Talk:The Cholmondeley Ladies

Disputed

Dispute with User:Unbh over color of eyes of Cholmondeley lady on left. Original article makes unsourced (and unsourceable) claim that the eyes are blue, which said user defends. From what I can see, from that picture and all other pictures I can find of the painting, those "blue" eyes are visibly gray.

I move to vote on the matter. Succubus MacAstaroth (talk) 14:29, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's dangerous to trust online photos on shades of colour. Even in the photo they look blue-grey, and fwiw, the baby's eyes are much more clearly blue. Johnbod (talk) 14:56, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that the woman's eyes are stark gray (same shade as all the other gray in her clothing and bedding, while the baby's eyes could be called blue-gray. Succubus MacAstaroth (talk) 15:11, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's obvious WP:OR. I've provided a source for the apparently unsourcable. The statement that the eyes are blue is long standing. If you want to change it the WP:ONUS is on you to provide reliable sources.Unbh (talk) 15:21, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note I removed WP:3 discussion since there are more than two people involved already. Unbh (talk) 15:29, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I just read the full text of the reference you provided (found it at https://www.hslc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/141-2-Hopkins.pdf.) Not only does the word "blue" not appear even once in the entire text, but here is what it actually says (on page 3):

"Two young women sit upright in a large bed, confronting the onlooker directly with their gaze, each holding a child on her lap. They are dressed sumptuously in early seventeenth-century dresses, silver-white, with elaborate ruffs, the pillows and sheets white against a dark, plain background, the coverlet a patterned shade of dark crimson. The infants would appear to be several weeks old but their gender is impossible to determine owing to their apparel. At that period, swaddling was used up to about four months after birth. The mother on the left-hand side of the painting has grey eyes (as does her child). She wears a necklace of pearls with gold, heart-shaped ornaments forming a motif. The front of her bodice has a design, loosely based on plant forms, reflected in her child's dress. Her expression is dignified, content, even serene. Her companion to our right has dark brown eyes (her child's are a paler tawny) and wears a necklace of pearls which includes some tiny, rose-shaped, gold or red decorations."

Having used YOUR OWN SOURCE as my reliable source, which negates your point and validates mine, I consider this dispute closed and will proceed to correct the main article. Succubus MacAstaroth (talk) 15:30, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No. That is not the source I cited. The source I provided clearly states blue. Wait for consensus.Unbh (talk) 15:39, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, I thought you were linking to the first source. I was using the first source, which already existed on the page. Since that source and yours are equally valid and one describes the eyes as gray, the other as blue, I think the only reasonable thing is to edit the article to say "blue or gray" pending consensus.Succubus MacAstaroth (talk) 15:52, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It might as well start like that, that's the closest to consensus there's going to be.

So, at least we all agree the new source has got the baby's eyes wrong (from the photo anyway). Johnbod (talk) 15:40, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

About the Third Opinion request: I have restored the request. I'm a frequent volunteer at Third Opinion. In light of the conflict of interest involved, it's inappropriate for a party in a dispute other than the requesting party to remove a request. If a 3O is given any editor is free to ignore the opinion since they are not tiebreakers or binding: it's just an opinion. — TransporterMan (TALK) 15:54, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This dispute appears to be unresolvable. To my eye, the woman on the left in the [high-resolution image] at Wikimedia clearly has grey eyes. However, the swaddling described in the Wikipedia text as "scarlet" just as clearly is not that, but a kind of burnt orange. Compare this to the image found in [one of the sources] cited in this dispute, where the swaddling is easily perceived to be scarlet, all the eyes appear to be some shade of brown, and the text says those of the woman on the left and her infant are grey. Then consider the comments of the [other source] cited in this dispute, styled an "expert" and apparently on staff at the Tate Gallery, where the actual painting resides: she says the mother on the left has blue eyes and her child blue/grey. Given the infinite variability of color in modern image reproduction and differences in the way individuals' eyes process that color and arrive at a label for it, there no point in any of us proferring our opinion - or that of our preferred source - as "correct". I have instead crafted a paragraph that allows the viewer/reader to enjoy the image unencumbered. Dayirmiter (talk) 07:26, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Hearn certainly is an expert - really the top authority on early British portraiture! Johnbod (talk) 16:09, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. That is a good paragraph. I have removed the third opinion request. Succubus MacAstaroth (talk) 17:42, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]