|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Diego Velázquez article.|
|Diego Velázquez 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.|
|This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 24, 2005.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|This article has an assessment summary page.|
|Diego Velázquez has been listed as a level-4 vital article in People. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as C-Class.|
- 1 Featured article review of November 25, 2005
- 2 Jocundity
- 3 wrong Maria Theresa
- 4 Las Meninas
- 5 Funny Period
- 6 Rv contemporary painter
- 7 Article improvement/Peer review
- 8 Duplicate?
- 9 external links
- 10 Velazquez not Spanish?
- 11 Innocent pictures
- 12 Date of birth/baptism
- 13 Wrong link for "The Adoration of the Magi" under Diego Velázquez' Selected Works
- 14 Modern references
- 15 Jewish ancestry
- 16 Output?
- 17 Did he have kids?!?!?!?!?!
Featured article review of November 25, 2005
- This review resulted in the passing of a new version of the article. Some minor extant issues remain unsolved, including nearly empty section entitled "To Madrid (early period)".
- Excellent article. Changes have been good. Except perhaps
this quotation from Francis Bacon added with no reference in the "Second Visit to Italy" section.Otherwise, minor imprefections include numerous red links, placement of the images 'Surrender of Breda' and 'Juan de Pareja', the section "To Madrid (early period)" without any text (see "Velázquez's Italian period" for a good overview of subsections that should exist between section heading and subsections), and the phrase "warm-up" is quotedfrom somewhere by someone in the "Second Visit to Italy" section. --maclean25 07:24, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- Would there be a problem with moving the first sub-section (with or without the title) of "To Madrid (early period)" to "Early Life" and changing the title to "Madrid (early period)"? This would bring the title in line with Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings) standards and eliminate the section with no text. --maclean25 06:52, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
The section "Velázquez in modernity" appears to be a joke. But this is due to the disparity between the concept of a serious article regarding fine art and the images of works that were created by painters who obviously lacked Velázquez's ability.Lestrade 00:18, 21 January 2006 (UTC)Lestrade
- I'm not exactly sure if you're providing a suggestion for change. In another point, I saw the reference to I, Juan de Pareja, the Newberry book, and removed it. I don't think an article about the artist is a proper place for this. Perhaps an article for the book itself linking to Velázquez?
Lestrade, if you have something more specific to say rather than that you simply find the section a joke, please do post it. The article was accepted for FA with that section intact, and no one addressed it as a problem then. If you have a concern now..go for it. --DanielNuyu 07:03, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
wrong Maria Theresa
The link for Maria Theresa, wife of Louis XIV, is to Maria Theresa of Austria, rather than to the Wikipedia article on Maria Theresa of Spain . I tried to fix it myself, but, sadly, fell short.
It's not a major error, just a link to the incorrect Maria Theresa. Cheers, Ivonne Rovira email@example.com
- Fixed it, thanks for pointing this out. --DanielNuyu 00:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
What can you say about this painting? my art teacher asserted it anticipated the lesson of "Ceçi n'est pas une pipe" [Magritte]. Do you agree? 220.127.116.11 20:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)Giovanni
Is this a joke? This strange title wasn't here a few minutes ago.
Rv contemporary painter
I have removed the work of a contemporary painter's homage to Velazquez. Images by Picasso and Bacon are understandable, but an article about Velazquez is not a portal for contemporary artists to gain publicity. JNW 01:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Article improvement/Peer review
Would any of the editors contributing to this article be interested in assisting in a Peer review, and nomination for Good article process? The intent would be to regain Featured article status. EspanaViva 07:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
To User JNW. Thank you very much for making into a foodnote information about converso origin of Velasquez. User: Tracadero. 3.11. 07
I know nothing about the subject, but the list of selected works appears to contain two iterations of the same painting, spaced 10 years apart. The 1634 listing links to the painting, while the 1624 listing links to a biographical article which contains an image of the painting...dated to 1634. I would remove this, but the list gives specific dimensions for the painting, as well as a museum that owns it. What's up here? This should be fixed or clarified. 18.104.22.168 22:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
You are right. The entry for the 1624 portrait mistakenly linked to an article with an image of the 1634 portrait. I've un-linked it. Thanks. JNW 22:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
http://www.allpaintings.org/v/Baroque/Velazquez/ is a good website to put in external links. There are more than a hundred of images of his works with their genre, year, localization and some information about Velázquez. The images have a good quality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oriolhernan (talk • contribs) 13:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- It is linkspam. Please read WP:EL re: guidelines on links which are encyclopedic, and those which are not (for instance, those with many advertisements). JNW 14:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Velazquez not Spanish?
