Talk:Raphael
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Raphael article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
Images
Images uploaded but still not used:
-
(?)
Raphael's birth and death dates
- The date of 6 April 1483 has been calculated using the Proleptic Gregorian Calendar. My question: Why? The Gregorian was introduced on 15 October 1582, and was NOT retrospectively applied. The Proleptic Gregorian was a later invention for use in scientific contexts, and it has no relevance for the dating of ordinary historical events. Just as the Julian Calendar does not apply to dates on or after 15 October 1582 in Italy (and some other countries), the (Proleptic) Gregorian does not apply to events occurring prior to that time. If Raphael was born on Good Friday 1483, and that day fell on 28 March (using the only calendar then available, the Julian), then 28 March 1483 is Raphael's date of birth and 6 April 1483 is simply wrong.
- Similar argument for his date of death. If he died on the eve of his 37th birthday, that means he died in 1520, by which time the Julian Calendar was still in place. The only correct date we should use is 27 March 1520.
- Paragraph 3 under "Major works" says he died on his 37th birthday, but the last line of the article says he died on the eve of his 37th birthday. At least one of these is incorrect. Does anybody know the truth?
- I have also seen it written that both his dates of birth and death were Good Friday. Can anybody verify or refute this?
- The Norton Anthology of English Literature (Vol. 2, 6th edition, page 426) refers to Rafaello's dates as 1488-1520. Kevinhowarth 04:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Cheers JackofOz 06:13, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I'd like to know if what appears in the article is speculation on the part of the person who posted it, or if he or she can point us to some other source of that information.
- I agree especially with your first bulleted paragraph. If he was indeed born on Good Friday, and that fell on 28 March 1483 Julian, then he was probably born on 28 March Julian, and the 6 April date is just an error. Note that 6 April was a Sunday on the Julian calendar, Friday on the proleptic Gregorian calendar.
- But the conclusions drawn in the article is based on a speculation that if the date of birth was on the Julian calendar, the date of death must have been as well. That doesn't hold water.
- Dates of birth are often harder to verify than dates of death, especially in those days long before registration of births. Dates of death of famous people, however, are generally available from a variety of sources, so it is unlikely that any discrepancy there would have remained uncommented on for very long.
- Good Friday in 1520, at least in the Danish calendar calculations in the "Dage" program, was on 6 April 1520 Julian calendar. So if his birth and death were indeed both on Good Friday on the Julian calendar, the only Christian calendar in use then, he would have been one week past his birthday at his death. Gene Nygaard 06:09, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Ah-hah! The plot thickens. Thanks for that, and let's hope the 'Raphael guru' makes him- or herself known soon. Cheers JackofOz 06:53, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I searched the histories of the relevant pages and found that at the creation of Raphael on Feb 12, 2002 (as the article Raphael) 62.253.67.6 gave birth and death dates of "April 6?, 1483 - 1520". On the same date 151.24.190.229 changed the dates to "Urbino, April 6?, 1483 - Rome, April 6, 1520" and added the sentence "He died at 37, on his birthday", all of which he apparently got from the current Encyclopaedia Britannica article on Raphael. Then on Feb 15, 2002 User:Wesley removed the question mark. On Nov 13, 2002 User:Eclecticology transferred those dates to Raffaello Santi when he merged Raphael with it, and changed Raphael into a disambiguation page. Finally the note on those dates was added to Raffaello Santi on Apr 15, 2004 by 32.106.41.158. It appears that the last writer converted April 6, 1520 (Gregorian) to March 27, 1520 (Julian) thus concluding that he died on the eve of his birthday (and failed to remove the note that he died on his birthday). The 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica article on Raphael Sanzio states on its last page that he died on "Good Friday (April 6) 1520, at the age of thirty-seven, exactly". I suspect that he did indeed die on April 6, 1520 at the age of 37. I also suspect that someone thought that that also meant that April 6, 1483 was a Good Friday. [1] states that he was born on Good Friday in 1483. I confirm via [2] that April 6, 1483 (Julian) was not a Good Friday (it was Sunday).
- I recommend that the birth and death dates at the top of the article (April 6, 1483 - April 6, 1520) should not be changed (except delete "see note below"), and that the erroneous speculative note on the dates be removed. It might be advisable to note that he died on Good Friday but was not born on Good Friday, possibly as part of the "He died on his thirty-seventh birthday" sentence. — Joe Kress 12:32, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
- I 'concur with that recommendation. Gene Nygaard 13:01, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC).
Thanks folks for that excellent bit of research. I have now made some amendments to the main page. Cheers JackofOz 01:12, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- If he was born on Good Friday and died on Good Friday, he couldn't have been exactly 37 years old because Good Friday doesn't fall on the same day every year. If was born on a Good Friday and died exactly 37 years later, then he died in March. If he died on a Good Friday on April 6 and if that was exactly 37 years after his birthday, he couldn't have been also born on Good Friday. The last part of the article is confusing on this point because it mentions both that he was born on a Good Friday and died on his 37th birthday on April 6, which would be impossible date-vice if was actually born on a Good Friday. --RossF18 10:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- I've added a clarifying sentence - I hope it helps. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- It didn't I'm afraid; the article has moved on since October. Several art historians think they have the answer, though personally I can't be bothered to get my head round the arguments - it seems a very trivial point. Nb alt birth dates, Shearman note etc. Johnbod (talk) 00:10, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Ninja Turtle
How about a mention about a Ninja turtle being named after him? 71.250.4.126 20:40, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- --That should be mentioned in a trivia section. ApsbaMd2 (talk) 13:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- No, NO TRIVIA SECTIONS. This is an article about the painter, to see the ninja turtle see RossF18 (talk) 15:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC) . --
Semi-protection
I noticed that this page is frequently vandalized, 99.99999999% vandalism coming from no-registered users. Therefore I marked it with the semi-protection... Let me know what do you think about this move. user:Attilios
- you can't sprotect unless you're an admin. --Lord Deskana Dark Lord of the Sith 20:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
I love Raphael's work
He is such an inspiration.
I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information. I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list. Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article. Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this as a model for the editors here. Regards, Durova 15:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
oddities
Raphael or Raffaello (April 6, 1483 – April 6, 1520), born in Urbino, Italy, was a master eater and philosipher of the Florentine school in the Italian High Renaissance, celebrated for the perfection and grace of his paintings. He was also called Raffaello Sanzio, Raffaello Santi, Raffaello da Urbino or Rafael Sanzio da Urbino. his most famous saying is "eat or be eatin".
I assume the typo, eater, and ridiculous quote is the result of vandalism. Can someone fix this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.181.193.177 (talk) 06:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC).
An old painting of Raphael
There´s a very important work of Raphael (considered to be one of the oldest works certainly executed by him) which is not posted in his page:
http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imagem:Rafaelressurrei%C3%A7%C3%A3o.jpg
Rafaello Sanzio (Italian, 1483-1520) The Resurrection of Christ, 1499/1502 (oil on wood, 52 x 44 cm) Collection: São Paulo Museum of Art (São Paulo, Brazil): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%A3o_Paulo_Art_Museum http://www.masp.art.br
Thanks,
Lucas Salles —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lucas bsalles (talk • contribs) 17:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC).
Category:Italian Roman Catholics
Please see the discussion in Michelangelo. I find this category meaningless when used with Raphael. What else could he be?CARAVAGGISTI 04:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Vandalism edit
While editing serial vandalism, I also removed a well-intentioned 'see also' link to the Pre Raphaelite Brotherhood. This can be re-installed, though I am dubious as to its ultimate relevance in an article on Raphael's life. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JNW (talk • contribs) 20:05, August 20, 2007 (UTC).
- Thank you User:SineBot. JNW 20:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps we should semi-protect this article to stem the tide of constant vandalism. Almost every other edit seems to be a vandalism revert. Enough is enough. --RossF18 20:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Date of Birth and Death
While I think this was already discussed, the article is still inconsistent. The article has both his birth and death in April, while at the end of the article, a point is made about his birth on Good Friday, which took place in March in 1483. While this discrpency may be explained away by the adjustment in the calender, this should be made clear. --RossF18 02:22, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Reword?
yeah, it's me.... I'd be rewriting this bit.Amandajm 12:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- Raphael was born in the small but artistically significant North Italian city of Urbino, where his father Giovanni Santi was court painter to the Duke. In 1491, his mother Màgia died; his father died on August 1, 1494, having already remarried. That's clumsy! Thus orphaned at eleven, Raphael was entrusted to his uncle Bartolomeo, a priest, who subsequently engaged in litigation with his step-mother. He had already shown talent, according to Giorgio Vasari - he tells Try "Vasari, who writes that... that since childhood Raphael had been "a great help to his father". A brilliant self-portrait drawing from his teenage years shows his precocious talent. His father's workshop continued and, probably together with his stepmother, Raphael evidently played a part in managing it from a very early age.
