Talk:John Michael Wright

message: Dear fellow contributors
MOSNUM no longer encourages date autoformatting, having evolved over the past year or so from the mandatory to the optional after much discussion there and elsewhere of the disadvantages of the system. Related to this, MOSNUM prescribes rules for the raw formatting, irrespective of whether or not dates are autoformatted. MOSLINK and CONTEXT are consistent with this. 
There are at least six disadvantages in using date-autoformatting, which I've capped here:
Removal has generally been met with positive responses by editors. I'm seeking feedback about this proposal to remove it from the main text (using a script) in about a week's time on a trial basis/ The original input formatting would be seen by all WPians, not just the huge number of visitors; it would be plain, unobtrusive text, which would give greater prominence to the high-value links. Tony (talk) 08:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to remove date-autoformatting 

message: Can it be valid to describe anyone in the seventeenth century as British: there was no such nation at that time.  I read the controversy over unequivocally describing him as English or Scottish, but surely in the absence of categorical evidence, we should omit nationality rather than make an historically inaccurate attribution.  I am alerted to the article from TFA: the preceding day's TFA has no difficulty in avoiding any declarationon nationality, so it is not essential.   Kevin McE (talk) 00:38, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It clearly is an anachronism. Before the creation of the Kingdom of Great Britain in 1707, the word 'British' was used, but it usually referred to the ancient Britons or to the contemporary Welsh. For Wright, may I suggest "Anglo-Scottish"? Moonraker2 (talk) 01:22, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

text: Anglo-Scottish is a made up word. Whilst the "Kingdom of Great Britain" didn't legally exist before 1707, the concept of Britain did, and it did not refer to "ancient Britons or Welsh". In 1606, James VI and I was proclaimed "King of Great Britain and Ireland". In any case, we are not trying to communicate with people who lived prior to 1707, but to modern readers who get the sense of what we mean by British.--Scott Mac 01:34, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: If this were harmless, I might tend to agree that what matters is communication with "modern readers", and there is no other kind, I suppose, but it isn't harmless. From describing a 17th century man as "British", contributors begin to describe 17th century institutions as "British", when they weren't, and that misleads people and may even help them to fail examinations. James I did of course try to promote the concept of Britain as a political as well as a geographical entity, but he had little success, apart from the creation of a Union Flag which was used mostly at sea. I agree that in the 17th century the word "Britain" did not refer to "ancient Britons or Welsh", but the word "British" generally did, as an adjective for the island of Great Britain was hardly ever needed. That is not the important point here, it's a rather minor one. Moonraker2 (talk) 08:51, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

text: I would avoid "British" here; he was apparently English by birth and later residence, and described himself also as Scottish, despite not really spending long there. His family may have been more Scottish than we realize. There's nothing wrong with "English and Scottish" Johnbod (talk) 13:24, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

text: You already have been! You are perhaps unaware of the extreme sensitivity of this issue on WP - see talk at Francis Bacon (painter) and Art of the United Kingdom etc. Usually the complainers have a far worse case than here. You do not find books on "British Medieval Art" but on English, and occasionally Scottish or Irish, art. In the early modern period it is a bit different, but for example Ellis Waterhouse mostly covers Scotland in seperate chapters or sections until long after the Act of Union. Johnbod (talk) 15:55, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Could I suggest that the article should state that he was 'either English or Scottish' and have a note that explains how 'the way he signed made the matter uncertain in the light of lack of hard evidence of his nationality'? Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 17:44, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of us here agree on avoiding "British". Fishiehelper2's suggestion of "either English or Scottish" is a little like mine of "Anglo-Scottish". Perhaps, as someone suggested, the answer is not to state a nationality in the lead. In reply to "British as is pertaining to the British Islands or various British national authorities", there was no British nation and there were no British authorities, that's why this is such a slippery slope. Once we start to go down it, it leads to very unhappy distortions of the truth. Moonraker2 (talk) 20:13, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

text: It is usual to say something, & if you leave it out people will only add it. He is not "either English or Scottish" but "English and Scottish"; I can't imagine why anyone would object to him being described as English. What he was not was British.  Johnbod (talk) 23:16, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No sources say he was English AND Scottish. Actually most merely call him English. What is important is that he was indigenous to the British Isles as opposed to Continental. But please don't make sudden changes here on the eve of a TFA. It has been settled for 4 years, and a FA process. So, let's agree a form of words rather than sudden changes. We need to retain the sense of him NOT being European but important indigenous. Can you suggest a form of words that does that?--Scott Mac 23:25, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not make "sudden change": I raised the matter on the talk page as soon as I became aware of it, and 23 hours later, having found that the majority of contributors to the discussion agreed, made what seemed to be the least controversial possible incorporation of the change that most agreed was necessary. It happened just before TFA precisely because errors on the main page should be avoided, and if they can only be avoided at the 11th hour, that is better than not at all. Kevin McE (talk) 23:55, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

