# Talk:Constitution of 3 May 1791 (painting)

The File:Konstytucja 3 Maja guide.jpg by User:Kpalion is helpful, but unreferenced. Same for File:Konstytucja 3 Maja.jpg which contains an interactive map added by User:Hiuppo. Both may contain errors, as well as being incomplete. Here are additions / different identifications made by other sources:

deputy Aleksander Linowski of Kraków is the figure on the other side of Zakrzewski (no. 12), holding with him Małachowski (no. 11) (source: pl wiki - "Marszałka niosą posłowie: ziemi krakowskiej Aleksander Linowski i ziemi poznańskiej Ignacy Zakrzewski"). He is identified on Hiuppo's map.
Elżbieta Grabowska (1748-1810), king's mistress, is labelled as no. 3, however pl wiki states that he is being handed the laurel wreath by Dorothea von Medem (Dorothea Biron), and that Elżbieta Grabowska stands behind her (source: pl wiki - " Z wieńcem laurowym pod baldachimem Matejko namalował księżnę kurlandzką Dorotę Biron, tuż za nią stoi Elżbieta z Szydłowieckich Grabowska – przyjaciółka króla, matka jego dzieci."). They are identified as such on Hiuppo's map, which directly contradict's Kpalion's.
the women bowing down next to the king, in the yellow dress, facing away, is identified as Marianna Deker(tówna) (source: pl wiki - "Jan Dekert z córką Marianną (w żółtej sukni tyłem do widza)"), whereas ([1]) suggests, unclearly ("Jest wśród nich Jan Dekert (w rzeczywistości już wtedy nieżyjący) z małżonką"), that it may be his wife (I would go with Marianna, as she is younger). This source (Jan Matejko (1993). Matejko: obrazy olejne : katalog. Arkady. ISBN 978-83-213-3652-7. Retrieved 14 August 2011., poor snippet view means I cannot get page number) supports the daughter version ("Pokazał również Dekerta z córką całujących ręce monarchy, chociaż fakt ten miał miejsce przy innej okazji"). She is also identified as such on Hiuppo's map.
the two figures next to Suchorzewski (no. 15) are: to the left, his young son, and to the right, Stanisław Kublicki, deputy of Inflanty, and an active supporter of the Constitution (source: pl wiki - " za rękę z nożem łapie Stanisław Kublicki, poseł inflancki, jeden z najaktywniejszych działaczy stronnictwa proreformatorskiego w Sejmie") This source ([2]) gives Kublicki's name as Jan ("Za uzbrojoną rękę chwycił go znany wtedy szlachcic - siłacz, poseł inflancki Jan Kublicki, który rzeczywiście szybko szaleńca obezwładnił"), but I am having trouble verifying Kublicki's name it either way, the quotes given in the pl:Jan Suchorzewski's article, for example, give no hits outside Wikipedia... but the incident itself happened, it can be verified in some printed publications, like the one I cite with regards to Dekert's daughter above. Kublicki, without the first name given, is identified on the picture in this work: Państwowy Instytut Sztuki (Poland); Politechnika Warszawska. Zakład Architektury Polskiej; Stowarzyszenie Historyków Sztuki (1985). Biuletyn historii sztuki. p. 260. Retrieved 14 August 2011. ("Osobistość widoczna obok Suchorzewskiogo to poseł inflancki Kublicki, który obrońcę wolnej elekcji, protestującego trybem znanym z wystąpienia Rejtana, podniósł z ziemi i wyprowadził z tłumu pchających się do tronu posłów"). Kublicki and the child are identified on Hiuppo's map.
