Talk:Portrait of a Noble Young Lady (Pourbus)

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

Ownership of copyright of the article[edit]

Much of the draft of this article was taken from this version of the article Pieter Pourbus.

An additional complication is that the talk page of that earlier article tells us:

The content of this article has been derived in whole or part from Pourbus, meester-schilder uit Gouda (Pourbus, Master painter of Gouda) / Museum Gouda. Permission has been received from the copyright holder to release this material under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported license. Evidence of this has been confirmed and stored by OTRS volunteers, under ticket number 2020042110009381.

It's possible that the content of this new article about the portrait has also been derived in whole or part from Pourbus, meester-schilder uit Gouda. I cannot comment, because I do not have access to the book. (I am also not an OTRS volunteer and therefore have no access to the correspondence.) -- Hoary (talk) 00:17, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another additional complication is that the English-language Wikipedia article on Pourbus seems to come from the French-language Wikipedia article on him. -- Hoary (talk) 07:08, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All the entries I wrote, on both the French and English versions of the article, are entirely based on the catalogues articles. Hence the multiple citations of various authors in these catalogues. ----Emigré55 (talk) 07:41, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fashions' end[edit]

Her dress and its distinctive lace collar allowed Huvenne [...] to date the portrait as having been painted before 1560.

If this had instead read for example "to date the portrait as having been painted after 1550", I'd have understood. A fashion comes in at a certain time. But why "before 1560"? Was this dress, with its collar, fatally unfashionable from 1560 onwards? (Pinging Emigré55.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:56, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Huvenne wrote himself in his entry in the Gouda exhibition about this painting that the dress "allowed him to date the painting as having been painted before 1560" (page 18). It is then also my understanding that this dress was probably not fashionable after this date. --Emigré55 (talk) 05:58, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for looking into it. Well, if that's what he says, that's how it must be. (I'm surprised by the speed of turnover of fashion, however.) -- Hoary (talk) 07:06, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anna van Bueren[edit]

In the cited article, Marc Couwenbergh calls her "Anna van Bueren": Note (i) the small "v", and the second "e" in "Bueren". I've therefore standardized on MC's spelling: "Anna van Bueren". -- Hoary (talk) 07:06, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fine with me. Although one could argue that the name on other entries is written "Anna van Buren", as here...--Emigré55 (talk) 07:15, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be surprised if there was only one spelling. In the article on Van Bu(e)ren (and not here), the different spellings should be provided. However, in this article, one spelling should be used unless there is a good reason to do otherwise. -- Hoary (talk) 12:29, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Grade[edit]

You have done a very useful clean up and wikification work, and I would like to thank you for that.

Now, increase level of the article to "B" of quality scale? this grade seems in accordance with: "A few aspects of content and style need to be addressed. Expert knowledge may be needed. The inclusion of supporting materials should be considered if practical, and the article checked for general compliance with the Manual of Style and related style guidelines."). As in my opinion, the article is particularly at the level of: "Expert knowledge may be needed. The inclusion of supporting materials should be considered if practical". What do you think?--Emigré55 (talk) 07:21, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article isn't bad: thank you for creating it. And if I have improved it a little, so much the better.
But a "B" grade? Here are articles that, fairly recently, I have either created or considerably amplified: Nudrat Afza, John Harding (photographer), Atsushi Fujiwara, Morris Bishop, each rated "start"; Teikō Shiotani, rated "C". One day I might push one of these to "GA". Until/unless I do, I don't much care about the rating. (It's not as if I got a 50 € for every "B" article.) Why the rush?
Far more important than some (largely ignored) rating of an article is the actual quality of the article, and a lot more can be done to make this article more informative. (How was it "discovered"? Were there reasonable doubts about its authenticity? When acknowledged to be by Pourbus, did this change expert evaluations of Pourbus, and if so, how? Which names have been attached to the painting, by whom? Et cetera.) -- Hoary (talk) 09:02, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I got your points, TY.
Concerning the questions you raised, it will be difficult, if not impossible, because secondary sources are not available for the infos I have on some of your questions. We touch here the limitations of the encyclopedy, I am afraid, due to its strict rules. --Emigré55 (talk) 10:02, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have access to copies of the books Pieter Pourbus: Master painter of Gouda and The forgotten masters? (I don't.) Because if you do, then one obvious improvement would be to specify which book gives this painting which name. And however unjustly, Pourbus is not well known. (He's a "forgotten master".) I'd imagine that the recent discovery of a painting such as this would generate a fair amount of intelligent discussion in these two books. -- Hoary (talk) 12:25, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have these books. I will look into them and come back to you later on the points you raised. --Emigré55 (talk) 13:55, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Categorizing[edit]

Self-Portrait (Sofonisba Anguissola) was also made in 1554. Note the categories it's in: (i) Category:Sofonisba Anguissola portraits, (ii) Category:Self-portraits, (iii) Category:Portraits of women, (iv) Category:Paintings of the Kunsthistorisches Museum, (v) Category:1554 paintings. Not also Category:Paintings by Sofonisba Anguissola (because (i) is more specific), Category:People from Cremona (because it's a painting, not a person), Category:16th-century Italian painters (because again, it's a painting, not a person), Category:16th-century paintings (because (v) is more specific). This is how categories work here in en:Wikipedia. -- Hoary (talk) 12:42, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Johnbod was more alert than I was. (My excuse: it's my bedtime.) -- Hoary (talk) 13:01, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, noted. thanks for your efforts, useful information, and time! Have a good night.--Emigré55 (talk) 13:57, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ropa[edit]

The article now tells us:

Her high-necked gown is a ropa,[dubious – discuss] which Spanish fashion spread all over Europe in the 1550s, trimmed with ruched white silk braid held in place with gold buttons.
The ropa, probably Portuguese in origin, was a sort of loose-waisted mantle open in front, in which some authors have seen the continuation of the fifteenth-century surcoat. It often had double funnel sleeves, one part of which could be worn hanging, in accordance with a purely Spanish tradition. [1]
From Portugal it spread to Spain and was soon adopted in many countries, due to the influence of Spain at the time. In the 1550s, this new garment became extremely popular across Europe. The ropa could be worn all in a loose version, and was then known under various names: the "sumarra" in Italy, the "marlotte" in France and the "vlieger" in Holland.
  1. ^ François Boucher, Yvonne Deslandres, and John Ross. A History of Costume in the West, with 1188 illustrations, 365 in colour. London: Thames and Hudson, 1997, ISBN 9780500279106.

