Talk:Las Meninas/Archive 2

Archive

Talk page is getting rather long. Material prior to "Key by numbers" seems to be resolved. Can it be archived, or, if not, what talk is now archivable? Tyrenius (talk) 18:07, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll also delete the two redundant "number key" images, unless anyone has a reason to retain them. Tyrenius (talk) 18:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The first 2 images aren't needed, but I think the rest of the talk should stay until the FA process is over. Not all the points may be resolved. Johnbod (talk) 18:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Done it. Moved the sections that I thought were resolved. Samuel Sol (talk) 13:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Query

"the achondroplastic German Maribarbola (4),[25] and the Italian Nicolas Pertusato (5)" Is German a first name, or a descriptive, applied to someone with just one name? I suspect the latter, but it reads like the former. Either way it's unclear. Also, I presume only the former is being described as achondroplastic... not sure this detail, missing from the latter, is useful. Could be dropped altogether or put into reference 25. --Dweller (talk) 19:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I've added commas:

the achondroplastic German, Maribarbola (4), and the Italian, Nicolas Pertusato (5),

I think this clarifies it. Tyrenius (talk) 20:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, she was German. Johnbod (talk) 20:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Cool. --Dweller (talk) 20:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Arts & crafts

After at least one rewording, we have now ended up with: " In seventeenth-century Spain, painters rarely enjoyed high social status. The art of painting was regarded as a craft, inferior to the higher arts such as poetry or music. ref name=”Dambe” Dambe, Sira. “Enslaved sovereign: aesthetics of power in Foucault, Velazquez and Ovid”. Journal of Literary Studies, December, 2006.</ref "

I suspect this is overstating matters rather, but don't have the reference. The Spanish monarchs had been about the most consistently appreciative of painting in Europe for over a century, & the careers of El Greco, Jusepe de Ribera & V himself suggest the grandees and the church often also had sophisticated tastes. El Greco lived in notably grand style & Ribera was able to marry his daughter to a fairly elevated noble. Philip II treated a number of artists lavishly, though the Italians rather better than the Spanish natives. But I think there were distinctions between minor and major arts etc. Apart from these & Zurbaran, there weren't many Spanish painters who deserved "high social status" frankly. Johnbod (talk) 03:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

This article is available online. The key paragraph appears to be

Critical scholarship has found it particularly useful to consider the intention of Las Meninas in the light of the thinking that informed Velazquez's time and location. In Golden Age Spain, the art of painting, still relegated to the rank of craft, had not yet been accorded equal status with the higher arts, such as music or poetry, a situation that provoked much debate in contemporary intellectual circles. Jonathan Brown, for instance, argues that Las Meninas was intended to function as a strong statement by the artist precisely on this issue. (6) The painting's brilliant handling of techniques, composition and concept was designed to convey incontrovertible proof of the nobility of this art. In a series of observations aimed at offering an alternative reading to what he regards as Foucault's ill-judged interpretation, Brown remarks that, in the context of Velazquez's epoch and personal situation as court painter, it is unthinkable that he might have considered placing a hypothetical spectator in the space designated for the king.

While this is a literary journal, the reference is to Brown, author of e.g. "On the Meaning of Las Meninas. In: Images and Ideas in Seventeenth-Century Spanish Painting." Strictly speaking I suppose it says nothing about painters' social status; how about removing the "high social status" part and making it one sentence? Ear Mite (talk) 04:39, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes - in fact painters got much more from the court than writers. I just feel that to describe painting as viewed as a "craft" is at best an over-simplification. In tax terms, I believe that, after a row, painters won exemption from a tax paid on the products of artisans, and I've also read that Velazquez was unable to charge anyone for paintings for reasons of social status or his court position. The battle to have painting included among the liberal arts as opposed to the manual or mechanical ones, had been won in Italy well over a century before, and I wonder if Spain was really that far behind. Johnbod (talk) 18:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Velazquez' right...or left

To be filed under the heading of We've all been looking at this painting too long: among the minor alterations in the painting described by Lopez-Rey was that V. had sketched himself at first with his head bent to his right rather than to his left as he appears in the painting. Of course, if V. was working from a mirror, as do most artists when painting a self-portrait, these directions would be reversed. I am happy to let the published scholarship take precedent over my observation--I'm beginning to see the dwarf Maribarbola in my dreams. JNW (talk) 00:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

It's the old stage-right or your-right issue; at least it's not a print, or there would be another layer of reversal.... Personally i think we may be neglecting the dog, but .... let sleeping dogs lie, I suppose. 00:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnbod (talk • contribs)