- It's a bit early for this - the whole thing will probably all get rewritten. At the moment I'm concentrating on adding the material. Johnbod 16:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- Whoa there, calm your horses. Great changes, but it would be nice for you to discuss some of the deleations before hand on the talk page. While your additions are fabulous (albeit in want of some more citations), I would ask for some of the deleations to be discussed in the future since you've sometimes taken out whole paragraphs that multiple editors worked on - which would indicate that at least some discussion would be nice. On the other hand, you did do a great job integrating many of the things you took out into your additions. But still, it's the principle of the thing. Thanks. --RossF18 01:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- I'm still in the middle of changes & refs will be added - most continues to come from Jones & Penny. We shouldn't be reffing an article like this from newspaper articles, boiled down from press releases. As it is being expanded considerably, most of the original will inevitably be lost, especially from the Roman section. I think all I can do is complete my version & then we can discuss - ideally in about a week. Is that ok? Johnbod 01:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- I've finished the main work now. Should we dump the infobox for a painting one? It is unfortunately his least attractive but most certain self-portrait. Johnbod (talk) 17:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- I'm still in the middle of changes & refs will be added - most continues to come from Jones & Penny. We shouldn't be reffing an article like this from newspaper articles, boiled down from press releases. As it is being expanded considerably, most of the original will inevitably be lost, especially from the Roman section. I think all I can do is complete my version & then we can discuss - ideally in about a week. Is that ok? Johnbod 01:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- I think we should keep the info box as it is as far as his self-potrait. Most, if not all, other pages of artists have their potraits in them. --RossF18 (talk) 23:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- More's the pity! In fact there is a trend to using paintings with infoboxes, especially for unphotogenic artists. See Visual arts project talk passim.Johnbod (talk) 00:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- Again, I disagree. When people are searching for a particular paiting of Raphael's, they expect to find that paiting in the info box or nothing in the infobox. But, when a person is searching for a artist, painter, writer, or any other person, they expect to find that person's mug, no matter how ugly, in the info box. I think the current trend, if there is such a trend, ill-begotten, begcause who are we to just who is photogenic or not. Photogenic qualities are too subjective to be judged by a handfull of wikipedians who are dedicated enough to keep harping on the point of changing the picture. Besides, what does person's facial features have to do with their life and art work, books, etc. People go to this page to find out about Raphael's life and his paitings, not whether he was one hot cookie and his likeness, no matter if its not perfect (whatever that means), should stay. Now, if there are no potraits of a person, then I understand using one of the paitings instead of an empty infobox, but not otherwise. --RossF18 (talk) 19:03, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- More's the pity! In fact there is a trend to using paintings with infoboxes, especially for unphotogenic artists. See Visual arts project talk passim.Johnbod (talk) 00:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- Whoa there, calm your horses. Great changes, but it would be nice for you to discuss some of the deleations before hand on the talk page. While your additions are fabulous (albeit in want of some more citations), I would ask for some of the deleations to be discussed in the future since you've sometimes taken out whole paragraphs that multiple editors worked on - which would indicate that at least some discussion would be nice. On the other hand, you did do a great job integrating many of the things you took out into your additions. But still, it's the principle of the thing. Thanks. --RossF18 01:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
The new potrait of Raphael has been added, but I think the old one is significant enough to be added to the gallery of his potraits in the article. --RossF18 (talk) 05:36, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Urbino is not a North Italian city
I can't edit this myself because the article is protected, but the article states that Raphael was born in the North Italian city of Urbino. As an Italian I don't see how Urbino is North; I'd rather define it a town in Central Italy. If anyone agrees with me on this (very minor) issue, can anyone correct this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.208.83.215 (talk) 03:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Fair point - changed. Johnbod (talk) 10:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Vandalism & Protection Issues
I think we need to reinstate that protection on the page. I tried to revert a bot removal of the protection, but I really don't have the authority to do that. So, once again, vandalism resurfesed almost immediately. Would someone protect the page again. Thanks. --RossF18 (talk) 03:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
An IP writes
The text is a little problematical. Raphael like painting pictures of baby Jesus in Mary's (His mother) arms. unsigned; moved down here by Johnbod (talk) 02:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Rating
How about nominating this for a FA article? It's still rated as a start stub currently. --RossF18 (talk) 02:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- Only by the silly "version" projects - the proper projects have it as B. Johnbod (talk) 13:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- How about starting a nomination process for this article being a FA or at least an A. It is no longer a B.--RossF18 (talk) 23:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
- I suspect there are lots of technical MoS points I'm not strong on. We could do a peer review & see how that goes. Johnbod (talk) 23:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Picture
Has anyone noticed theimage at the top of this page is subtitled as a self portrait, but elsewhere on Wikipedia is listed as "Francesco Maria I della Rovere" - I don't know enough about the subject to know which is correct, if either. Any thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moominrachy (talk • contribs) 21:56, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
- Of these alternative titles, the self-portrait one is more widely accepted. It is compatible with, if much more stylish than two other self-portraits (one lower on the page, one in a fresco - School of Athens I think.) Adding "probable" or "possible" might be a good idea. This article takes a different view to judge from the abstract. Jones & Penny , 170 say "perhaps a portrait". Johnbod (talk) 15:39, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
- I have difficulty with its assessment as a self-portrait, but my reservations are meaningless if they are based on original research--I hesitate to admit that I have, on occasion, been wrong. But I do think there ought to be a consensus based on the current scholarship; if it's divided or ambivalent, given the presence of the other pictures I would suggest leading with one of the traditionally accepted self-portraits, and move this into the body of the article, with the 'possible' note. JNW (talk) 16:28, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
- As it has been missing since 1945-odd, not much seems to have been written on it since. I can't see where the Francesco Maria della Rovere identification originates - there are other Raphaels also said to be of him. Next time I'm in a good bookshop I'll see what the latest books say. This is "traditionally accepted" - Bellori, Passavant, Berenson etc, the doubts on the subject are more recent I think. Johnbod (talk) 18:42, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
- You are better versed on this painting, and if tradition supports the attribution, well, I'd take Berenson's word, too. I was unfamiliar with the image, uncomfortable with the stylistic differences between it and the other acknowledged self-portraits, and came up with little of substance to confirm its attribution as a portrait of the artist, via the imperfect science of a Google search, where most of the references to it are as a portrait of a young man. It would be interesting to know if and why modern scholarship has differed with the previous view. I, too, will try to find out more. Thanks for responding. JNW (talk) 20:05, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
- As it has been missing since 1945-odd, not much seems to have been written on it since. I can't see where the Francesco Maria della Rovere identification originates - there are other Raphaels also said to be of him. Next time I'm in a good bookshop I'll see what the latest books say. This is "traditionally accepted" - Bellori, Passavant, Berenson etc, the doubts on the subject are more recent I think. Johnbod (talk) 18:42, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
- I have difficulty with its assessment as a self-portrait, but my reservations are meaningless if they are based on original research--I hesitate to admit that I have, on occasion, been wrong. But I do think there ought to be a consensus based on the current scholarship; if it's divided or ambivalent, given the presence of the other pictures I would suggest leading with one of the traditionally accepted self-portraits, and move this into the body of the article, with the 'possible' note. JNW (talk) 16:28, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
School of Athens
Why isn't there are picture of probably his most famous painting, The School of Athens? ForteKane (talk) 13:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
- someone had removed it for some reason - now replaced. But it has it's own article. Johnbod (talk) 15:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
This is annoying. Is it like this on every page now? This is the second in three articles so far that I found this where I can't work on the article. Maybe if sombody can fix it, I wanted to change the first line so that it says that he's commonly just Raphael to after his birth to death years because that's how I saw it done on the other articles. But its very annoying that I can't do this myself. I'm taking a break!Bolinda (talk) 22:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC)B