How is this more helpful for an appreciation of the painting than simply saying she's wearing a vlieger and in that article explaining what a vlieger is and where it came from? -- Hoary (talk) 01:06, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hoary:Thanks again for your review.
On your questions:
- "How is this more helpful for an appreciation of the painting...": The way she is dressed gives us very precious indications on the position and status of the lady within the society at the time and in the Seventeen Provinces. Her dress outlines the Spanish influence in Europe at the time (this part of the Low countries was under Spanish possession in the 1550s) and she shows also, wearing this attire, some kind of allegiance to the Spanish crown. This is also a useful indication pointing in the direction of Anna Van Bueren, who was married to a man close to the Spanish emperor, whom he later fought.
- "than simply saying she's wearing a vlieger...": My understanding is that :
    • a ropa is not a generic term for a gown, but categorizes already the kind of gown which is mentioned, at least in the fashion in Europe at the time.
    • A vlieger is probably a more generic term in the Low countries. It can be also a bit different as the ropa (as shown in "A woman aged 24 with vlieger, 1587"), as it spreads in Europe. Moreover, if not above all, it does not tell much about the reason why she was wearing this fashion. Whereas, if we look at Anna van Bueren, this makes a lot of sense for showing her allegiance to the Spanish crown. Very often, the details in painting at the time had a real meaning, sometimes hidden.
My 2 cents...hope this helps.--Emigré55 (talk) 07:16, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Need to check ISBN of 2 references[edit]

@Hoary: I am not sure about the ISBN of these 2 references I added:
  • François Boucher, Yvonne Deslandres, and John Ross. A History of Costume in the West, with 1188 illustrations, 365 in colour. London: Thames and Hudson, 1997, ISBN 9780500279106.
  • Jane Ashelford. A Visual History of Costume: The Sixteenth Century. Drama Book Publishers, 144 pages, 1983, ISBN 9780713440997

And, strangely, the links send to a generic page...
Do you have a way to check these 2 refs?
TY in advance. have a good day! --Emigré55 (talk) 06:38, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.worldcat.org/search?qt=wikipedia&q=isbn%3A9780500279106 suggests that the first is good. ¶ https://www.worldcat.org/search?q=isbn%3A9780713440997 is a mess. Take a look: one ISBN apparently for any of a number of volumes in the same set (but not explicitly for the set as a whole). Overworked, underpaid librarians are probably to blame. (Therefore not the librarians but instead "austerity".) I find that Worldcat is far less reliable than CiNii (which unfortunately is a lot less comprehensive), and CiNii shows https://ci.nii.ac.jp/books/search?advanced=true&count=20&sortorder=3&type=0&isbn=9780713440997&update_keep=true that you are right. -- Hoary (talk) 07:09, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks, indeed! 😉 --Emigré55 (talk) 07:18, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Grade (again)[edit]

There's been a suggestion (on User talk:Johnbod, though not by Johnbod) that this is an A-class article.

In order to be put in A-class, an article should already be a "good article" ("GA"). You can nominate an article for promotion to GA status: Here's how. Here's a list of visual arts GAs.

This article needs very much more work before nomination for GA. -- Hoary (talk) 12:44, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "A" class for art articles. Since GAN has a long backlog, I suggested it might be put there now, while work continues. I find GA expectations vary hugely with the single reviewer, so I'm not sure how much more work is needed. But I pointed out some basics on my talk. I'd look at some of the reviews on existing art GAs. Johnbod (talk) 12:50, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This page is no where near GA. To reiterate what has been said above...lack citations, too many paragraphs. Ceoil (talk) 20:37, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Hoary:I fully understand your point. My suggestion on User talk:Johnbod was not about this article, but about the article on Pieter Pourbus, which seems to me fairly completed at this point, at least in time in terms of content (and up to all recent sources I have all checked). Have a good day. --Emigré55 (talk) 07:21, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for my misunderstanding. ¶ This is an example of a GA candidacy in progress. -- Hoary (talk) 22:51, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No problem! and thanks for the example. --Emigré55 (talk) 06:37, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Couwenbergh[edit]

Is there any proof that Marc Couwenbergh is an art historian? And an art historian of note? The sources, given and found through Google, do not prove that. The Banner talk 16:00, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid you do not look for the right sources in Google on this author. Or want to deliberately ignore them?? Just read, for instance, here: "Marc Couwenbergh, Journalist specializing in art - Marc Couwenbergh - Biography : Marc Couwenbergh (1958) is a political scientist and writes about art, culture and history as a journalist. Marc has written several books on these topics." (translated into English from the Dutch page)--Emigré55 (talk) 16:16, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
journalist - political scientist - writes about; but no words about being an art historian. Sorry. The Banner talk 19:15, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So what?
And why do you stop writing after "writes about"? the complete quote is "writes about art, culture and history". is this good faith on your part to just truncate a citation?? or do you try to manipulate sources? Sorry.
Another source on Couwenbergh, commenting on one of his book about Vermeer and the women (not art history? really??). Sorry--Emigré55 (talk) 19:25, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Emigré55, (this is also a repsonse to "Reliable sources" below) I'm sorry, but I can't find it in myself to let this pass: No, Couwenberg is not a qualified art historian, or a usable source. He writes about things he does not understand, makes stuff up, and comes to conclusions that are not supported by any evidence. We should not use him as a source. Vexations (talk) 21:17, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is of course up to you what you can find in yourself, Vexations, but you can not – in the same breath – bluntly say that Couwenbergh talks about things he does not understand: you don't have the prerogative to make such decisions, nor are you in any other way qualified to make judgements like that. I'm not quarreling about your opinion on using Couwenbergh as a source, but your total dismissal of the author is unwarranted, unnecessary and unsymphatetic in all respects. Eissink (talk) 21:43, 4 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Eissink, nor are you in any other way qualified How do you know that? Vexations (talk) 11:40, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
​ Couwenbergh in his personal blog shows a fascination for this painting and suggests (not: claims) viewpoints as to identify the young lady. In the two articles he's merely daydreaming, so to say, and there is nothing to understand or not understand in this daydreaming about the painting, unless you would have clear evidence that Couwenbergh's suggestions are completely off, or rather that his assumptions are somehow ridiculous. If so, please share your sources, or at least lighten us up with your knowledge of the opposite and of the undeniable denial of the aspects of what is nothing but a playful speculation – if you do, I will have to apologize for my remarks. Eissink (talk) 12:04, 5 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]
"Daydreaming"? Interesting observation. You confirm now that the blog posts are not reliable sources but "daydreaming". Those sources and the text they try to back up, should be removed ASAP. The Banner talk 12:11, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Eissink, I think now would be a great time to withdraw your personal attack without making it conditional upon some work I'd have to do first. Vexations (talk) 12:12, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm willing to take back whatever was venomous in my words, Vexations, and I hereby do, but you have to understand that what I said was in defense of Couwenbergh, who you attacked quite harsh, and I think it is fair to ask you for an explanation on that, so I hope you will answer. Eissink (talk) 12:21, 5 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Eissink, an example of Couwenbergh's writing [[1] is "Daarnaast gaf hij hen een zelfbewuste gezichtsuitdrukking. Immers de toeschouwer moest afstand ervaren. Want er was nu eenmaal afstand tussen hem en de geportretteerde." These were commissioned portraits. There was no distance between the subject and the patron; they were the same person. Vexations (talk) 12:59, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Vexations, that passage is preceded by, and not to be seperated from: "[In Brugge] genoot [Pourbus] vooral faam als portretschilder. Dat kwam omdat hij goed begreep wat zijn opdrachtgevers wilden. Zij waren de rijksten van Brugge. En dat wilden zij laten zien.", which translates "Pourbus was famous because he understood what his clients wanted: they wanted to be seen [through the paintings] for what they were: the richest people of Bruges". You would have to disavow that too, else your citation and explanation makes no sense, so I don't really understand why you came up with only and exactly that quote. Do you think Pourbus' clients – which you chose to call 'patrons' – would be the only ones to consume their own commissioned painting? Maybe you are aware of the locations where such paintings would be kept or hanged: in a strictly private sphere, or perhaps in a more courtly, or an official or a political, more or less public surrounding? I doubt, even while I don't feel qualified (far from well read on the subject, that is) to assert such a thing, that Couwenbergh is far off with his general observation on that particular reason for his fame, so perhaps you can elaborate on your example a bit more. Eissink (talk) 18:02, 6 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Eissink, it's just ONE example of Couwenbergh's very subjective mode of observation: He looks at art with a contemporary point of view, and does not consider the historic context. Just consider the sentences you just quoted. It ascribes motivations to the clients (if you prefer that term) that are not substantiated in any way. That's a problem. I have no problem disagreeing almost anything Couwenberg says. "De meiden van Vermeer zijn altijd een mix van een godin, een aardse schone, een heilige en een hoer"?[1] I reject that too, and not just because it's vulgar and sexist. Vexations (talk) 18:54, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean. Thanks. Eissink (talk) 19:16, 6 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Couwenbergh is a reliable source (A summary of the arguments and secondary sources)[edit]

