Talk:Anna van Egmont

message: I see templates going to and fro, edit warring and a talkpage full of walls of text. I agree with the Banner, sort of, that possible portraits do not belong on this page, since it is about the woman herself. Possible unknown portraits are very suitable on a page on the painter, not on the page about a historical figure. That being said, if I see either of you reverting the other once more, I shall not hesitate to report both of you. Thank you for your cooperation. Kleuske (talk) 18:33, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: @Kleuske: you seemed to have missed that the painting already has it's own article: Portrait of a Noble Young Lady (Pourbus), and you even didn't remove the image of the painting that you wanted removed, so I will restore the mess. I have asked for a perhaps more informed opinion by a more or less involved sysop (see below), so please do not revert before Hoary's opinion is given. Thanks, Eissink (talk) 19:10, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: So? A see-also link is enough. Better than the present speculation. The Banner talk 19:26, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

text: Starting yet another edit war seems a distinctly bad idea, so rest assured, I know the difference between WP:BOLD and WP:3RR. Given the fact that an article already exists, however, only serves to stress the point that the text you restored serves no purpose in an article on a historical figure. A brief mention may be in order, not an entire section. Kleuske (talk) 19:28, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  I didn't say the text couldn't be shorter (or better), but the removals by both of you were brutal and left no space for anything. I might not have interfered if Kleuske's removal hadn't been sloppy, leaving the image, but here we are. I hope you will accept and await the opinion of Hoary, who has shown a deeper interest in the painting's article. When paintings of important historical figures, as Anna van Egmont, are rare (only one of her is confirmed), possible new discovered paintings can be a significant addition to a biographical article, not in the least for readers. Eissink (talk) 19:34, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: So we have a consensus that a short mention is all that is warranted in this article, especially since we have an article on the portrait itself, which can and should include all the details. Righty-ho. Also, I do not much appreciate terms like “brutal” and “sloppy” here. It does seem to imply a lack of good faith. Kleuske (talk) 19:43, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please don't read too much in those words. 'Brutal' because it left no room for the consensus you just now allege, and 'sloppy' because it was, eh, sloppy, leaving the picture without any reference. No hard feelings. Eissink (talk) 19:47, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  We have an entire talk page of editors, including you, failing to reach any form of compromise or consensus, we have editors templating each others talk pages and edit warring in the article and you do no see any difference between WP:BOLD and brutally leaving no room for consensus? Hard feelings. Very hard feelings. Kleuske (talk) 19:55, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  But I wasn't even involved in the dialogue the last couple of days. Nor were you, by the way. Eissink (talk) 19:59, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I don’t care. You’re as much a part of this godawful mess as the others. I merely came here because warning templates were flying around and I hate reporting users for edit warring. An apology seems fitting. Kleuske (talk) 20:04, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not sure who you are addressing. What do you want an apology for? Eissink (talk) 20:11, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am addressing you, as the indentation suggests. If you do not know what to apologize for, reread my remarks above. Kleuske (talk) 20:13, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  For using the word 'sloppy'? In Dutch I would have said 'slordig' – should I have said 'onzorgvuldig', 'careless'? Well, read 'careless', if that makes you feel better. And I already explained what I meant by using the words I chose, so I don't know what your goal is, but there is nothing for me to further apologize for. Please calm down. Eissink (talk) 20:21, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Your remarks were uncivil, your actions in this mess less than commendable and if you do not know the word “brutal” and it’s implications, look it up. You failed to assume good faith by your assumption I would revert on sight, implied my opinions are uninformed whilst being involved in this mess from the get-go. You are hardly in a position to tell me to “calm down”. Kleuske (talk) 20:31, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  I did not imply your opinions are uninformed. Asking for a third opinion, as I did, was because you had already chosen not to seek a midway consensus (you removed all the text). I used 'brutal' in the sense of 'crude' (lomp), like 'coarse', being not subtle (seeking a middle way would have been subtle). As for the rest of your remarks: you are entitled to your opinion, but I don't recognize myself in your judgments, not at all. Have a good night. Eissink (talk) 20:37, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