likely near Czetweryński (10), other opponent of the constitution include Antoni Złotnicki (source: [3] - "Marian Gorzkowski wymienia też inne postacie z otoczenia króla w obrazie: księcia Czetwertyńskiego, Złotnickiego i Matusiewicza"). Neither Kpalion nor Hiuppo's identify Złotnicki on their pictures. However, cited "Biuletyn historii sztuki", p. 260, confirms that and helps to identify them: "Przy królu w górnym szeregu Czetweryński, pod spodem Złotnicki, niżej w dole Branicki, a w dole Dworzak albo ksiadz Wofbauer. Przy Czweteryńskim w górze Turski, Piattoli i pod spodem Ignacy Potocki, pod nim Matusiewicz, a pod nim znowu Kołłątaj." Note that Dowrzak is a reference to Hofbauer. Assuming that Czweteryński is correctly identified as 10 (both Kpalion and Hiuffo), Ztotnicki is easily identified as the black-clad figure between him and the king (to his left) and Branicki (to his right). The other part is more problematic ("With Czweteryński above Turski, Piattoli and underneath Ignacy Potocki, under him Matusiewicz, and under him Kołłątaj again").
also, Matusiewicz - likely pl:Tadeusz Matuszewicz (PSB confirms alt spellings of his surname) - is mentioned by the same source as being present in the picture (source: [4] - as cited above). Neither Kpalion nor Hiuppo's identify Matusiewicz on their pictures. Now, the above quote "Ignacy Potocki, pod nim Matusiewicz, a pod nim znowu Kołłątaj." confirms he is in the picture... but where? Hiuppo and Kpalion identify Potocki as 9, but this is contradicted by the quote (there is nobody between 9 and Kołłątaj, and by the interklasa source). Now, if Potocki was 10,  I could very liberally see how Matusiewicz could be 9 and underneath him.
this source identified two figures: Above and betweem Kołlątaj (8) and Branicki (7) there is the Scipione Piattoli (pic), and to his right, Wojciech Turski (pic). Now, I have doubts about that part of the description: to start with, I think that the pictures are switched. Turski reference is messed up, Wojciech Turski doesn't have an article but is notable; he was not a bishop but rather, a chamberlain (and he looks similar to the pic attributed to Piattoli here: [5]). Either way, the priest figure could be Piattoli, with Turski, I'd be more careful, but he does look similar to the portrait. (source: [6] - "Na prawo w górę od Branickiego widzimy biskupa Wojciecha Turskiego, który wstępnie, jeszcze w sali zaprzysiągł króla na konstytucję, a tuż obok skromną sylwetkę księdza Scypiona Piattolego monarszego sekretarza, w którego mieszkaniu zamkowym redagowano tekst nowej ustawy.") Neither Kpalion nor Hiuppo's identify Turski or Piattoli on their pictures, but I did it below, although as Feliks Turski. I am not sure if Władysław Turski is in the painting at all...
there is further confusion there: Kpalion attributes figure 9 to Ignacy Potocki and figure 10 to Adam Kazimierz Czartoryski. But according to this source, 9 is Piattoli (I think, Turski...) and 10 is Potocki (pic). (source: [7] - "Wróćmy jednak do zwalistej postaci Kołłątaja. Kroczy za nim skromny, lecz wytworny, jeden z twórców Konstytucji, Ignacy Potocki.") However, both Kpalion's and Hiuppo identify them both as 9 - Potocki and 10 - Czartoryski. Now, if we keep in mind the "Ignacy Potocki, pod nim Matusiewicz, a pod nim znowu Kołłątaj.", one possible solution is that 10 is Potocki, and 9 is Matusiewicz. But...
Here is another quote from Biuletyn: "Za królem, poprzedzani przez biskupów Turskiego i Gorzeńskiego (jeden z nich trzyma Biblię, na którą król złożył juz przysięgę) postępują jego najbliżsi w dziele Konstytucji współpracownicy: Kołłataj, Piattolo, Ignacy Potocki i Adam Czartoryski. Pierwszy z nich gwałtownycm gestem obraca się ku scenie rozgrywającej się w bezpośrednim pobliżu procesji." This adds a lot of material. First of all, we have bishop Turski again. This source confirms that there was bishop Turski from Kraków, who swore in the king earlier, which fits the eduseek story. A little bit more digging identifies him as pl:Feliks Turski. Gorzeński refers to Tymoteusz Gorzeński. Now, this allows us to go back and identify  the bible-holding priest as either Feliks Turski or Tymoteusz Gorzeński. I am not sure which one of those, and I am not seeing a second priest there (other than Kołłątaj)...