Reliable as per WP:RS/SPS :[edit]

« Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. »
List of 3 arguments corroborating the rule:
1/ Definition of an expert in Wikipedia :
« An expert is somebody who has a broad and deep competence in terms of knowledge, skill and experience through practice and education in a particular field... An expert, more generally, is a person with extensive knowledge or ability based on research, experience, or occupation and in a particular area of study. »
2/ Couwenbergh is endorsed by his peers at De Correspondent as an expert on art:
"Marc Couwenbergh schrijft (...) en met grote kennis over kunst- en cultuurhistorische onderwerpen. Tomas Vanheste".
"Marc schreef verschillende boeken over deze onderwerpen."
Which translates as:
"Marc Couwenbergh writes (...) and with great knowledge about art and cultural-historical subjects. Tomas Vanheste".
"Marc has written several books on these topics."
In: De Correspondent, (circulation: more than 50,000 paying subscribers in the Netherlands)
3/ His books have been reviewed by respectful other sources and medias:
E.g: His book on Vermeer's and the women in his corpus, reviewed by Nederlands Dagblad (article / archived copy).
Book also reviewed by this other source, in this article, from Algemeen Dagblad (circulation: 350,000 readers)

List of books on art written by Couwenbergh and collected by the Research library of the RKD in The Hague[edit]

The Rijksmuseum library website cites no less than 6 books on art and history written by Marc Couwenbergh and published in established publishing houses] ;

List of his books included in the Research Library of the Rijksmuseum:
1/ August Willem van Voorden 1881-1921 : een Rotterdammer in Kortenhoef / tekst: Marc Couwenbergh ; redactie: Désirée Koninkx. By: Couwenbergh, Marc [aut] Contributor(s): Koninkx, Désirée [edt]| Oude School Kortenhoef [his] | Kunst aan de Dijk [cur] Publisher: Kortenhoef : Stichting Kunst aan de Dijk, [2015] Description: 35 pagina's : illustraties ; 26 cm. Content type: tekst Media type: zonder medium Carrier type: band ISBN: 9789081403863 (paperback).
2/ De liefde voor het naakt : Theo Beerendonk 1905-1979 / Marc Couwenbergh By: Couwenbergh, Marc Contributor(s): Luinstra, E.A Publisher: Zoetermeer : Beerendonk Uitgeverij, 2011 Description: 95 p. : ill. ; 25 cm. ISBN: 9789081739504 (geb.).
3/ Tussen kunst, sociaal engagement en ironie : een kroniek van de familie Van Norden / Marc Couwenbergh. By: Couwenbergh, Marc Contributor(s): MuseumgoudA [his] Publisher: Gouda : museumgoudA, 2008 Description: 112 p. : ill. ; 21 cm. ISBN: 9789072660060.
4/ A.J. Groenewegen, 1874-1963 : 'licht, leven en ruimte' / Marc Couwenbergh, Paul Groenewegen. By: Couwenbergh, Marc Contributor(s): Groenewegen, Paul | Hoeve Rijlaarsdam [his] | Marie José Bies Fine Art [his] Publisher: Maastricht : Adriaan Groenewegen Stichting, 2007 Description: 96 p. : ill. ; 31 cm. ISBN: 9789090216355.
5/ Piet Zwiers 1907-1965 : schilder van Giethoorn / Marc Couwenberg. By: Couwenbergh, Marc Contributor(s): Stedelijk Museum Zwolle [his] Publisher: Zwolle : Stedelijk Museum Zwolle, 2007 Description: 80 p. : ill. ; 30 cm. ISBN: 9789073429130.
6/ Werkpaarden en dienstmeiden : het Rotterdam van August Willem van Voorden 1881-1921 / Marc Couwenbergh. By: Couwenbergh, Marc Contributor(s): Historisch Museum Rotterdam [his] Publisher: Venlo : Van Spijk Art Projects, 2006 Description: 112 p. : ill. ; 30 cm. ISBN: 9062165214.
  1. ^ https://marccouwenbergh.nl/de-meiden-van-vermeer-achterna/

Reliable sources[edit]

