User talk:Agric
Welcome![edit]
Hello, Agric, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Tutorial
- How to edit a page and How to develop articles
- How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
- Simplified Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! And nice work on the van Eyck. Ceoil (talk) 23:08, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Agric, you are invited to the Teahouse[edit]
|
Hi Agric! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. |
Hi Agric. In this edit, with the summary: "Correction of misreading of image - deletion of one sentence, because there was no "inquisition" in the days of Bosch", you deleted the text:
"Art historian Rosemarie Schuder, however, suggests that the obvious sensuality of the panel may have been intended as a jab against the Inquisition's hostility towards physicality.<ref name="Gibson25"/>"
What makes you think that Schuder was mistaken? or, even if she was, that her analysis should not be reported? Thanks. p.s. am not sure why Rosemarie Schuder wasn't linked there. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:43, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- (→ discussion now at my Talk Page. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:23, 4 February 2013 (UTC))
- So Wilhelm Fraenger's only been there two years.. probably why I missed him, haha. Regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:24, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- In this edit with the suammry "correction of description and deletion of opinions that are not based on details of the painting", you deleted the text:
- "A cavity in the torso is populated by gamblers and drunkards.<ref name="Gibson98">Gibson, 97–98</ref> It is believed that the tree-man may represent the Antichrist.<ref>Campbell Gristina, Mary and Glum, Peter. "Letters to the Editor". ''The Art Bulletin'', Volume 59, No. 1, March 1977. 156</ref>" and put:
- "A cavity in the torso is populated by three naked persons seated on an animal and at a table."
- I can see no obvious evidence of gambling either. But they seem to be drinking at the table, possibly they are in an Inn, with a woman, behind them, getting beer or wine to serve them, from a barrel. The animal seems to be some kind of frog. My question is again, whether the article shouldn't say something like "Gibson says.." or "Campbell Gristina and Glum have suggested .." etc. Do Campbell Gristina and Glum not offer any educated reasoning for that opinion? Have they just made it all up out of thin air? It may be very useful to work through the entire painting, detailing every depiction in plain forensic detail, but aren't we losing some of the interpretation made by specialist art historians in the process? Thanks for listening. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:01, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- No, we should not try to do forensic work. This is a piece of art. But interpretations should be based on facts. At least they should not be in obvious conflict with that what anybody can see on a high-resolution image. The problem with some art writers is that they did their work with poor copies of the painting in front of them. Another example was Virginia Tuttle. She saw a half-fish into the painting, where in fact the fish was complete but just infront of another figure (person with book in left panel). I would suggest that obvious misreadings of the facts should not be quoted, however "high" a "professional" authority might be. Would you agree? Agric (talk) 19:30, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, I would agree. I'm not sure where the gambling has come from - that seems to be going beyond what can be seen? Or is that tumbler on the table for dice? or for both beer and dice? but how do we tell? And what was the basis for the "tree = antichrist"? - surely something way beyond the confines of this painting? How do we dismiss that interpretation, so conveniently? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:38, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- If somebody gives a good reason for the inclusion of the antichrist association, say, a similarity, then it can be put it. If not, I think we should apply Occam's razor. Would that be a way to go? Agric (talk) 19:51, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Well, that certainly seems the easiest approach. We could, of course, trawl through the history and see who added Campbell Gristina and Glum, and ask them for a page number and/or more explanation (but they may be long gone and/or anon). Or else seek out that source ourselves. I'm now aware that maybe we should really be having this discussion at the article Talk Page. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:20, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- How can Gibson have got it so wrong? It's not even an old source? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:23, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- If somebody gives a good reason for the inclusion of the antichrist association, say, a similarity, then it can be put it. If not, I think we should apply Occam's razor. Would that be a way to go? Agric (talk) 19:51, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, I would agree. I'm not sure where the gambling has come from - that seems to be going beyond what can be seen? Or is that tumbler on the table for dice? or for both beer and dice? but how do we tell? And what was the basis for the "tree = antichrist"? - surely something way beyond the confines of this painting? How do we dismiss that interpretation, so conveniently? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:38, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- No, we should not try to do forensic work. This is a piece of art. But interpretations should be based on facts. At least they should not be in obvious conflict with that what anybody can see on a high-resolution image. The problem with some art writers is that they did their work with poor copies of the painting in front of them. Another example was Virginia Tuttle. She saw a half-fish into the painting, where in fact the fish was complete but just infront of another figure (person with book in left panel). I would suggest that obvious misreadings of the facts should not be quoted, however "high" a "professional" authority might be. Would you agree? Agric (talk) 19:30, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- I can see no obvious evidence of gambling either. But they seem to be drinking at the table, possibly they are in an Inn, with a woman, behind them, getting beer or wine to serve them, from a barrel. The animal seems to be some kind of frog. My question is again, whether the article shouldn't say something like "Gibson says.." or "Campbell Gristina and Glum have suggested .." etc. Do Campbell Gristina and Glum not offer any educated reasoning for that opinion? Have they just made it all up out of thin air? It may be very useful to work through the entire painting, detailing every depiction in plain forensic detail, but aren't we losing some of the interpretation made by specialist art historians in the process? Thanks for listening. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:01, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Butting in here: 1., this discussion should be taking place on the article talk page, and 2., all we care about is verifiability per WP:V. We can't second guess the sources, we follow the sources. As such, I'm concerned at the edits I've seen to the article. Furthermore, this is following a pattern very similar to that at the Ghent Altarpiece, fwiw. Agric, it's important that these changes be made by consensus. Do you have access to the sources? If you don't then perhaps leave a note on the talkpages of the primary contributors - who almost certainly will have access to the sources. Those editors can be identified by clicking "contributors" on the article history page. Thanks. Truthkeeper (talk) 19:45, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- As I intimated above, I would have no problem with this discussion being copied wholesale onto the article Talk Page. Perhaps as a third party, Truthkeeper could do this? A single question sometimes develops into a discussion without one realising. Agric's first reply was at my Talk Page, but I'm not sure that matters. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:28, 6 February 2013 (UTC) p.s. I see that the Antichrist reference was added in this edit by User:Ceoil.