Anyway, if we look at the quote "Ignacy Potocki, pod nim Matusiewicz, a pod nim znowu Kołłątaj." and "postępują jego najbliżsi w dziele Konstytucji współpracownicy: Kołłataj, Piattolo, Ignacy Potocki i Adam Czartoryski", the problem is we are dealing with 5 people. Kołłątaj is easily identified, and so is Turski/Gorzeński (priest with the bible). That still leaves the other from the group of Turski/Gorzeński , and for more, so five people altogether. Yet between Turski/Gorzeński and Kołłątaj there are only three people: unidentified black haired male in a hat, black haired male looking to the right,  and the white haired male in yellow/golden cape. I guess there also the male in blue vest holding the banner, part of his face is visible too. Only if we assume that the other from the Turski/Gorzeński is the figure behind Kołłątaj (to his left), mostly obscured, and include the blue vested guy, this description can make sense. To order them, the only thing we know is that Matusiewicz is over Kołłątaj (not helpful, since they all are) and Potocki, over Matusiewicz. If 10 is Czartoryski, Matusiewicz should be 9, since there is nobody that is under him. Thus, above, in the hat, would be Potocki, which would make Piattolo hold the flag... but that doesn't fit the priest, aaargh.
both Kpalion and Hiuppo identify the following additional individuals that are not mentioned in my sources so far: Aleksander Linowski, Elżbieta Grabowska, Dorothea von Medem (Dorothea Biron), Jan Kliński, Światopełk Czetwertyński (confirmed by Biuletyn historii sztuki, p.260), Adam Czartoryski, (confirmed by the same source), Ignacy Zakrzewski, Tadeusz Kościuszko (confirmed as the figure with the bandaged head in Sławomir Suchodolski, Dariusz Ostapowicz. Obalanie mitów i stereotypów. Od Jana III Sobieskiego do Tadeusza Kościuszki. Bellona. pp. 137–. GGKEY:Y8EFTRG2LL1. Retrieved 14 August 2011., Kazimierz Konopka (confirmed as the person with the french tricolor decoration and czekan by  Matejko: obrazy olejne : katalog ("Kazimierza Konopkę, z czekanem w ręku, przedstawionego jako jakobin z trójkolorową kokardą przy czapce")). and "a peasant".
--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  21:45, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Ummm... doesn't Hiuppo [8] have #1 and #11 flipped? Or at least #11 is wrong - that's Ciolek. Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:23, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

To make up for my pretty embarrassing mistake right above, I will compound it by offering the original thesis that the "Old Jew" in the painting is Matejko's auto portrait. Citation needed. Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:34, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Haven't seen anything suggesting this, and one source had some discussion of Jew's significance, so I think rather not. But he might have put himself somewhere else; there are many faces that need further identification. I doubt he would be wasting faces on nobodies... With the exception of the few famous personae, I do wonder how have others been identified, anyway? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  04:49, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
The only source I used was an exhibit label at the Royal Castle of Warsaw, where the painting is on display. I don't know how reliable it is, and it may be that some people are misidentified in my image or that more could be added. Piotrus has done a lot of good job browsing through other sources – and as is often the case with using multiple sources, they turn out to contradict each other! We'll probably need some more time and effort to reconcile them and once we're done, we can work on correcting my image – or creating a new one from scratch. — Kpalion(talk) 23:58, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

You will see I have changed the sizes & layout, but now you need details showing the centre left and right areas. Johnbod (talk) 10:46, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I restored the infobox and the section heading, as they are required by our manual of style. In particular, lead should only summarize the article, not contain unique claims. Also, I don't know what you mean by the needed details? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  18:20, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't know what you mean by "our" MoS - the main MoS has no such requirement and the visual arts one specifically cautions against the automatic use of inboxes, for the reason that applies here so strongly, namely that they often make the image unusably small. You are also misreading WP:LEAD.  By details I mean details of the painting, so that those readers who don't know the image by heart can actually see what is happening.  But I can see help is not welcome here, so I won't persevere. Johnbod (talk) 18:57, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
If you don't want to participate in a discussion to reach consensus, I cannot force you. I do agree that larger image is welcome, but I see no reason it cannot coexist with the also-useful infobox. As for WP:LEAD, no, I am pretty sure I am not misreading it: the lead should contain no original claims, as it should only summarize/provide an overview of the article that follows. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  19:10, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
I have asked for an updated illustration at the Graphic Lab here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 06:02, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Constitution of May 3, 1791 (painting)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Fang Aili (talk · contribs) 20:27, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

FYI, Here are some comments from Nikkimaria, who reviewed my review. --Fang Aili talk 16:24, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll fix and/or reply to various issues raised above soon. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 17:34, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately I am not a native English speaker. I don't know what is wrong with "Since 1984 the painting is in the collection of the Royal Castle in Warsaw, where Matejko declared that he would like the painting to be.", or "Unlike for most of his other large works with numerous historical figures, Matejko did not leave a legend for this painting."