See: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Marc_Couwenbergh. A short quote: There is no consensus that Couwenbergh is considered sufficiently prominent that we can use self-published sources, so the default is to exclude. The Banner talk 18:02, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your quote is not "a short quote". Your quote is an incomplete quote. And therefore, your quote is a biased quote.
Please read further: "that would default to the usual presumption of reliability and WP:BRD with the WP:ONUS on editors seeking to include disputed or controversial content, to achieve consensus." --Emigré55 (talk) 19:03, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And you are quoting selectively. The part that I did not quote, because it was not about the contested blog posts, is There is insufficient input to rule either way on Couwenbergh as a source when published by reputable publishers, so that would default to the usual presumption of reliability and WP:BRD with the WP:ONUS on editors seeking to include disputed or controversial content, to achieve consensus. Editors are reminded to assume good faith and remain civil. The Banner talk 20:33, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think this clearly says "There is insufficient input" to rule out Couwenbergh as a source. And that means there is a status quo, as of now, that should be respected. Eissink (talk) 20:47, 4 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]
when published by reputable publishers. But this is about two self-published blog-posts. The Banner talk 21:00, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"so that would default to the usual presumption of reliability and WP:BRD with the WP:ONUS on editors seeking to include disputed or controversial content,": that is exactly what I am doing with this information in this article.--Emigré55 (talk) 08:35, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, but you fail to convince the community that Couwenbergh, and certainly his blogposts, is a reliable source. You want to add it, so it is up to you to prove that Couwenbergh is a reliable source. Up no now, sorry, not proven. The Banner talk 08:51, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Yep" ? could you refrain from using such trivial interjections, and / or onomatopoeia? I do indeed feel offended by such vulgar comments from you on my remarks. They don't belong to an honest and civil dialog. And I fear that, unfortunately, this is not the first time that you dare to write to me like this. Purposely?--Emigré55 (talk) 12:50, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, could you respond on the content of the discussion and not try to create a smoke screen by discussing my choice of words? The Banner talk 18:20, 5 October 2020 (UTC) And yes, this was on purpose.[reply]
« Dude » : This word is a slang word. This way of talking/writing to me , is clearly offending to me. For the second time on this section only. Moreover, it does not comply with the remark here above :« Editors are reminded to assume good faith and remain civil. ». Another deliberate provocation of yours ? --Emigré55 (talk) 09:46, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your deliberate refusal to discuss the content and remove the unreliable sources and associated texts is offending me. The Banner talk 09:51, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Banner, if you're offended, perhaps you'd benefit from taking a break from this particular article. Wikipedia has so very many more on offer. -- Hoary (talk) 12:31, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps. But ignoring Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Marc_Couwenbergh does not seem the best option for the encyclopedia. And I just brought it to the talk page to avoid more trouble. The Banner talk 12:40, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is no consensus that Couwenbergh is a reliable source. He should not be used for statements that are not attributed, and is not a sufficiently significant scholar that statements attributed to him are due. I plan to enact that next week. This talk page is an appropriate venue to discuss that.
It is a distraction to raise issues of civility and whether or not it is a violation of our WP:CIVIL policy to address other editors using words that are most dictionaries describe as "informal", and at the same time ignore the topic under discussion, which is why we cannot use Couwenbergh and what should be done to fix the article.
Can we agree that from now on, we address other editors in the way they prefer, i.e. by their user name or as as explicitly permitted on their user page or signature, and per the preferences they set in Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-personal for "How do you prefer to be described?". For example, my preferred pronoun can be used by including {{pronoun|Vexations}} which renders as they. Vexations (talk) 14:56, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Couwenbergh is used two times: one time to quote someone else, which to me doesn't seem problematic at all, and the second time to highlight that he was the first (and maybe the only one) to suggest that the painting might be a painting of Anna van Buren, or of someone in her vicinity. That's all. But without the latter, the largest part of the Identity-paragraph, namely all parts about and references to Van Buren, have no place in the article either. I assume you are aware of that. Eissink (talk) 16:12, 6 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]

@Vexations:, I do not agree with you on the fact that “there is no consensus that Couwenbergh is a reliable source.”
2/3 people only, in the entire community, expressing their opinion against Couwenbergh being a reliable source, cannot make a consensus either that he is not a valid source. And I hope you will be fair and agree with me on this point.
Meanwhile an administrator, Guy, closed the debate. And his decision is good at least, in my opinion, because it is fair to say that we know now we won’t convince either The Banner or you that Couwenbergh is a reliable source, whatever arguments (and there were quite a few, substantial) were brought for that.
So, with this decision of Guy,we are beyond the state where we should continue to argue about Couwenbergh being, or not, a valid source.
And therefore it is certainly no valid reason for you to “enact that next week”, as you wrote.
Also because we all further can read that Guy wrote “....so that would default to the usual presumption of reliability and WP:BRD with the WP:ONUS on editors seeking to include disputed or controversial content, to achieve consensus”.

So I encourage you, not to be negative and delete, but positive and add/change the sentence or words you do not like, in order to find a consensus on how this content should be presented.
And to look in particular how to rephrase the positive and essential content brought in this article about the resemblance between the portraits of Anna Van Bueren, and the possibility that Pieter Pourbus might indeed have painted her.
This belongs to another debate and therefore to the next section which I open for that purpose
--Emigré55 (talk) 20:50, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Emigré55, the consensus is that bloggers in general and self-published authors are not reliable. To re-litigate that is disruptive. You cannot require that every time you use such a source we have to start a new discussion about aother blogger. You had that discussion anyway. You did not achieve consensus. It doesn't help that this is English Wikipedia, and there aren't very people with an interest in 16th-century Flemish artist who can read the sources. Sometimes a few editors will have to do. Now to the close: I read the first sentence of the close of Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Marc_Couwenbergh: "There is no consensus that Couwenbergh is considered sufficiently prominent that we can use self-published sources, so the default is to exclude" as: "do not use Couwenbergh's blog-posts", and that is consistent with the already established consensus above. The second sentence: "There is insufficient input to rule either way on Couwenbergh as a source when published by reputable publishers, so that would default to the usual presumption of reliability and WP:BRD with the WP:ONUS on editors seeking to include disputed or controversial content, to achieve consensus. " as "Seek consensus to include Couwenbergh even when he is published by a reputable publisher, and use WP:BRD". I'm even more cautious than that, in fact I'm discussing it before even making the WP:BOLD edit, and clarify that it will only affect references to Couwenbergh's blog. Vexations (talk) 21:22, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Vexations: I do not agree with your proposed deletion, and will oppose it.
Also for the reason which follows. On “being bold”, since you refer to WP:BOLD, you forget WP:BRD:
"Revert an edit if it is not an improvement, (...)","BRD does not encourage reverting, (...)","Look at the article's history and its talk page to see if a discussion has begun. If not, you may begin one."
So your deletion of this reference will be abusive, if you proceed.
You would do better for the encyclopedia if you concentrate on how to add content to it, not delete content. See paragraph below.
--Emigré55 (talk) 04:22, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Emigré55, Do not use Couwenbergh's self-published material as a source. Period.
Material by Couwenbergh published by reputable independent publishers may be used if there is consensus to do so, but the burden of demonstrating consensus is with you. You do not get to insert a source and then demand that others prove it to be unreliable to your personal satisfaction, for reasons that should be obvious.
I have no opinion in respect of the source itself, I am simply explaining policy, so that hopefully you will understand who it is that will get blocked if this nonsense continues. I suggest you dial back the rhetoric. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:21, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How to properly write the information on the possibility that Pieter Pourbus “Portrait of a noble young Lady” might be the portrait of Anna van Bueren[edit]