text: Actually the Getty ULAN, which is generally the best source on these matters, says just that, though I admit they have "British" as "preferred", though then calling him  just "English" in their heading. Johnbod (talk) 23:30, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Again, we could just call him "English" and allow the Scottish stuff to speak for itself in the body. But you just know some people would object to that. My main point is I don't want to loose the stress he was indigenous to the British nations, as that's actually quite remarkable for a painter favoured at the court at that time. I can be flexible on the wording if someone can find a way to reconcile that. However he was not "Anglo-Scottish" which is something quite different.--Scott Mac 23:35, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: How about: "John Michael Wright (May 1617 – July 1694)[2] was a portrait painter in the Baroque style who described himself as both English and Scottish. Probably born in London, Wright trained in Edinburgh under the Scots painter George Jamesone, and acquired a considerable reputation as an artist and scholar during a long sojourn in Rome. ...." Johnbod (talk) 23:45, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I could live with that. Although "who described himself variously as English and Scottish" would be more accurate or "described himself at various times as either..." or perhaps "described himself interchangeably as ...". (He never described himself as "both English and Scottish" - but used one or the other). We then would keep all references to "indigenous" but without any qualifier being needed.--Scott Mac 23:51, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I still think "British" is better btw, and Getty supports me.--Scott Mac 23:53, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This seemed to come to a fairly abrupt stop.  I have put Scott's second favourite who described himself variously as English and Scottish in as being that which seems to best fit the observations of others, and gone with his indigenous without other qualification (not sure that I like this: everyone is indigenous to somewhere: I would have preferred rated as one of the leading painters from the British Isles of his generation, but I'll defer)  Kevin McE (talk) 07:33, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  British? 

message: Clicked on the article and expected to see the man himself in the top portrait, but instead I see that...Oh well me being scared is irrelevant, but shouldn't a self-portrait of the man himself be in the lead? Τασουλα (Shalom!) (talk) 11:57, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: None exists.--Scott Mac 12:11, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, that's a shame. Did one possibly exist at one time? (And you know that Witch is going to boil those children alive, just look at her...?) --Τασουλα (Shalom!) (talk) 13:15, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Lots of things are possible long ago. However, I have never seen any image mentioned in any of the research I have read.--Scott Mac 14:51, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

text: Self-evidently it would be good. Trust me, there is none. I've read most of the works on him (there are not many) no pictures whatsoever.--Scott Mac 16:53, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The man's a mystery. Still, the wicked witch of the west will do as it is his work. (My nickname for her, original? Perhaps not, I like the painting but it still creeps me out) I love the article by the way so good job. --Τασουλα (Shalom!) (talk) 20:11, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  My god that's scary. 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on John Michael Wright. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090120082934/http://www.nationalgalleries.org/common/search/?globalSearch=John+Michael+Wright&submit=&submit=1 to http://www.nationalgalleries.org/common/search/?globalSearch=John+Michael+Wright&submit=&submit=1
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:44, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on John Michael Wright. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110718023542/http://www.weissgallery.com/DesktopDefault.aspx?tabid=52&tabindex=51&objectid=32757&categoryid=2636 to http://www.weissgallery.com/DesktopDefault.aspx?tabid=52&tabindex=51&objectid=32757&categoryid=2636
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nationalgalleries.org/common/search/?globalSearch=John%20Michael%20Wright&submit=&submit=1
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:37, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on John Michael Wright. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080511234015/http://www.piobmhor-of-scotland.co.uk/hdhistory.htm to http://www.piobmhor-of-scotland.co.uk/hdhistory.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:08, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on John Michael Wright. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110516094618/http://www.huntsearch.gla.ac.uk/cgi-bin/foxweb/huntsearch/DetailedResults.fwx?collection=all&SearchTerm=555&mdaCode=GLAHA&reqMethod=Link to http://www.huntsearch.gla.ac.uk/cgi-bin/foxweb/huntsearch/DetailedResults.fwx?collection=all&SearchTerm=555&mdaCode=GLAHA&reqMethod=Link
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:38, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018) 

message: I've been reading this article to check the Portuguese version, and noticed that in the second paragraph of the section "Antiquarian for Leopold of Austria", there is a Spanish quote from Wright's passport: "Juan Miguel Rita, pintor Ingles, qua va a Inglaterra a procurar pinturas, medalas, antiguedades, y otras costa señaladas, que le hemosencargado..." There are some mistakes in the Spanish text, which I don't know actually existed in the original passport, or were made in the preparation of the article:
*Ingles -> Inglés
*antiguedades -> antigüedades
*costa -> cosas
*hemosencargado -> hemos encargado
Since it's a featured article, I preferred not to make myself the revision, and request the English contributors to evaluate the subject. Claudio M Souza (talk) 01:48, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spanish quote