch Golden Age painting knows this? Nico Gombert (talk) 16:07, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is it possible you may be overthinking this "problem"? We assume that Wikipedia readers have basic competence. Are you worried that readers of Virginia Woolf will be confused by her description as "an English writer" – that they will interpret this to mean that she was "a writer who wrote in English" and miss the broad hint that her nationality was English? Do you consider "American blues musician", "German filmmaker", "Italian automobile engineer" and the like similarly problematic? (A player of American blues or a designer of Italian cars could be of any nationality.) It seems to me that your hypothetical "reader who has no clue of Dutch Golden Age painting" is especially unlikely to be confused; they will see Rembrandt described as a "Dutch ... painter" and understand the plain meaning – why wouldn't they? No more confusing than "French Romantic painter" or any number of other phrases. As already noted, the Petrarch example given above is presented in MOS:FIRSTBIO as a model of a good opening sentence, even though not everybody associated with the Italian Renaissance was Italian. Ewulp (talk) 00:25, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No I'm not overthinking this, but I fear that you are completely missing my point. My point is: being an "American blues musician", "German filmmaker", "Italian automobile engineer" is something fundamentally different from "a Dutch Golden Age painter" or "an Italian Renaissance painter". The first examples unambiguously refer to the nationality, whereas the second examples don't. For "a Dutch Golden Age painter" this is problematic, because there are other nationalities besides the Dutch nationality of painters who fall under the category of "Dutch Golden Age painter".
The second problem is that an unknowing reader won't understand the difference between the two. They will think that all "Dutch Golden Age painters" are necessarily Dutch, which isn't the case. And again, your Petrarch example isn't being used by the majority of important figures of that period (I gave the examples above). Nico Gombert (talk) 20:21, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To convince anyone there is an issue you would have to find the phrase being used on the page for an artist who wasn't Dutch, and raise it there. Rembrandt was Dutch & there is no problem. Johnbod (talk) 01:54, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're not reacting on my arguments. Yes, Rembrandt was Dutch, but that is not what is written. What is written is: "A Dutch Golden Age painter". Which is something different. Nico Gombert (talk) 08:04, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I said a looooong way above, the ambiguity is convenient: R was both a painter of the DGA, and a Dutch painter. Find a page where there is inaccuracy & complain about that there. You are just going round in circles here, & have attracted no support. Johnbod (talk) 12:23, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're not even attempting to engage with what I have to say. I really don't understand what your problem is. But I have enough of you, a RfC is the only thing that is sensible at this point. Nico Gombert (talk) 16:37, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should "a Dutch Golden Age painter" be replaced?

[edit]

In the text Rembrandt is referred to as "a Dutch Golden Age painter", not as a "Dutch painter". However, not all painters of the Dutch Golden Age were actually Dutch. Therefore, this is potentially confusing and definitely not accurate. Should this be replaced by a normal reference (e.g. "Dutch painter") to his nationality? Nico Gombert (talk) 16:39, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Bad RfC. The lead statement of an RfC must be neutral, and this one is not. An appropriate RfC statement would be "Should the lead section state that Rembrandt is a 'Dutch Golden Age painter'?". I've removed the RfC tag accordingly; please feel free to open an RfC with a neutral opening statement. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:41, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should the lead section state that Rembrandt is a 'Dutch Golden Age painter'?

[edit]