Second proposal[edit]

I proposed the following sentence: “In a later article, Couwenberg raised the possibility that this could be a portrait of Anna van Bueren.[3] He notes many similarities with the portrait of van Bueren in the Royal Collections in The Hague.[n 3]"

I now propose the following one: “An art critic raised the possibility that this could be a portrait of Anna van Bueren.[3], noting many similarities with the portrait of van Bueren in the Royal Collections in The Hague. »
--Emigré55 (talk) 20:50, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Emigré55, this edit shows how to correctly reflect Couwenbergh's opinion based on the sources you have presented so far. Example: In an article published during the painting's exhibition at the {{Illm|WD=Q4360916|Museum Gouda}}<ref group="n">For the museum's website, see [https://www.museumgouda.nl/nl/english here].</ref> in 2018, a critic, Marc Couwenbergh, describes this portrait That is textbook WP:SYN. The only source for the actual text is Couwenbergh's own website. The link to the gallery's site does not include any such reference. Wikipedia is not here to advance Couwenbergh's claims for him. We cannot tell the difference between this and the various cranks who claim priority over general relativity, we're not qualified to do so, so we use reliable independent secondary sources. You have not shown secondary sources, you have not demonstrated that Couwenbergh is reliable, and the sources you show are not independent. That's 0 for 3. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:33, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Guy, your intentions are good, but I don't think you are doing anyone a favor with the edit that you say "correctly reflects" the state of affairs: it does not. Above I have already mentioned that Couwenbergh's quote is the only reason that Van Buren is brought up, yet you leave the picture comparing Van Buren to the Noble Young Lady as if your edit has changed nothing, and the same goes for all further references to Van Buren. In other words: your edit is a very, very sloppy one. I have no doubt you can do better, but please stop editing the article if you don't want to put a little more effort into the subject. All you just did is introducing comparisons from nowhere, leaving large sections totally unsourced. I'm sorry, but this is just not the way to go, so I will undo your edit. Without Couwenbergh, Anna van Buren has no place in this article at all, I don't see why that is so hard to understand – you cannot have it both ways. Eissink (talk) 10:56, 7 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]
It is still not proven that the blog post from Marc Couwenbergh are reliable sources. Why is removal of those unreliable post suddenly "sloppy". That is plain POV. The Banner talk 11:13, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Banner, I just explained (again) that you cannot have Van Buren in the article without Couwenbergh, unless there is another source that brings up the comparison between the portraits. Either you edit out Van Buren completely, or you don't. Guy's edit, which you just revived, makes the article worse than with Couwenbergs quote: you (and Guy) just introduce the Van Buren comparison without any source – that is far worse than a source that is doubted by some. Nor Guy, nor you are reliable sources on Van Buren. I can go a long way, but not in this manner, because it is making the article worse, far worse. Eissink (talk) 11:24, 7 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]
In fact is restoring unreliable sources the problem, not the removal of them. But can you prove that the sources are reliable? And that the comparison is backed up by other reliable sources? Or do you stick to the "daydreaming" of Couwenbergh - as you named it earlier - without any reason? The Banner talk 11:39, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Banner,I believe having proved that Couwenbergh is a reliable source: See paragraph above for a summary of the arguments and secondary sources. You simply refused to accept them, trying to make the issue a "consensus" issue. Should I add that you did not even discuss these facts presented above? You just ignored them, disregarded them. --Emigré55 (talk) 11:49, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(After edit conflict) The Banner, I restored a doubted source to avoid dozens of unsourced claims. I cannot prove that the sources (Couwenbergh) are reliable, and I think that is not the discussion on this point. And I am exactly saying that Couwenbergh's comparison is not backed up by other sources, that's why you cannot just remove the contested source and continu with Van Buren as if nothing has changed – that is sloppy, and far worse than using a very interesting comparison by someone who is not accepted by some. I used "daydreaming" as a metaphor for speculating on what is, in my view, a remarkable resemblance indeed. If you don't want Couwenbergh, you cannot use the resemblance, it's as simple as that. I will not have it that, after a very long discussion, someone just drops by and removes the fought over source and just doesn't bother about the consequences – and you cannot expect me to clean up the mess, because I am not fundamentally opposed to using a curious similarity between two paintings that was suggested by a critic that may not have Harvard credentials. Eissink (talk) 11:57, 7 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]
If you can not prove that the sources are reliable and/or backed up by other sources, the whole comparison should be removed as it has no solid footing. The Banner talk 12:06, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nice, you go from undoing my reversal to nearly completely echoing me. We must be getting somewhere. Eissink (talk) 12:16, 7 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]
As long as the unreliable sources are gone. Even when it means removal of more dodgy sourced text. If that is echoing/agreeing, okay. The Banner talk 12:28, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, that does not prove that the blog posts are reliable sources. Nor that he is an expert in this matter. Just that he has written a bit more. It is regrettable that you two stick to your guns and fail to notice that Couwenbergh is not a reliable source in this matter and that you even ignore the closure at the Reliable sources noticeboard. The Banner talk 12:03, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(After edit conflict, this is a reply to the 12:03 comment) Please read again what I wrote, you are completely misrepresenting me. But if this subject is to difficult for you, I'd rather you stick your head somewhere else. Eissink (talk) 12:12, 7 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Can you do it without personal attacks? The Banner talk 12:28, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your misrepresenting of me is the real personal attack here, so stop riding your 'personal attack' hobbyhorse. Eissink (talk) 12:42, 7 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]
I know, I know. It is always me who is misbehaving and your personal attacks are never true. Can we now go back to the content? Were you suggesting to remove the whole section about the comparison? The Banner talk 13:18, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to repeat myself again. My standpoint is totally clear to anyone who wants to read what I have said. Eissink (talk) 13:23, 7 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]
@The Banner: WHO ignored the closure??? "Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?" Matthew 7:3. --Emigré55 (talk) 12:17, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I do see the log, the speck, the unreliable sources and the ignoring of the closure. The Banner talk 12:28, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's just a pity that the closing sysop has shown to have no interest in the subject. Eissink (talk) 12:40, 7 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]
The closer is concerned about the unreliable sources, what is reasonable. That is, he is responding on an issue on the reliable sources noticeboard. The Banner talk 13:09, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Eissink, no, the edit was entirely correct. The independent sources did not mention Couwenbergh or his conjecture, the only sources that did mention the conjecture were Couwenbergh's own website, and the conflation of the two was blatant WP:SYN designed to give the impression that the conjecture has support beyond Couwenbergh. Removal is absolutely the correct course here. Guy (help! - typo?) 17:45, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand how you still fail to see that your removal of the Couwenbergh source left all further references in the article to Anna van Buren completely baseless and useless, Guy. Please reread my initial remark and have a look at the structure and content of the article. What you say is just incorrect, as was your edit. Your edit left the article incomprehensible. Eissink (talk) 17:53, 7 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Eissink, yes, it seems I did not remove enough of the WP:SYN. I have corrected that now. Just to be absolutely clear here:
Frans Pourbus was both active in Antwerp and Bruges. By 1564 the artist was registered as working in the workshop of Frans Floris in Antwerp.[source http://www.sothebys.com/en/auctions/ecatalogue/2015/master-paintings-part-i-n09302/lot.34.html Frans Pourbus the Elder, Portrait of a man] at Sotheby's]
The link provided does not support any of the text about Buren, and weaving conjecture from it would in any case be WP:OR. Please rely instead on reliable independent secondary sources, accurately summarised, without leading people to any conclusion they do not themselves draw. Guy (help! - typo?) 18:04, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Guy, let me be absolutely clear also: I find it pretty rich that you first make an inexact edit, which I clearly reasoned undid, after which you still claim to have been "absolutely" correct, only to – after I once again object – return to me again and instead of apologizing start to try to lecture me on a passage with which I have nothing to do, adding an insinuation that I would want to "weave conjecture" from it. Get yourself together, please. Eissink (talk) 18:14, 7 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Eissink, I understand: you want to include the speculation on the identity of the sitter. Instead of attacking those who point out that our policies do not permit that based on the current sourcing, instead you need to go and find better sources. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:42, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Vexations: Do you agree with this wording? If not, what do you propose to write instead? --Emigré55 (talk) 04:11, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am looking for reliable sources at the moment. I think that de Josephina de Fouw, Paul Huvenne and Micha Leeflang might be good sources. If I find anything, I will summarize what they say. Through the Wikipedia Library [2], my local library system and my local university I have access to a number of sources that might be helpful. I think all the participants in this discussion qualify for the Wikipedia library, so I'd encourage you to use it to find better sources. Vexations (talk) 13:35, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it's good to restate here that the first of Couwenbergh's two articles on Pourbus is used here only to exactly quote De Fouw. Without writers like Couwenbergh we might not have her "the Mona Lisa of Pourbus", unless she wrote it down too (did she?). Eissink (talk) 14:31, 7 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Eissink, Couwenbergh's website may not be used, per the earlier discussion. For anything. It is a self-published source and you have failed to establish that he is a notable expert. You seem to be running headlong at the point and missing it anyway: if the only sources we have for "the Mona Lisa of Pourbus" are blogs and personal sites, then it does not belong in the article and should be excluded unless and until there are reliable secondary sources for it.
Wikipedia does not drop its sourcing criteria to meet the needs of content we would like to include. Guy (help! - typo?) 17:49, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Third proposal[edit]