text: I was talking about the character of the edits, not about persons. And I think you are overreacting tremendously. And there is no list above. Your allegations are totally unreasonable. Eissink (talk) 20:59, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: To reach a compromise, I have added a "third opinion"-request at the dedicated platform. For an independent opinion. The Banner talk 20:01, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: A compromise and a third opinion are not the same thing. Besides, by my count, Eissink requested a fifth opinion, and you number six. Judging from the above, and repeating myself, it seems we do have a consensus that a short mention is in order, but the entire paragraph belongs in the article about the actual painting, were the fact is hardly mentioned at all. Kleuske (talk) 20:11, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It might be a case of semantics, but in my opinion is a third opinion/third party opinion, an opinion from someone not prior involved in the discussion. The Banner talk 20:14, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

text: If you want the bread-and-butter pudding, look at my edit from 19:26, 24 August 2020. The Banner talk 20:31, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cut it out 

message: Hoary, since you have been engaged in Portrait of a Noble Young Lady (Pourbus), could you perhaps help out here? There has been a very unfortunate edit war going on, unfortunate especially because it involves not just details, but bluntly a whole paragraph. My estimate is that there should be room to mention the Portrait of a Noble Young Lady – what would you say? Thanks, Eissink (talk) 19:02, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Asking for third opinion 

message: I can find no evidence that Marc Couwenbergh is an art historian. Not to mention being a notable art historian. The Banner talk 16:47, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have any evidence that Marc Couwenbergh was/is an art historian? The Banner talk 09:55, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Couwenbergh art historian 

message: I'm struck by apparent carelessness aside from the matter of portraiture. Here, I'll merely comment on the name of the biographee -- I could have commented on other matters as well.
*Anna van Egmont (March 1533 – 24 March 1558), better known as Anna van Buren
If this is true, I'd expect the article to be titled "Anna van Buren". This does not mean that it must be so titled -- there could be a good reason for it not to be -- but it's distinctly odd.
At least twice in the article she's referred to as "Anna van Egmond", with a "d" at the end.
In the (disputed) second on portraits, she's referred to as "Anne Van Egmont", with a capital "V".
Couwenbergh is approvingly cited, but he refers to her has "Anna van Bueren", with an extra "e".
I wouldn't be surprised if each of these ways of writing the name was used at the time and therefore that they're all "correct". I also know that in English of around the same period, people insouciantly varied the spelling of a name even within the same short document; so no surprise if this was common in Dutch too. But we're writing for the 21st century, so please use one version of the name (other than in direct quotations), while acknowledging that the others exist and not pretending that the one version is the best. -- Hoary (talk) 01:34, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The funny thing is that the Dutch, German, Spanish and French article do not call her "better known as Anna van Buren". But when I remove that, I get templated for edit warring. The Banner talk 09:53, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  General carelessness 

message: I've made quite a pile of grumpy comments about carelessness and other problems in material that mostly turns out to be by .
I don't retract any of it, but I'd like to put it in context. This version, of 30 July 2019, is the last before Emigré55 arrived. It says that she was "countess" of this and "lady" of that, without saying what, if anything, either of these meant. (Just "wife of a 'count'" and "wife of a 'lord'", perhaps?) And it says something about breeding: she was the daughter of X and Y, and the mother of A, B, and C (two of whom had "no issue"). And that's all. So just 13 months ago she sounded like a mere item in a pedigree chart. None of this came with any reference whatever.
I have never pretended to be interested in "nobility", and this woman still seems a blank to me. But perhaps some of the passion displayed on this talk page could beneficially be diverted into digging up significant things to say about her, and backing these up with solid references. All the best! -- Hoary (talk) 02:47, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: You suggest to revert to the version of 04:52, 30 July 2019‎?? The Banner talk 21:46, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  So, what can be said about her? 