Sleeping, indeed. Although the literature describes it as a mastiff, I'm thinking more along the lines of a steroid-enhanced chihuahua. Merely trying to find humor in the canine realm--today I was bitten by one while walking near home! JNW (talk) 00:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Commiserations - probably just as well it was not a Spanish mastiff (where the piped link goes), though the one in the photo there looks pretty sleepy too. Johnbod (talk) 01:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations

Congratulations to all the editors on FA status for this article; well done! - PKM (talk) 19:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd just come here to say the same thing! Tyrenius (talk) 00:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Featured article par excellence! Modernist (talk) 12:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not an art aficionado, but this article drew me in - wonderful choice to feature. One thing - I can sort of see the reason for repeating the line, but the repetition at the end of Composition threw me.Aldan19018 (talk) 02:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Edit counter

Click here. Unfortunately February doesn't work as yet. Tyrenius (talk) 02:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Congrats; on the image in the curved mirror

Whereas the reflection in the Flemish painting recomposed objects and characters within a space that is condensed and deformed by the curve of the mirror, that of Velázquez refuses to play with the laws of perspective: it projects onto the canvas the perfect double of the king and queen positioned in front of the painting.--From Lucien Dällenbach (1977). Le récit spéculaire

• I now this is a direct quotation, but seems too me is in too much (typical) French-style writing, and is translated to boot. I've studied this painting, particularly it's perspectival issues, and I'm not quite sure what he's saying, and I don't want to edit the passage on a hunch. Since it's a block ref--and it truly is a convoluted thought--could anyone put in a sentence afterwards that essentially means "what he's saying is..."

• I attended a conference at the Grad School of the City University of New York, devoted entirely to perspective in the arts. Someone there, a specialist in optical theory from some university, doped out that the image on the curved mirror, at that distance--which could be roughly ascertained based on the vanishing range of Velazquez himself and the man at the half-open door--is impossible. I believe the basis of his argument was not the reflection produced by the curvature of the mirror, but that there simply would not be enough light. I hope the hell I can find any of the printed notes from the conference, of even remember the guy's name.

This is an important point given the stress paid to the curvature of the mirror as a symbol. I believe it is overstated (those mirrors were fairly common), but this is for another discussion. --Best, Shlishke (talk) 21:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Personally (& see Aldan comment 2 up) I think I would be happy if all the quote up to and including "Moreover" were cut. Johnbod (talk) 02:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

work in progress

{{Las Meninas}}

What do you think? Use your cursoe to investigate the picture Victuallers (talk) 12:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Nice- I think we should keep the numbered one too, but presumably this could be the lead pic? Points: 2 ffs in mastiff, D for dona (imho anyway). Johnbod (talk) 13:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

thx:2 ffs - true. However the lower case d is from the article I think Victuallers (talk) 13:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

fair enough, all should go upper-case I think though. Johnbod (talk) 13:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I made the changes and tried to put it in the infobox... it didnt want to go. Any ideas? Rollback is OK Victuallers (talk) 17:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd say zap the infbox, but I'm very trigger-happy where they are concerned. Better see what others think. Johnbod (talk) 17:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Nice work, Victuallers! "Chaperone" was spelt with and without a final "e" in the article. I have made it uniform, with an "e". Your text under the image has that "e"; let's make sure we maintain consistency. Both spellings appear to be recognised everywhere.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 22:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Its brilliant! Thank you Victuallers. Ceoil (talk) 14:52, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. It does not work on my browser.

Birthday

On June 6, 2008, Google used a variation of Las Meninas as its logo to honor Velázquez's birthday.

"Grouped and ranked according to what they see"

Steinberg proposes that the figures in the image are organized into three triangles ranked by who they are observing. In his words: "Begin at the foreground, right of center, where we--or rather our royal neighbors-- are eyed by three watchers; a threesome composed in strict symmetry by the Infanta, the curtseying[sic] lady-in-waiting, and the female dwarf dressed in blue--three attentive young persons in triangular disposition. Notice next that each corner of this inner triangle is precisely backstopped by attendants whose positions stake out a larger, similar triangle: the boy with his foot on the mastiff, the kneeling menina before the Infanta, and, thirdly, behind the curtsey[sic], the talkative chaperon. Finally the remaining three figures, the shadowy guard, the painter, and the valedictorian on the back stair, form a third outfielder's triangle-- congruent with the second, similar to the first. Think of their places on the projected floorplan, and our nine dispersed characters describe three equilateral triangles, each group differentiated according to what it perceives. The girls of the inner triad look straight out, open to what they confront. The three backstopping figures see less; caught up in lay, in service, or in conversation, they only see what preoccupies them. Lastly again, the three adult outfielders: they are so placed with respect to the painter's canvas that they alone see a complex interrelations, or two worlds at a glance--their own and another; a stage to serve in and a painted equivalent purely visionary." Leo Steinberg October Journal 1981 Maybe this analysis can be worked into the article somehow? -ssbothwell —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ssbothwell (talk • contribs) 2010-01-01T01:34:25 (UTC)

Reverted changes

Hi Ceoil and GrszII.

• I reverted the insertion of the word "jester" pending evidence that the role that these two people played at the court was in fact that of "jester". Do we know for sure? Or were one or both of them simply attendants?
• Re the moving of pics. In laying out an article, it can be very difficult to find a format that works on screens of different proportions. If you are looking at an article on a screen that is deep in proportion to its width, then the text extends further down the page than on a shallow screen. If your screen is wide and comparatively shallow, then each line of text stretches much further across the screen. In other words, what takes 20 lines to say on a narrow screen, only takes 10 on a wide screen.

This means that the person doing the layout has to juggle the pics for the optimum placement. It is not going to look as good an every screen.

Positioning of pictures invariable causes more problems on wide shallow screens because you effectivley have less length of text to play with. The space for a pic may be very constrained, heightwise.

While it might seem appropriate to position a pic at exactly the place in the text that the subject is mentioned, this is not always practical. If the subject comes late in a paragraph, then the effect can be to push the picture down into the next section, or even over the line border of a major heading.

The advantage of formatting on a wide screen is that one can drop down a side box to narrow the screen, and see exactly what an editor with a much narrower screen is seeing.

• In this case, of the picture of the Infant (left side) the image is forcing a blank space of about 3 centimetres when viewed on a wide screen.

To avoid this problem, if you are formatting on a narrow screen rather than a wide one, it's best to place each image high enough in the section to allow several lines of text beneath it.

Amandajm (talk) 08:59, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with the reversion of image positions. Ceoil ^sláinte 18:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I've been told the dwarfs are jesters, but I'm not of the opinion that it's absolutely crucial to elaborate on. I'll see if I can find a source, then it's up to you. Thanks for the note. Grsz¹¹ 20:19, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Quotation

The vanishing point of the perspective is in the doorway, as can be shown by extending the line of the meeting of wall and ceiling on the right.

(from second paragraph in the section of the article Subject Matter)

I'm not sure what this means. Perhaps it is simply a matter of understanding artistic perspective in more detail. It would seem to me that it one took a ruler and placed it so that it goes from the upper right of the canvas to the point on the canvas which is the meeting of the ceiling and the wall then the line of the ruler (extended over the whole canvas) hits a point to the left of the door.

Maybe if I studied these articles in more depth it would be clear what is meant:

Perspective
Vanishing Point

the Vanishing Point article also has two external links that could provide further study.

DaveKF (talk) 05:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Theres several ways to consider center point of this image. If you think of it as a flat canvas then the center point is centered in the Infanta's left eye. If you think of it as a perspective construct then you follow the orthogonals (the horizontals along the right wall) to where they converge on the man in the stairwell. This point is directly opposite the viewer and is traditionally where the vanishing point is placed. However, if you consider the conceptual space of the hall where the scene takes place then you would put the center at the central axis of the room which can be determined by looking at the lighting fixture and you find that the center point is the mirror. -ssbothwell —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ssbothwell (talk • contribs) 2010-01-01T01:34:25 (UTC)

Ssbothwell,

Thanks very much for your comment. I believe that the mirror is lined up with a line going from the lighting fixture on the ceiling to a point on the floor. I think that if you follow the line at the bottom of the right wall you come to the man on the stairs.

However, I took the JPG and viewed it in paintbrush (the one on wikipedia).

The size of the image is 520 pixels horizontal and 599 pixels vertical.

The center of the image (let's say 260 horizontal and 300 vertical) is at the top left corner of the door.

I thank you for your comment and discussion.

To be honest with you, Ssbothwell, perhaps I can say that you are a very rare commodity on the Internet. In any web forum you will probably find many more people who are asking questions then there are those who are answering them.

Fortunately, there are a few who answer questions.