In order to take into account the fact that Couwenberg is contested here as a source by some contributors, I now propose the following entry:
“An art critic raised the possibility that this could be a portrait of Anna van Bueren.[3], noting many similarities with the portrait of van Bueren in the Royal Collections in The Hague. »
And add a footnote saying:
"CAVEAT: This source is to be taken cautiously, as the only one published so far on this possibility, and published on a blog, which is generally not recognised as a valid source by Wikipedia, except in some cases outlined by WP:RS/SPS."
--Emigré55 (talk) 13:38, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That does not solve the issue of the unreliable sources. I see more in Eissinks suggestion to completely remove the section about the comparison as it is not based on a solid footing. The Banner talk 13:55, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. It is not my suggestion to remove that section. I said that that is what one has to do if one were to remove Couwenberghs pondering on the identity, which I still do not suggest. I think Emigré55's third proposal is very reasonable, unless some critic has convincingly showed that Couwenbergh's comparison is really off. Eissink (talk) 14:02, 7 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Eissink, Substitute "Jan from the coffee shop" and see if your argument changes. As far as Wikipedia is concerned the two are identical. No evidence has been provided to support the use of Couwenbergh as an expert, other than that the two of you like the conclusions he reaches. Guy (help! - typo?) 17:51, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
​ I am not substituting anybody for someone else, only because you think the two are identical. Believe me, I know exactly what your position is at the moment, but I do think Emigré55's proposal is reasonable, so there is no need to try to convince me otherwise. Thanks, Eissink (talk) 18:00, 7 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Eissink, I think you are missing the point. As far as Wikipedia is concerned, there is no difference between Couwenbergh and Jan from the coffee shop. That is the case because you (or, more correctly, Emigré55) have provided no credible evidence that Couwenbergh is an acknowledged expert - a question on which I reserve judgment.
I have no dog in this fight. One of my favourite historical characters was the subject of an error in picture attribution, these things can be very interesting. But only if they are supported by RS, and so far the only RS are for basic facts that do not support the conclusions presented. That's WP:SYN. Guy (help! - typo?) 18:11, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
JzG, I cannot let you say that "No evidence has been provided to support the use of Couwenbergh as an expert, other than that the two of you like the conclusions he reaches", or that I have "provided no credible evidence that Couwenbergh is an acknowledged expert".
I have patiently researched, and exposed why, by the mere definitions of Wikipedia, Couwenbergh is an expert, and again here above.
I am sure that you will be fair, and agree with me (all the more since you said you "reserve judgment"), after you have read both my statement above, and my proposal for the disputed entry. --Emigré55 (talk) 18:34, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I missed any point. I respect your sysopal decision on the reliability of the source, but still "As far as Wikipedia is concerned" is pretty much "As far as Guy is concerned" here: a different choice could have been made, and I remain entitled to my stances. Eissink (talk) 18:55, 7 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]
With other words, you want to ignore the closure because the decision is against your personal wishes. The Banner talk 18:59, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your expressed understanding of what I said is, once again, a complete lie. You seem to either maliciously or incompetently twisting my words over and over again. I ask you to stop misinterpreting and falsely accusing me right now. There is too many examples already of you laying words in my mouth, the next time I will see to get you banned. I'm tired of having to jump to the defense over whatever deceptive tale you like to make up all the time. Eissink (talk) 19:26, 7 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Be aware of the boomerang. The Banner talk 19:42, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't play with boomerangs. Eissink (talk) 21:41, 7 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]
The Banner, as I think you predicted, both of these editors have responded to the consensus going against them by ignoring it and continuing to make exactly the same arguments. That is disappointing. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:41, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have literally said that I respect your decision, Guy. Please stop the mood-making, both of you. Don't blame me if you are not able to discern my words. Eissink (talk) 19:47, 7 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Eissink, please take the time to read again, and if anything is unclear, you are more than welcome to ask, rather than assuming bad faith.
When I say that [a]s far as Wikipedia is concerned, there is no difference between Couwenbergh and Jan from the coffee shop, that is a statement of fact. If a source is not an acknowledged expert, we don't care if they run a popular blog or whatever. Non-expert self-published opinions all have identical status: unreliable. So you need to mentally substitute some random person for Couwenbergh whenever you think of the arguments for inclusion of his self-published opinions.
As I say, I reserve judgment: everything would change if there were credible evidence that he is an acknowledged expert. Consider, for example, the portrait argued by Lisa Jardine to be of Robert Hooke. This was one person's conjecture and almost certainly wrong (it's now generally accepted to be Jan Baptist van Helmont), but it received significant coverage because Jardine was an acknowledged expert and because her analysis was published in print by reputable companies.
All this is perfectly routine: Wikipedia sourcing 101. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:19, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
​ I assume you don't think that I am interested in what you write, or rather repeat, after you just sided with The Banner in claiming that I am ignoring consensus, so I don't think there is any reason for you to ping me, am I not right? Eissink (talk) 20:51, 7 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Eissink, you reintroduced the Couwenbergh text rather than removing the rest of the text which was also speculation and synthesis. I drew the obvious conclusion. But I don't think you're a bad person or ignoring consensus, I'm just trying to advance the cause of good sourcing by pointing out the full implications of that consensus. A speculative conclusion that rests on a single source that is not held to be reliable, needs to be removed in its entirety. You rightly pointed out that I did so incompletely. I have fixed that I think. Do you agree? Guy (help! - typo?) 21:13, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
​ I agree. It was me, from the beginning, who held that the synthesis couldn't stay if Couwenbergh was removed, but I couldn't be forced to complete your work and I chose the earlier version over your initial edit, especially since nobody else seemed to notice or care, as was also obvious by The Banner's revert. It's okay now. Eissink (talk) 21:22, 7 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]
JzG, You are mistaken. I have written here above that I respect your decision ("Meanwhile an administrator, Guy, closed the debate. And his decision is good at least, in my opinion, because it is fair to say that we know now we won’t convince either The Banner or you that Couwenbergh is a reliable source, whatever arguments (and there were quite a few, substantial) were brought for that. "). And, on the contrary to what you write, The Banner is the one who asked that you reopen the case, here. And you accepted. Why then blame me/others? Why don't you blame him then for not respecting your initial decision? and fueling instead the dispute, as he enjoys to do, as evidenced in other cases?--Emigré55 (talk) 20:14, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Emigré55, then stop arguing as if nothing has changed. Accept that this is to be excluded, and move on - until of course it's published in reliable independent sources, at which point we can talk again. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:21, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
JzG, But that is not my point: You do not answer my questions. Why?
  • Let me repeat my question on The Banner: on the contrary to what you write, The Banner is the one who asked that you reopen the case, here. And you accepted. Why then blame me/others? Why don't you blame him then for not respecting your initial decision?
  • Let me repeat my question on the fact that you said "No evidence has been provided to support the use of Couwenbergh as an expert, other than that the two of you like the conclusions he reaches", or that I have "provided no credible evidence that Couwenbergh is an acknowledged expert", whereas I have patiently researched, and exposed why, by the mere definitions of Wikipedia, Couwenbergh is an expert, and again here above.
Thanks in advance.--Emigré55 (talk) 20:32, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Emigré55, there is no concept of blame. An unreliable source was used, it has been removed. Perfectly normal Wikipedia editing practice. I understand that you insist that Couwenbergh is an established expert, but the reliable sources noticeboard discussion found that to be false. I only summarised consensus from the discussion. I would change only one word from your comment: I would add "convincing", thus "no convincing evidence". But the close is correct: There is no consensus that Couwenbergh is considered sufficiently prominent that we can use self-published sources, so the default is to exclude. There is insufficient input to rule either way on Couwenbergh as a source when published by reputable publishers, so that would default to the usual presumption of reliability and WP:BRD with the WP:ONUS on editors seeking to include disputed or controversial content, to achieve consensus. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:38, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I did not ask anybody to reopen the case. I pointed on the fact that the case was archived without being properly closed. The case was still open, so no need to reopen it. Reopening is something differenten than asking for e proper close. The Banner talk 20:36, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Banner, Should I confess that I loughed when I read your comment? I am afraid your embarrassed explanation won't fool anyone.....but as you say! or as you wish! Have a good night! --Emigré55 (talk) 21:03, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, no matter what we say, it gets twisted around. Sad. Why do you not accept the truth? Does the truth not fit with your feelings and POV? You can hammer what you want but the only thing that will happen it that people start looking at your battlefield behaviour. The Banner talk 21:13, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Have you ever asked yourself what people will think if they start looking at YOUR battlefield behaviour? Remember Mathieu 7:3.... Have a good night. --Emigré55 (talk) 21:28, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Being rude does not make your case any stronger. The article is now protected, so you have a week to come up with proof that Couwenbergh is really an art historian and an expert in that field. And to come with proof that the "daydreaming" (the word Eissink chose to use) is a mainstream opinion. No need to prove again that Couwenbergh is a professional writer, we know that and that adds nothing. The Banner talk 21:35, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Couwenbergh as a reliable source[edit]