message: Is there any evidence that he is really an art historian? As of now, he just seems to be a blog-writer and not a reliable source. The Banner talk 09:34, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I am afraid you do not look for the right sources in Google on this author. Or want to deliberately ignore them?? Just read, for instance, here: "Marc Couwenbergh, Journalist specializing in art - Marc Couwenbergh - Biography : Marc Couwenbergh (1958) is a political scientist and writes about art, culture and history as a journalist. Marc has written several books on these topics." (translated into English from the Dutch page).Sorry --Emigré55 (talk) 19:39, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

text: Another source on Couwenbergh, commenting on one of his book about Vermeer and the women (not art history? really??). Sorry----Emigré55 (talk) 19:39, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marc Couwenbergh 

message: I therefore propose the following wording for this paragraph:
 
=== The portraits of Anna Van Egmont ===
The only painting depicting Anne Van Egmont in the royal collections of Hollandhttps://www.koninklijkeverzamelingen.nl/collectie-online/?mode=gallery&view=gallery&q=Marcus%20Gheeraerts&page=1&reverse=0 could in fact be a copy of a lost painting.
The "Portrait of a noble young Lady", painted by Pieter Pourbus, exhibited for the first time in 2017 in Bruges, (en) Anne Van Oosterwijk (et al.), Forgotten Masters. Pieter Pourbus and Bruges painting from 1525 to 1625, Groeningen Museum, October 13, 2017 - January 21, 2018. ed. : SNOECK GENT. Exhibition catalog, 336 pages.  then at the Gouda museum in 2018, (fr) (nl) Marc De Beyer and Josephina De Fauw, Pieter Pourbus, Master painter of Gouda, 2018 February 17 - June 17 2108. Gouda Museum. Exhibition catalog, 86 pages.  could be the portrait of Anna van Egmont, as mentioned by the RKD  https://rkd.nl/en/explore/images/284496 .
Further information on Portrait of a Noble Young Lady: Portrait of a Noble Young Lady (Pourbus)
-----
* Oppose' The last source is a desperate attempt to reintroduce a link to the blogposts of Marc Couwenbergh, already shot down at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive_314#Marc Couwenbergh as being unreliable. The Banner talk 13:00, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: As usual I am wrong in your view, but the RKD-source is still based on the shot down blog post. The Banner talk 14:31, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  RKD is a reliable source for art history 

message: The only painting depicting Anne Van Egmont in the royal collections of Hollandhttps://www.koninklijkeverzamelingen.nl/collectie-online/?mode=gallery&view=gallery&q=Marcus%20Gheeraerts&page=1&reverse=0 could in fact be a copy of a lost painting.
The "Portrait of a noble young Lady", painted by Pieter Pourbus, exhibited for the first time in 2017 in Bruges, (en) Anne Van Oosterwijk (et al.), Forgotten Masters. Pieter Pourbus and Bruges painting from 1525 to 1625, Groeningen Museum, October 13, 2017 - January 21, 2018. ed. : SNOECK GENT. Exhibition catalog, 336 pages.  then at the Gouda museum in 2018, (fr) (nl) Marc De Beyer and Josephina De Fauw, Pieter Pourbus, Master painter of Gouda, 2018 February 17 - June 17 2108. Gouda Museum. Exhibition catalog, 86 pages.  could be the portrait of Anna van Egmont, as mentioned by the RKD  https://rkd.nl/en/explore/images/284496 .
Further information on Portrait of a Noble Young Lady: Portrait of a Noble Young Lady (Pourbus)
</div>
-----
* Oppose' The last source is a desperate attempt to reintroduce a link to the blogposts of Marc Couwenbergh, already shot down at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive_314#Marc Couwenbergh as being unreliable. The Banner talk 13:00, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: As usual I am wrong in your view, but the RKD-source is still based on the shot down blog post. The Banner talk 14:31, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  The portraits of Anna Van Egmont