In the text Rembrandt is referred to as "a Dutch Golden Age painter", not as a "Dutch painter". However, not all painters of the Dutch Golden Age were actually Dutch. Therefore, this is potentially confusing and definitely not accurate. Should this be replaced by a normal reference (e.g. "Dutch painter") to his nationality? Nico Gombert (talk) 20:45, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Summoned by bot) I think as Rembrandt was Dutch, and his works coincided with the Dutch Golden Age, it is perfectly reasonable to make this claim in the lead. However, a better phrasing may be:
Adam Black talk • contribs 21:59, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then you get three fairly useless very general links, rather than the precise Dutch Golden Age painting - Nico Gombert has not explained that Dutch Golden Age painter redirects to Dutch Golden Age painting. Why not link painting - loads of artist bios do? Johnbod (talk) 03:30, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You still don't understand a word of what I'm saying, it's really unbelievable. "The precise Dutch Golden Age painting"? My whole point is that it's precisely not precise when it's used as a reference to his nationality! Nico Gombert (talk) 12:39, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rembrandt was a Dutch painter, printmaker, and draughtsman of the Dutch Golden Age.
This shows the subject's nationality, which is standard per MOS:NATIONALITY and also follows the Degas example in MOS:ART. We don't necessarily need to wikilink Dutch, but we should include it as a separate term from "Dutch Golden Age," which should link to Dutch Golden Age painting for fullness of context. AlexEng(TALK) 23:05, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there is some ambiguity with the current writing as being part of the Dutch Golden Age doesn't necessarily say he's Dutch even though he is. Perhaps to remove the ambiguity while still linking the Golden Age, the second sentence could add "Born in the Dutch Republic" to make it clearer? My idea is the first sentence is unchanged and the second one says: Born in the Dutch Republic, he is generally considered one of the greatest visual artists in the history of art. Unnamed anon (talk) 04:03, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't read as ambiguous. Besides, as well as the infobox, a couple of lines down he is describes as one of the "Dutch painters of the 17th century". Johnbod (talk) 04:10, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is undeniably ambiguous. Something you yourself said in the discussion above. I'm a bit perplexed as to why you are so determined the lead should not be changed to improve clarity. Adam Black talk • contribs 04:17, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh really? As I said above, any ambiguity is helpful, as R was both Dutch and a Golden Age painter. What is unclear? Johnbod (talk) 03:38, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As Nico Gombert has said, not all individuals associated with the Dutch Golden Age were Dutch. Where did you say above that ambiguity is helpful, and what makes you think that? It most certainly is not when writing an encyclopedia. We should be making sure all articles are clear and concise and do not create any risk of confusing readers. See also these search results, there have been multiple "Golden Ages" over the years. E.g. the Spanish Golden Age. As Spain controlled the Netherlands at one point, what's to say a reader won't think Rembrandt was a Dutch painter of the Spanish Golden Age reading the first sentence as it is now. This is a minor change that would improve clarity. Adam Black talk • contribs 12:12, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I really dislike the endless links to Dutch or Italians in first sentences of biographies, not to mention painter, which quite often appears. Do we really think these are helpful to readers? I doubt they are often followed, & really we don't want people shooting off after 3 words to read loooong articles on topics which won't have anything much closely relevant to the subject. Johnbod (talk) 03:38, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Johnbod, you are getting extremely close to bludgeoning by replying to almost every comment that disagrees with you. Your views are clear. I used to have a problem with bludgeoning as well, which I have been working on suppressing, and I would like for you to not fall into the same trap. I do think the lede section on Johannes Vermeer that Ham II mentioned is a good starting point though; I'm considering editing the first two sentences based on this rfc, then using the diff in this discussion to ask for people's opinions on the diff, let me know if that's alright. Unnamed anon (talk) 18:56, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, of course it's not alright! The Rfc continues, but at the moment Keep votes lead. It is also very notable that the editors with long-standing experience of writing about the visual arts are (apart from Ham) all keeps, while those supporting the change have no such experience, and are "summoned by bot". Johnbod (talk) 02:57, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I asked, and since you said it's not alright to get a diff for an example I'll stick to just quoting the proposed change. I figured that it would be hard to visualize how exactly the sentence would be changed without a diff; I was entirely open to the diff being reverted. I'm curious why you're saying the keep votes are leading; it looks like so far there are 4 keeps (including you) and four changes (including me). Unnamed anon (talk) 05:17, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An RfC exists to establish consensus only. It does not preclude any editor from making any edit (although, granted it will probably be quickly challenged). Additionally, Wikipedia is not a democracy. !vote numbers do not matter (and if I were closing I probably wouldn't count the two which merely say re/per Johnbod). The closure should be based primarily on Wikipedia policy and on the strength of arguments made, not sheer numbers. As an editor of almost 18 years with over 275,000 edits, you should be familiar with how Wikipedia works. Adam Black talk • contribs 03:07, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is already a very lengthy discussion two sections up - I hope you read it before commenting. Johnbod (talk) 03:38, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As you say, it is lengthy. I skimmed through it but didn't read everything. I don't think anyone can be expected to read every comment in every related discussion before commenting on an RfC, particularly when there are so many comments. I still, despite the points raised, agree that a reference to Rembrandt's nationality and his being part of the Dutch Golden Age is warranted and that this would improve reader's understanding of the subject. Adam Black talk • contribs 03:45, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well (since Wikipedia policy is a concern of yours), perhaps you missed User:Ewulp's references there, and briefly here, to one of the examples given in MOS:FIRSTBIO, which deals exactly with this point. I'll quote the example:
@Unnamed anon You can use {{textdiff}} to create a representation of a diff on a talk page, like this:
−
This is an example.
+
This is a different example.
Adam Black talk • contribs 05:46, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, it seems to me that the MOS is recommending that we place the more contextually useful link in the lead sentence when such a link is available. I have to think that the risk of anyone being confused by ambiguity here is negligible and outweighed by the value of a more helpful link. Ewulp (talk) 23:07, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't understand why people are as reluctant. There is no need to link to Dutch people or the Netherlands, but nationality should be mentioned, and we can still link to the more useful article. There are many ways it could be achieved to remove ambiguity, for example:
I'm sure someone else can come up with a better phrasing but all three examples do not include a link to Dutch people, do contain a relevant link to Dutch Golden Age painting, and the third also contains a link to Dutch Golden Age. All three also make Rembrandt's nationality clear where the status quo does not. Adam Black talk • contribs 08:03, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The first of these is better than the others, avoiding an "Easter egg link" but, like most people here, I don't find the alleged "ambiguity" real, & not worth repeating "Netherlands" and "Dutch" for (which in itself is rather likely to confuse some people. I don't know why some people find it so hard to see this. Johnbod (talk) 14:47, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It would be very strange to have his country of birth precede his name in the first sentence, and really that would be the Dutch Republic, not the Netherlands of today (so that would mean repeating "Dutch", which is even worse). The other two probably fall afoul of WP:EASTEREGG, as you note. I can see opportunities to link to Dutch Golden Age painting in other parts of the lede (the first sentence of the second paragraph, for instance), so it may not be necessary to do so in the opening sentence. Ham II (talk) 15:41, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I see no issue with the current wording. The extremely rare reader who thinks, “I wonder if Rembrandt was a Dutchman, or merely a foreign painter who was part of the Dutch Golden Age” can keep reading to the second paragraph, or read the infobox. Such readers will be rare, in part because most people will not consider the possibility of the distinction, but also because anyone familiar with the Dutch Golden Age will already be familiar with Rembrandt. But more to the point here: There is absolutely no need to cram everything into the very first sentence of the lead, especially when most suggestions so far would result in worse prose. The desire to emphasize nationality as early as possible is a mistake. There are far more important facts about Rembrandt than his nationality, and one of those facts is his place in the Dutch Golden Age. — HTGS (talk) 23:20, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@HTGS: I suggested putting it in the second sentence, not the first. I always agreed that it shouldn't be crammed into the first sentence, and I do understand your point that less experienced readers likely won't see a distinction while more experienced readers will already know, so I am now relatively fine nothing changes, though I do want to give a visualization of what I mentioned earlier that may help clarity of Rembrandt's nationality on the page.
−
Rembrandt Harmenszoon van Rijn, usually simply known as Rembrandt, was a Dutch Golden Age painter, printmaker, and draughtsman. He is generally considered one of the greatest visual artists in the history of art.
+
Rembrandt Harmenszoon van Rijn, usually simply known as Rembrandt, was a Dutch Golden Age painter, printmaker, and draughtsman. Born in the [[Dutch Republic]], Rembrandt is generally considered one of the greatest visual artists in the history of art.
Unnamed anon (talk) 00:41, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That seems fine. I won’t say much more, as I think too much ink has been spilled already, but so long as the prose doesn’t become overburdened for the sake of solving what is largely a non-issue, I’m happy. — HTGS (talk) 03:13, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While that is unfortunate, I think closing a discussion simply because the initiator was a sock is a waste of mine and Adam Black's time and arguments. HTGS and I also just came to an agreement that the second sentence is appropriate to put this in (see above). That being said closing this to your version is fine by me since only a select few slightly-but-not-enough experienced readers will see ambiguity; I just don't think the sockpuppet should be a factor, because other legitimate users agreed with him. Unnamed anon (talk) 20:22, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rembrandt engravings