Per Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Marc_Couwenbergh,

There is no consensus that Couwenbergh is considered sufficiently prominent that we can use self-published sources, so the default is to exclude. There is insufficient input to rule either way on Couwenbergh as a source when published by reputable publishers, so that would default to the usual presumption of reliability and WP:BRD with the WP:ONUS on editors seeking to include disputed or controversial content, to achieve consensus. Editors are reminded to assume good faith and remain civil. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:46, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

This should be taken into account when discussing whatever content dispute has led to edit warring. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:14, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, User:Deepfriedokra, it was the closer of that discussion that evoked what you call edit warring, as was acknowledged by the same. I'd rather not be accused of edit warring when I really saved the article from getting a lot worse, giving a solid reason for my edit, that was nonetheless ignored or misunderstood at first, so I had to restore again. From the discussion you can see that Vexations in a few days probably will expand the article, so I think the protection is not really helping here. Greeting, Eissink (talk) 19:43, 7 October 2020 (UTC). [reply]
@Eissink: so when on my talk page you claim to be disinterested, you were not wholly accurate. Seems to me you need to establish consensus to restore material that has been challenged and removed. Looks like you were campaigning on my talk page for your preferred version after all? Forgive me if I have misunderstood. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:49, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
​ That wasn't me, that was Emigré55 who wrote you. Eissink (talk) 19:58, 7 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Sorry. What a jerk! Sorry! That was incredibly dumb of me! --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:00, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Eissink (talk) 20:03, 7 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Deepfriedokra, Do you allow me to repeat here my question effectively left on you talk page?
"I learned that you freeze this page because of edit warring. That is OK to me. However, I am surprised that you freeze it "post-bellum" and not "ante-bellum", as is normally the case. Especially since discussions are going on in the talk page; also between contributors who have not been involved in this edit war (And I am among them). Why don't you apply WP:STABLE?"
Thanks in advance" --Emigré55 (talk) 21:17, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Let consensus decide which version is best. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:34, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, a dif would be useful . . . . I know I'm not going hunting for the best version only to have someone else say, "OMG, No!" Life's to short; functional brain cells too few.So, where's the dif? Also, after my earlier stupidity, I think I've done enough damage for one day.22:53, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
As much as I regret it, given the decision to remove the much discussed source, I think there is no better version than the current version. Let's not start all over again – if useful sources pop up, or if consensus changes, there will be enough time to alter the article. Eissink (talk) 23:27, 7 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Emigré55 this is such a common one that there's a templated response at {{wrong version}}. Wikipedia's protection policy does not allow the administrator who instates a page protection because of an ongoing edit dispute to pick a particular version to protect. They have to protect the most recent version; at most they may revert blatant vandalism. In a content dispute it is impossible to make everyone happy; this is not the administrator's fault, it is simply a consequence of the underlying dispute. See The Wrong Version for an essay about this exact type of situation. There is no point in lobbying administrators to edit or revert a protected page, since they are generally not allowed to do that. If you're unhappy about the protected version, the fastest and best way to do something about it is to resolve the content dispute on the talk page and ask for the page to be unprotected. Guy (help! - typo?) 17:43, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kinda what I thought, though you don't know-- could not imagine-- how tedious and tiring I find content disputes. It's up to y'all to decide on the content and sourcing. Thanks, --Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:37, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lucas de Heere or Pieter Pourbus?[edit]

