Talk:Et in Arcadia ego (Poussin)

message: The interlanguage links on this article need to be fixed having here English, French and German entries while there are more available languages including a duplicate version of German for which I provide the link:
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Et_in_Arcadia_ego
--------------------------------------------------  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.43.229.160 (talk) 15:24, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm inclined to agree with anonymous here. I don't know if I'd call them "weasel words" since I've never liked the term and I don't think everyone at wikipedia agrees on what it means. However, the use of the word "pseudohistorian", for example, is POV. Pseudohistory is defined by wikipedia as a pejorative term, and while I agree that only dumbasses or those with an agenda would look too much into the meaning of the phrase, going so far as to affirm there's a conspiracy in there somewhere, it still doesn't change the fact that the "Conspiracy Theories" section is not very NPOV. SaulPerdomo 00:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article issues

message: Is it worth mentioning that the landscape in the painting is real? People thought that Poussin had invented it but it really exists in the French Pyrennes. This is one of the very few true discoveries made by the Holy Blood, Holy Grail authors. I think that there really is a tomb there too. Not sure if anyone's ever looked inside.  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 17:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It may well be real, but it's not the one at Rennes le Chateau. Read the article. Paul B 17:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Real Landscape 

message: I have tagged this as lacking sources. It frequently accuses "Holy blood, Holy Grail" of being "under a false impression" or other such things. I do not neccessarily disagree that the book is innaccurate but there are no sources to back up the sweeping statements made about Latin grammar AreaControl (talk) 14:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, the authors make no mention that they feel the phrase is grammatically incorrect, only that a direct English translation lacks a verb.67.190.86.13 (talk) 05:33, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Conspiracy theories

message: Someone has moved the title, acting on misplaced self-confidence but ignorant of the fact that Arcadia is a place, and places get capital letters. A return to the correct title Et in Arcadia ego could not be effected. A grown-up's help is needed. --Wetman (talk) 09:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there a policy on this?  Classical Latin did not use capitals at the beginning of sentences, or indeed punctuation at all, so "et in arcadia ego" or, more monumentally, "ET IN ARCADIA EGO", would be the way to go, if we were to be pedantic enough to follow them. Johnbod (talk) 09:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Arcadia is a ''place''

message: A recent edit swept away the bulleted list of uses of the phrase, most of them part of adult culture since the Renaissance: was this a step forward?--Wetman (talk) 03:59, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think so. Someone could have assembled the various quotes into a paragraph describing literary and popular usages of the phrase. I don't have time to do it but I kept a copy of the list. Timothy Perper (talk) 14:25, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  A trivial list? 

message: Never seen such undocumented bullshit and tomfoolery on one page - you wikis are useful idiots,  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.16.43.133 (talk) 23:15, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bullshit 

message: Specifically, the "Proposed hidden meanings" section.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ari (talk • contribs) 21:06, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No, but does need to be rewritten to remove POV and add citations.67.190.86.13 (talk) 05:33, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  How about removing the speculative nonsense? 

message: The 'Other appearances' section is comprised mostly of entries that are based on WP:Original Research. They either (1) lack a reference or (2) are based on a primary source rather than a published interpretation of the meaning and notability of the work. I'd like to see this section culled down to notable entries with supporting secondary sources. In the meantime, I've tagged the section for OR. —Waldhorn (talk) 00:13, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other appearances - original research and notability 

message: According to this very encyclopaedia Poussin's Les Bergers d’Arcadie is c. late 1630s, while Barbieri's The Arcadian Shepherds/Et in Arcadia ego is c. 1618–1622. Seems inappropriate to credit Poussin so prominently in the opening paragraph.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bnulat (talk • contribs) 08:15, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Earliest reference? 

message: This painting's title is NOT "Et in arcadia ego"! This page should be moved to "Le Bergers d'Arcadie". " Et in arcadia ego" is Guercino's one, madre before this (so, at least, that should be this page, with this one linked by disambiguation advert), this one features the same inscription but goes by another title.-94.35.9.155 (talk) 07:50, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Et in Arcadia ego. 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://www.webcitation.org/69vnNSyHs?url=http://www.galleriaborghese.it/barberini/it/arcadia.htm to http://www.galleriaborghese.it/barberini/it/arcadia.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) 01:20, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified