This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Saint Francis Receiving the Stigmata (van Eyck) 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 |
![]() | Saint Francis Receiving the Stigmata (van Eyck) is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 4, 2019. | |||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
We used Luber for the Dresden Triptych in the section about portable altarpieces, but the source is mostly about this painting - I remember at the time thinking it was a lovely painting. If I remember correctly the small version was meant to be a portable replica to take on pilgrimage. I'm glad you're not shy about starting new articles, because I never get around to it. If you take down the do not edit tag before the end of the weekend I might be able to add some bits if you don't mind having me jump in. And then maybe, if a miracle happens, I'll try to submit for DYK. Will have to find the file first. That might be a challenge. And then read it. Another challenge. Victoria ( tk) 20:18, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
I tried. I really did. But it's a big red mess: [1]. Hopefully someone will fix it; I have to go offline now. Was at least worth a try. Please rewrite the hook if you don't like. And don't laugh too hard!! Victoria ( tk) 17:20, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
I seem to have gone on a huge digression about the Adornes family, mostly because it's fascinating (and mentioned in the sources) but I'm beginning to think this page will pose some challenges with structure. The source I'm currently reading, Luber's "Patronage and Pilgrimage" has quite a lot about the Franciscan tradition of pilgrimage, which I think would be interesting but prob needs its own section. Being long-winded here, but should I just go ahead and write sections, stuff them somewhere, and we can shove around later and snip out what we don't need or don't want? Victoria ( tk) 17:12, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
I've just restructured the landscape section - quite a lot,
[2]. If it's not good, it's okay to roll it back. I was trying to structure from general critical analyses about landscape to more specific descriptions (with analyses woven in) of mountains, rocks, water, plants, etc. Not sure I accomplished what I wanted. But I'll leave the landscape section alone for now. Also, am getting a little antsy and am about to make a push to finish up shoving in the rest of the content I'd sandboxed (yeah, I know, during xmas no less), but I've feel that I've been hogging the page and I should be stepping away.
Victoria (
tk)
20:44, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
I added mention of that in the lead for the failed DYK attempt but we don't mention it in the article. Should we keep it there and mention somewhere in the article or remove from the lead? I'd be tempted to remove, but it was fairly well covered in the press. Victoria ( tk) 02:23, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Sorry, but wasn't Johnbod disagreeing with me? I thought he was in favour of the quote and was expressing his displeasure at me for questioning it. To clarify, the important point I brought up was the need to attribute the quote, and the comment about the necessity of the quote was merely an aside. Please consider that comment stricken—at no point had I meant to imply it was UNDUE, that was me poorly communicating. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 04:32, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
These are all from one source, which is cited to 9 times, 6 of which fail verification for a 33% success rate. Was this spot-checked before passing, or is Victoria exempt from that? Rationalobserver ( talk) 22:14, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Saint Francis Receiving the Stigmata (van Eyck). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:51, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
"The paintings show a famous incident from the life of Saint Francis of Assisi, who is shown kneeling by a rock as he receives the stigmata of the crucified Christ on the palms of his hands and soles of his feet." To state that is to present legend as fact. It might be fact that he had marks (I have downgraded by description from myth to legend), by to state as fact that those marks are "the stigmata of the crucified Christ" is to abandon an NPOV position about the historically unverified story about Jesus. To state as though it were verifiable fact that this is an incident on the occasion of which he received those marks, and therefore that at least some of the attendant details of the picture pertained at the time. That is plainly unknowable. I would suggest that it is valid to say "The paintings show Saint Francis of Assisi kneeling by a rock as he receives the stigmata of the crucified Christ on the palms of his hands and soles of his feet" (an edit I made that has been reverted), because that only claims to describe an image. But as soon as you label it as an incident, you are crediting it as an historical event. And no-one can claim verification of that. Kevin McE ( talk) 22:35, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
St Francis lived austerely, in imitation of Christ. He embraced the natural world, and took vows of poverty, charity and chastity. In 1224 at La Verna, he experienced the mystical vision which van Eyck portrays. [1] Thomas of Celano, author of Francis's hagiography, describes the vision and stigmatization: "Francis had a vision in which he saw a man like a seraph: he had six wings and was standing above him with his hands outstretched and his feet bound together, and was fixed to a cross. Two wings were lifted above his head, and two were spread ready for flight, and two covered his whole body. When Francis saw this he was utterly amazed. He could not fathom what this vision might mean." [2] As he meditated, "marks of nails began to appear on his hands and feet ... His hands and feet seemed to be pierced by nails appearing on the inside of his hands and the upper side of his feet ... His right side was scarred as if it had been pierced by a spear, and it often seeped blood." [3] To the medieval observer, the appearance of the stigmata signifies Francis's complete absorption in the vision of the seraph. [4]
I'll ask again, as nobody has answered in 5 days: What is actually wrong in my proposal ("The paintings show Saint Francis of Assisi kneeling by a rock as he receives the stigmata of the crucified Christ on the palms of his hands and soles of his feet")? For those who choose to believe, it denies nothing, but it does not ask the reader to accept anything as true other than that it is a picture. Kevin McE ( talk) 10:06, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Who says the "panoramic landscape that seems to relegate the figures to secondary importance"? I think it's nonsense. The large, prominent figures dominate the painting. This statement absolutely requires at least an attribution and maybe a change. Zaslav ( talk) 03:41, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Why not? --- Another Believer ( Talk) 20:51, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
I propose reducing the lead image size. Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Displayed_image_size says, "Stand-alone lead images should also be no wider than upright=1.35." In this case, I under "stand-alone" to mean outside an infobox. IMO, the current lead image is way too large. Thoughts? --- Another Believer ( Talk) 22:59, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Saint Francis Receiving the Stigmata (van Eyck) 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 |
![]() | Saint Francis Receiving the Stigmata (van Eyck) is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 4, 2019. | |||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
We used Luber for the Dresden Triptych in the section about portable altarpieces, but the source is mostly about this painting - I remember at the time thinking it was a lovely painting. If I remember correctly the small version was meant to be a portable replica to take on pilgrimage. I'm glad you're not shy about starting new articles, because I never get around to it. If you take down the do not edit tag before the end of the weekend I might be able to add some bits if you don't mind having me jump in. And then maybe, if a miracle happens, I'll try to submit for DYK. Will have to find the file first. That might be a challenge. And then read it. Another challenge. Victoria ( tk) 20:18, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
I tried. I really did. But it's a big red mess: [1]. Hopefully someone will fix it; I have to go offline now. Was at least worth a try. Please rewrite the hook if you don't like. And don't laugh too hard!! Victoria ( tk) 17:20, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
I seem to have gone on a huge digression about the Adornes family, mostly because it's fascinating (and mentioned in the sources) but I'm beginning to think this page will pose some challenges with structure. The source I'm currently reading, Luber's "Patronage and Pilgrimage" has quite a lot about the Franciscan tradition of pilgrimage, which I think would be interesting but prob needs its own section. Being long-winded here, but should I just go ahead and write sections, stuff them somewhere, and we can shove around later and snip out what we don't need or don't want? Victoria ( tk) 17:12, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
I've just restructured the landscape section - quite a lot,
[2]. If it's not good, it's okay to roll it back. I was trying to structure from general critical analyses about landscape to more specific descriptions (with analyses woven in) of mountains, rocks, water, plants, etc. Not sure I accomplished what I wanted. But I'll leave the landscape section alone for now. Also, am getting a little antsy and am about to make a push to finish up shoving in the rest of the content I'd sandboxed (yeah, I know, during xmas no less), but I've feel that I've been hogging the page and I should be stepping away.
Victoria (
tk)
20:44, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
I added mention of that in the lead for the failed DYK attempt but we don't mention it in the article. Should we keep it there and mention somewhere in the article or remove from the lead? I'd be tempted to remove, but it was fairly well covered in the press. Victoria ( tk) 02:23, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Sorry, but wasn't Johnbod disagreeing with me? I thought he was in favour of the quote and was expressing his displeasure at me for questioning it. To clarify, the important point I brought up was the need to attribute the quote, and the comment about the necessity of the quote was merely an aside. Please consider that comment stricken—at no point had I meant to imply it was UNDUE, that was me poorly communicating. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 04:32, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
These are all from one source, which is cited to 9 times, 6 of which fail verification for a 33% success rate. Was this spot-checked before passing, or is Victoria exempt from that? Rationalobserver ( talk) 22:14, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Saint Francis Receiving the Stigmata (van Eyck). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:51, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
"The paintings show a famous incident from the life of Saint Francis of Assisi, who is shown kneeling by a rock as he receives the stigmata of the crucified Christ on the palms of his hands and soles of his feet." To state that is to present legend as fact. It might be fact that he had marks (I have downgraded by description from myth to legend), by to state as fact that those marks are "the stigmata of the crucified Christ" is to abandon an NPOV position about the historically unverified story about Jesus. To state as though it were verifiable fact that this is an incident on the occasion of which he received those marks, and therefore that at least some of the attendant details of the picture pertained at the time. That is plainly unknowable. I would suggest that it is valid to say "The paintings show Saint Francis of Assisi kneeling by a rock as he receives the stigmata of the crucified Christ on the palms of his hands and soles of his feet" (an edit I made that has been reverted), because that only claims to describe an image. But as soon as you label it as an incident, you are crediting it as an historical event. And no-one can claim verification of that. Kevin McE ( talk) 22:35, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
St Francis lived austerely, in imitation of Christ. He embraced the natural world, and took vows of poverty, charity and chastity. In 1224 at La Verna, he experienced the mystical vision which van Eyck portrays. [1] Thomas of Celano, author of Francis's hagiography, describes the vision and stigmatization: "Francis had a vision in which he saw a man like a seraph: he had six wings and was standing above him with his hands outstretched and his feet bound together, and was fixed to a cross. Two wings were lifted above his head, and two were spread ready for flight, and two covered his whole body. When Francis saw this he was utterly amazed. He could not fathom what this vision might mean." [2] As he meditated, "marks of nails began to appear on his hands and feet ... His hands and feet seemed to be pierced by nails appearing on the inside of his hands and the upper side of his feet ... His right side was scarred as if it had been pierced by a spear, and it often seeped blood." [3] To the medieval observer, the appearance of the stigmata signifies Francis's complete absorption in the vision of the seraph. [4]
I'll ask again, as nobody has answered in 5 days: What is actually wrong in my proposal ("The paintings show Saint Francis of Assisi kneeling by a rock as he receives the stigmata of the crucified Christ on the palms of his hands and soles of his feet")? For those who choose to believe, it denies nothing, but it does not ask the reader to accept anything as true other than that it is a picture. Kevin McE ( talk) 10:06, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Who says the "panoramic landscape that seems to relegate the figures to secondary importance"? I think it's nonsense. The large, prominent figures dominate the painting. This statement absolutely requires at least an attribution and maybe a change. Zaslav ( talk) 03:41, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Why not? --- Another Believer ( Talk) 20:51, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
I propose reducing the lead image size. Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Displayed_image_size says, "Stand-alone lead images should also be no wider than upright=1.35." In this case, I under "stand-alone" to mean outside an infobox. IMO, the current lead image is way too large. Thoughts? --- Another Believer ( Talk) 22:59, 4 October 2019 (UTC)