[edit]

Watchers of this article may want to have a look at Rembrandt engravings, which just came through AfC as a translation from fr-wiki. -- asilvering (talk) 07:38, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip. Of course it is a poor OKA translation of a fairly poor French wp article, but there is a gap here. So far I've renamed & rewritten the lead, but more is needed. In particular the translator (if not a AI thing) was evidently blissfully ignorant of the complicated ways that printmaking terminology doesn't map easily between French & English. Johnbod (talk) 17:07, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the article can use some work (what article doesn't?), not least because of some major style differences between what fr-wiki accepts as a GA/FA and en-wiki's norms. But I don't think it's particularly fair to call it a poor article, or the translator ignorant (even blissfully). This was promoted to FA on fr-wiki last year, and this particular OKA translator has been quite receptive to feedback. -- asilvering (talk) 18:43, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The tip of the iceberg on terminology issues is that "Rembrandt engravings" are not engravings but etchings (as the new lead says). The use of the equivalents to "engravings" as a catch-all term for prints is still ok in French, & I think German and Italian, but it stopped being so in English nearly a century ago. The bottom half of the article goes into ridiculous dissertation-style detail on varnish recipes and so on, but if there is a statement in the article of the total number of prints attributed to Rembrandt, I couldn't find it. I'll have to dig that up & add it.Johnbod (talk) 03:06, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is Rembrandt just a Christian painter?

[edit]

It's written Rembrandt's paintings is about a variety of subjects. But i think a lot of his paintings is religious. Portraits aren't applied to this. Portraits are basically photos. Most Rembrandt's paintings of creative thinking appear religious. Rembrandt didn't go to church frequently but maybe did other Christian practices. How much of Rembrandt's genre paintings is religious? Is a signifiant amount about other subjects? Rebourne Ohcs (talk) 22:16, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rembrandt&oldid=1253423323"