I just see that RKD in its description of the painting refutes the claim that this painting was painted by Pourbus, says instead that it was made by Lucas de Heere. See RKD and their source. I think this means the article should pretty much be totally rewritten. It is interesting that RKD in 2016 says it is De Heere, while two years later Bruge and Gouda attribute it to Pourbus again: who is right here? Even the title seems disputed. Eissink (talk) 18:25, 9 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Eissink, Weiss attributed it to Pourbus in 2011. See [3] van Dam's Tableau Poetique is (I think) DOI:10.1179/0309656413Z.00000000046. Vexations (talk) 19:13, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The painting is definitely by Pieter Pourbus!: It is signed by Pieter Pourbus, as shown in evidence in the IR photos of the article, and as evidenced/published by the most respected scholars in the field, Paul Huvenne, and Josephina de Fouw, among others, who both examined the painting, had access to the IR, wrote the articles which are in the catalogues of the exhibition 207 of Bruges and 2018 exhibition of Gouda.
Note that the book by Van Dam/Waterschoot is dated 2016. Prior to the exhibitions and prior tot he IR examination, which revealed the signature and date. To my best knowledge, Van Dam and Watershoot never had access neither to the painting, nor the the IR, which were made in 2017. Its was pure speculation from them, probably only on a picture, without an article to explain why they wrote this. And therefore pure nonsense. It is also the reason why I did not mention this silly attribution, which is based on nothing, and comes to 2 persons who do not have the standing of personalities such as Huvenne or De Fouw, who is now curator for Dutch paints at the Rijksmuseum.
Now, the most important: The RKD is aware of the false/incomplete entry, and as far as I know will correct it, and of course add the catalogue references, which you will notice also are missing in their description. Everybody is welcome to check this information, as I did, by calling RKD or writing them. So, my suggestion is to wait until the correction is made in their own database. RKD is slow moving, but it will be done. I am 100% sure of it.--Emigré55 (talk) 19:21, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, that makes sense, thanks. Eissink (talk) 19:31, 9 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Edit request[edit]

Please remove (near the end of the section "Identity of the sitter") "four years before van Bueren died". In the current version, there is no other discussion or mention of van Bueren, so the text as is makes no sense. Fram (talk) 08:33, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Couwenbergh endorsed by RKD[edit]

RKD, the most reliable source for art history in the Netherlands, mentions not only Couwenbergh, but also Couwenbergh's hypothesis about the sitter and his article on the subject, adding to the description of this picture, " it has been suggested that the sitter is Anna van Bueren; see: https://marccouwenbergh.nl/anna-van-bueren-versus-de-mona-lisa-van-pieter-pourbus-meester-schilder-uit-gouda " here.
--Emigré55 (talk) 13:59, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An endorsement? I would call it a passing mention.
In fact this only shows what we already now: he writes about art. For the rest Couwenbergh is unknown. The Banner talk 14:10, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I will rephrase it: RKD, the most reliable source for art history in the Netherlands, mentions an hypothesis about the sitter, adding to the description of this picture in their own database, " it has been suggested that the sitter is Anna van Bueren; see: https://marccouwenbergh.nl/anna-van-bueren-versus-de-mona-lisa-van-pieter-pourbus-meester-schilder-uit-gouda " here.
RKD is a perfectly reliable source. And this mention of the hypothesis about the sitter is a fact reported by a reliable source you cannot deny or oppose, whether you like it or not.--Emigré55 (talk) 15:19, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Emigré55, there was an RfC. You made your case and did not prevail. You have made precisely this argument before, but consensus was against you. Continuing to insert this self-published material against consensus is disruptive, and if you keep doing it you may be blocked from editing. Guy (help! - typo?) 15:34, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
JzG, The RfC was about the reliability of Couwenbergh, as judged by consensus. And you are right, consensus on that point was against me. However, the RfC was not about RKD, and there was never any discussion about RKD as a source, and of course its reliability. RKD had not published anything about the hypothesis I mentioned in this article before the RfC.
Now RKD did, only a few days ago, here, writing, “it has been suggested that the sitter is Anna van Bueren."
The argument I am making now is hence dramatically different from the argument disputed in the RfC. I am just claiming to cite RKD and what they write. That is to write a fact, and evidence it by a most reliable source. No more, but no less.
And I believe I comply with all rules of Wikipedia in so doing.
Moreover, please kindly note that I do not mean to be disruptive in doing that, but to add information, and properly sourced, to this article, as opposed to delete only, as The Banner did. My overall contribution to this article can be judged here, as well as his and others’ contributions, and usefully compared to The Banner's.
My overall contribution to the article about Anna van Buren, which is related to this one, can also be judged here.--Emigré55 (talk) 17:23, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: the RKD bases that on the same source as was shot down earlier. Nice that they mention it, but it holds no value for Wikipedia. The Banner talk 17:34, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Leadimage[edit]

I suggest it is shrunk to something more inline with MOS:IMGSIZE, Lead images should usually use upright=1.35 at most. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:10, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While your suggestion is valid for most of the articles, it is vey often that, especially for articles about a particular painting, a large size is adapted, such as for this portrait of Isabelle del Este from Titian. This to better see details for the first view. --Emigré55 (talk) 19:15, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, didn't consider that. Mona Lisa agrees, partly. Still, IMO the Noble Young Lady is too big. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:26, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Portrait_of_a_Noble_Young_Lady_(Pourbus)&oldid=1207971913"