This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Netherlands, an attempt to create, expand, and improve articles related to the Netherlands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.NetherlandsWikipedia:WikiProject NetherlandsTemplate:WikiProject NetherlandsNetherlands articles
A fact from Christ Crowned with Thorns (Bosch, London) appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 10 April 2020 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
These templates are applied because the content of the article is composed mostly of theoretical interpretations taken from one publication on Bosch, improperly sourced at that. JNW (talk) 01:29, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why an interpretation based on Bosch's, suggested/proposed whatever, allegiance to a belief that rejects the powers of this world, the Muslim faith, orthodox Christianity, Judaism, - why it rejects all these is 'anti-semitic' nonsense. I don't see it. Sayerslle (talk) 23:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We've had these discussions before concerning that book you referenced as a valid source. Your other inclusions seem fine...Modernist (talk) 23:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know. I wanted to include the other stuff so her ideas wouldn't be given undue weight ..thats kind of back-fired as the interpretation I favour has got taken out. Oh well. Incidentally 'the secret life of paintings' book suggests Bernardo Luinis Christ among the Doctors as a possible model for this painting and when you see that painting the resemblance is striking - Luini's painting is a copy of a lost Leonardo da Vinci 'Christ disputing among the Doctors'. You know how to add images to pages and I think it would be great to add the Luini. Its in the National Gallery London. Sayerslle (talk) 23:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good job so far, I'll check it out...Modernist (talk) 00:03, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I removed all versions of this article from 2009 on, since large parts of it were copyvio's from [1] (originally a text from 1986, so long predating our article). Minimal word-changes avoided easy detection, but putting the texts side-by-side made the problem obvious. The author of the copyvios was already indef blocked for (many) other reasons. Fram (talk) 09:52, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I'm misunderstanding things, but the date of the painting is marked at 1495-1500 and apparently most of the imagery is described as being in reference to Pope Julius II. However, Julius II wasn't pope until 1503. At first I thought this was maybe just oddly worded and meant it was about the same guy, but referred to him while he was a cardinal, but used the papal name as that's how he's now more commonly known, but the mention of joining Maximillion I and Louis XII didn't occur until 1509 according to the source identifying the symbolism. It sounds like the same situation with 'the Jew and the Turk' though it's also possible it's in reference, again, to earlier dealings as cardinal. I'm just not sure if this is something that warrants correction or if it needs clarification and wouldn't know what to do offhand with either since I'm not especially familiar with either the painting or artist. 140.186.111.161 (talk) 13:48, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The date is given as 1495-1500 in the infobox but 1510 in the lede. If the latter date is correct then there is no problem linking the imagery to Julius II. The della Rovere were powerful figures in the church before that- Francesco Della Rovere reigned as Sixtus IV from from 1471 to 1484 and was notoriously corrupt and nepotistic. Tigerboy1966 18:25, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The lede was changed after I wrote my first comment, but before posting it. I accidentally left it open without posting overnight so didn't see the change. The new wording mostly clears up the issue, but I suspect that having consistency between the lede and infobox would be good. 140.186.111.161 (talk) 15:52, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