So, now Velazquez is Portugese? Let me see, Santiago Ramon y Cajal, Pablo Casals, etc., etc. I'm still looking for any Spanish person of note who isn't billed as "not Spanish" by Wikipedia. Seems there's just an aversion to admitting any person of Spanish ancestry is worth a hoot!Cd195 (talk) 17:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Although the new one (Image:Velazquez.innocent-x.jpg) looks better enlarged, the old one (Image:Diego Velázquez 048.jpg) is brighter & looks better (350 setting) as a thumb on my screen. In truth neither is a very high quality image. I've seen the original too! Johnbod (talk) 23:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
The older one has too much brightness, the one i added is not colourful enough. Found a better one from the museums site, will add it instead (Image:Innocent-x-velazquez.jpg) Mlaoxve (talk) 01:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, that's certainly the best; nice one! Johnbod (talk) 02:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- I prefer old to new and newest to both. Good job. Modernist (talk) 03:30, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- One look at the handling of the background drapery confirms that the 'newest' version is best. The transcription of color and brushwork is unacceptable in the first version, ambiguous in the second, and only approaches clarity in the latest image. Good work. JNW (talk) 03:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Date of birth/baptism
Born in Seville, Andalusia, Spain early on June 6, 1599, and baptized on 6 June,
- Question: We know he was baptised on 6 June. How do we know he was also born that same day? -- JackofOz (talk) 07:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
In the olden days babies were typically baptised the day they were born in the Catholic Church, since a baptised baby will not go to purgatory if it dies. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 23:44, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
The link for the "The Adoration of the Magi" under Selected Works sends the user to "The Adoration of the Magi" by Bartolomé Estéban Murillo. There is a Wikipedia entry for "The Adoration of the Magi" by Diego Velázquez, but it appears to be available in Spanish and Italian only. The link to the Spanish entry is as follows:
The reference to Picasso and the others is totally inappropriate. Why is it included? Did the author think it validated Velázquez in some way? There are many present day artists of the traditional school who would find the notion absurd and insulting. What is the point? Jive Dadson (talk) 07:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- Not at all inappropriate. Such references are standard for articles on the masters, and the references to Picasso, Dali, and Bacon deal with well-known works that clearly are indebted to Velazquez, whether or not they meet with the approval of 'traditionalists' like myself. JNW (talk) 19:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- Upon reading the lead, it seems that rather than expunging mention of 20th century artists, the introduction can be a great deal more fulsome, with much-deserved elaboration on V's stature as one of the great masters of western painting. Britannica is laudatory in its assessment, and there is a long way to go here. JNW (talk) 21:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
If mention is to made of Velasquez's influence, why is no mention made Of Sargent? His "El Jaleo," as well as many of his early portraits, are much more truly inspired by Velasquez than the facile rip-offs of Picasso and Bacon.Orapronobis (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:46, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
I have remove from the article this: Recent archival investigations carried out by Mendez, Ingram and others not only reject his aristocratic origins, but have brought to light that he belonged to the Jewish converso lineage.
Which documents, how they came about and what do they say ?, the reference is not very enlighten. Velázquez supposedly Jewish ancestors can not be more than a theory contradicted but well know facts
These are the facts :
1. By the time Velázquez was born Jews has been expelled from Spain for more than a century (the were expelled from Spain in 1492 and from Portugal six years later). Those few who decided to stay were forced to convert to Christianity. Usually despised, they were called marranos in Spain. Seen with suspicion, many perished under the iron rule of the inquisition that was in full swing at that time
2. Velázquez wanted to obtain and finally received the order of Santiagoo. Two mandatory requirements to get the order were:
a) noble ancestry
b ) purity of the blood (meaning no Jewish or Arab ancestry in seven generations). It took years to clear Velázquez ancestry until he was given the order. It can be seen displayed in his chest (the red symbol) in the portrait las Meninas. --Miguelemejia (talk) 18:17, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
- I think the possibility of Jewish ancestry should at least be mentioned as a theory. Here is Peter Schjeldahl in The New Yorker reviewing Anthony Bailey's new book on Velazquez Velazquez and the Surrender of Breda: The Making of a Masterpiece.
- Here is what Schjeldahl writes: "Bailey lays out recently surfaced evidence that the artist's Portuguese ancestors were plebian and very likely Jewish, which, since 1492, had been grounds for banishment, if not worse, at the hands of the Inquisition. That self-wounding policy, for the nation, was compounded between 1609 and 1614, when Philip III banished hundreds of thousands of Christian-converted Moors... An intervention by Philip secured Velazquez his knighthood..." -- And Rew 19:32, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Reading this article, I feel it might be useful to mention Velazquez's relatively small body of work : less than 120 known works, depending on who you ask. I have a good citation for this information, but I'm not sure which section would be suitable. My first thought is to include a sentence or two at the beginning of the "selected works" list. Any thoughts from regular contributors to this article? -- Docether (talk) 15:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
- It could go either there or in the opening. JNW (talk) 04:24, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Did he have kids?!?!?!?!?!
- Otaka, Yasujiro (September 2000). "An Aspiration Sealed". Special Issue: Art History and the Jew. Studies in Western Art. Retrieved 2007-12-08.