Done, thank you for the suggestions. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 04:25, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Lead has been expanded with the suggest information.
The last paragraph is disjointed in that it attempts to address several unrelated points. Needs editing.
You are right. How about the new version? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 04:25, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
With regards to smaller questions, I've addressed all but the ones I reply to below:
You ask "Why "once again"" with regard to oath. I have rewritten this sentence with a more interesting detail (and in fact I am not sure where the original "oath, again" came from. Weird. The new version is fully supported by the ref cited.
You ask "Who restored it? How was it done?" I don't think the names of the people who worked on the restoration are important; I don't recall that they were given in the source (which I no longer have), nor that anything about the technique struck me as important. And frankly, I wouldn't know how to translate such specialist terminology, if it was present.
You're probably right; I struck out this objection above.
You ask ""Matejko's technique in this painting was subtly but noticeably different compared to his other paintings" ... How so?" I don't recall that he source explained that beyond what is included in this para; I was simply summarizing what the source said. If this raise more questions, I'd say that the source was simply not comprehensive enough.
You ask ""Matejko decided to make the title page more explicit—and at the same time put the name of the painting right in its center." ... If that is so, why is the name of the painting itself not standardized?"" I could speculate why, but I have no reliable sources for that.
Question--was Matejko making the name of the Constitution document explicit, not the name of his painting? If so, that would answer my question. It would mean that he was being extra clear about what he is illustrating, not giving a directive on what he wants his painting to be called.
Yes to your question. Would you have any suggestions how we can make it more clear in text? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 04:25, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
I eliminated some peackock terms were there were not 100% justified.
burgher transformed into regular wikipedia link .
"The painting is one of Matejko's best known works and is commonly seen as one of his masterpieces, an "education in national history." I assume you are not in a place you can access Google Book links. This work lists several of his paintings, calling them masterpieces (presumably listing the best known), and notes that his paintings became "an education in national history" (quotation marks indicate direct quote, obviously). Just in case, I've added another cite that clearly includes this painting among his best known works.
You ask: "This sentence is followed by, However, it was less well received by the contemporaries.. so is it only in modern times that the work is considered a masterpiece, etc? Who considers it so?" Well, those cited in the previous sentence, such as Reddaway or Rezler.
You are right. Please change it to "his contemporaries", though; this wording makes it flow better.
Done. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 04:25, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
You suggest: "When you introduce "Wrede et al.", provide the name of the work and why it is significant.", but I don't think it is common practice to discuss such information in the article. In fact, I am tempted to remove their mention from this sentence completely.
You're right about not needing to name the work; my mistake. If you leave it in I'd recommend editing it to say something like, "Historians Wrede, So-and-So, and Otherguy suggest that..." It will flow better this way.
I am not sure if they are historians; I've added "authors". --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 04:25, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
You ask: "I was left wondering why some characters were described when others were not. Why were some characters, apparently identifiable, left out of the guide picture? Is it because they are less historically important? If so, why would unnamed "old Jews" be identified, while other anonymous characters are not?" As far as I know the author of the illustration simply did not do as much research on this as I did for the article. Please note that (while this cannot be noted in the article), most if not all sources (at least, all the ones I run into) are not comprehensive, and I had to use several sources to arrive at the listing of persons we have. Also, I asked at Wikipedia:Graphic_Lab/Illustration_workshop#Constitution_of_May_3.2C_1791_.28painting.29 for help with updating the painting, but so far nobody is interested in helping.
 
I've moved the picture and added clarifications per the suggestion, but I disagree that the imperfect guide should prevent this painting from being a GA. Consider this: if we removed the guide and references to it, would you be objecting? Even through the article would be less informative? It is akin to saying that an article with a map should not be promoted, because the map is not very good. I believe that we do not require illustrations to be perfect. It is nice, but it is dealt with through Good / Featured images, and articles do not require such quality images to be Good / Featured. We simply require sufficient illustrations, which in this case is present, though the picture of the painting itself. The guide is an added bonus, which while imperfect still goes above and beyond our requirements. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 04:25, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
You ask: "Why is this painting considered an "iconic" representation of the event? Did other painters attempt such representations?". They did. I just spent half an hour trying to find a single clear cite in which this work would be called the iconic, or best know representation of the constitution, and failed. While I am pretty sure this is the case, per WP:V, I'll remove the iconic claim from the lead. I'll replace it with "a well known representation" instead, which is certainly the case.
I'll add a section expanding on the C3M significance shortly. I don't think we need to add Matejko's bio sketch here, interested editors can just click on his article... I can see why a section on the event in the painting would be relevant and helpful, but a bio of the artist seems to me too detailed for an article like this.
I wasn't thinking that a whole section was needed, and now I'm thinking it might actually be overkill. As for a Matejko bio, here also I was thinking a 1-3 sentence summary of his painting style, perhaps, which would support the bit about his changing styles for this painting. I'm open to more discussion on this point.
I don't know where a non-section would could fit. You are welcome to cut away pieces you consider redundant. As for his bio, I don't believe I have found anything relevant in the sources discussing the painting; there are some generalities but to try them with the critique present could be ORish. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 04:25, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
PS. Please let me know if I haven't addressed any of your comments (sufficiently), and if so, please strike out all the issues that have been resolved to your satisfaction. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 23:20, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
The section headers need to be renamed. Maybe "Historical background" for the section on the Constitution itself, and just "Significance" for the other.
I also feel like this article is incomplete without at least a mention of other painters' attempts to represent this moment. It doesn't need to be long. --Fang Aili talk 20:57, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Which headers you'd change so? I will still disagree about other painters' attempts. Consider a random famous picture, let's say - Mona Lisa. Do you think that article should include a description of woman in art? Or even smile in art? If this was an article about Constitution of 3 May in art, I'd fully agree with you. It is not, however.
Thank you for all of your comments and suggestions! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 04:25, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Okay, since it seems that Fang has become inactive, I'm going to finish up this review. There's some copy-editing needed - for example "Like many of Matejko's works, is a grand scene populated with numerous historical figures", "as potrayed". I also think the "History" header may need to be changed - "Display", perhaps? Is any further information available on modern reception? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:57, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Fixed the two grammar/typo errors. Display would be fine for the second part; I think history better sums up both para (creation and display, perhaps?). I was not able to find more info on the modern reception, it's one of those cases where everybody knows about it, but most just say nothing of consequence (or are not reliable sources). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 15:04, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Okay. I'd still like to see some more copy-editing done here - I've done the lead. Creation and display would work for that section. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:49, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
I am not a native English speaker; I will ask some people to take a look at it (I've done it in the past but I guess they didn't do any edits). I am afraid I cannot really fix those issues myself. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 16:06, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
In the List of Characters section, the second list with those who "are identified by the historians but are not included in the guide picture", the name "Stanisław Kublicki" is listed twice: second on that list, and last on the list. Are these really two different people, and if so, are they related or not? This needs to be clarified; if they're the same person, the entries need to be merged. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:30, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

That's the same person, good catch, how could I've missed that... fortunately it's all referring to the single figure on the painting, I've unified the description. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 16:06, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Two editors did a c/e for the article (thank you, Malik and Nihil). I hope it is better now? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 03:54, 16 April 2012 (UTC)