DaveKF (talk) 23:16, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Dont forget the ad by Corte Ingles! It's a photo reproduction of the painting, but instead of a easel the "painter" has a camera and one of those light umbrella things. I'm procrastinating on writing a paper on it (different versions of Las Meninas) for Spanish class. In Spanish. What fun. 71.178.238.234 (talk) 01:42, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Alternate Interpretation

Develop consensus before adding...Modernist (talk) 21:54, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Many expert professional scholars now give credence to a new theory which explains the mysterious atmosphere of the painting. This theory, first posited by Eugenio Manuel de los Perros in the year 1978, asserts that the painting is actually a depiction of the interrogation of the young princess, who is accused of smuggling drugs and illegal immigrants into Spain. This explains the bright light being shone into the princess's face to intimidate her, as well as the ugly troll-people surrounding her, who are obviously undercover policemen doing the "good cop, bad cop" routine with her. The dog in the picture is thought to be the famous Druggo The Narc Dog himself, who is checking the princess for trace amounts of illegal amphetamines and/or foreigners. Diego Velazquez is seen as fulfilling his role as official court painter by painting the young princess's mug shot before she is taken to jail. The viewpoint of the painting appears to be through a two-way mirror, in which Diego Velazquez is viewing the princess while painting her picture. The viewer of the painting is thus placed in the role of a fellow interrogator who is observing the princess's interrogation from behind the one-way glass. Although Eugenio's theory was and continues to be controversial, he has defended it in the Hague by proclaiming, "Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!", for which he was awarded the Premio El Guapo in 1988. The painting as a whole is now taken as a powerful statement by Velazquez on the drug issues, alcoholism, and legal issues faced by the notorious Infanta "Margarita", who is well-known as the inspiration for the Jimmy Buffet song, "Margaritaville".

Reference

Meh. Obvious vandal. AGF and all, but silly is silly and this is just silly. --Onorem♠Dil 22:07, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Muy ridiculoso. Thanks, Modernist. JNW (talk) 22:19, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm still laughing...Modernist (talk) 22:56, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

By rights, this should be removed from the ever-humorless Wikipedia. ANI will have to hear about this. Yawn. 76.102.1.129 (talk) 09:53, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Your on AN/I NOW 76.102.1.129; uncired liable aginst the wiki. Jimbo will be interested to hear about this. Ceoil (talk) 10:03, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Umm. "uncired"? Um. "Unsired"? "liable"? Did you mean "viable" or "libel"? :) 76.102.1.129 (talk) 10:25, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Composition

I've removed one interesting passage here that looks to be original research. Much of this section is unsourced, and while valid based on observation, the observations are too intricately analytical to remain without supporting references. Especially for a former featured article. JNW (talk) 13:22, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

It's an interesting theory but that's way too much unsourced text to include. If this is not original research we need to find the proper source before re-adding it. An article of this importance would just end up as a magnet for pet theories if we include large swaths of unsourced text. freshacconci talktalk 15:13, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

You know, we can't accept this is a "well accepted analysis" unless the sources are there. freshacconci talktalk 15:19, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

In the meantime, I have just had a look on line to see what I could find that is specific to the 7 layers. I can only find blogs, or sources that quote Wikipedia. It will turn up somewhere! Amandajm (talk) 15:45, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

deleted paragraph

Let's put the cut paragraph here and look at it:

"The added complexity of this picture is that the division into seven is applied not only to the pictorial surface of the composition, but also to its depth. The viewer looks into a scene that is seven layers deep, arranged at irregular intervals, like a stage-set. The first is defined by the canvas that projects into the left side of the painting, and on the right, the figures of the large dog and male dwarf. The second zone of the composition contains the figures of the Infanta and her maids and dwarf. The third zone is occupied by the artist himself with the chaperone and guard set slightly behind him, the fourth zone being defined by the plane of the rear wall with its rows of paintings. Through the door the figure of Nieto stands, in the fifth zone. The sixth zone is located in the depth of the mirror on the rear wall, and, like all mirror images, tends in two directions, so that it seems to project the painting itself outward into the space of the viewer, thus creating a seventh zone in which both the viewer and the king and queen stand."

• Response to freshacconci's comment: "that's way too much unsourced text to include"

My problem. I put the tag in the wrong place. The unsourced "fact" is contained in the second sentence. The rest of the paragraph merely counts the layers, as stated in the second sentence, until the last half of the last sentence which repeats something stated elsewhere, i.e. that the king and queen are projected into the space of the viewer by the mirror on the rear wall. There are two references within the article already which support this.

So it should appear:

"The added complexity of this picture is that the division into seven is applied not only to the pictorial surface of the composition, but also to its depth. The viewer looks into a scene that is seven layers deep, arranged at irregular intervals, like a stage-set. The first is defined by the canvas that projects into the left side of the painting, and on the right, the figures of the large dog and male dwarf. The second zone of the composition contains the figures of the Infanta and her maids and dwarf. The third zone is occupied by the artist himself with the chaperone and guard set slightly behind him, the fourth zone being defined by the plane of the rear wall with its rows of paintings. Through the door the figure of Nieto stands, in the fifth zone. The sixth zone is located in the depth of the mirror on the rear wall that, like all mirror images, tends in two directions, so that it seems to project the painting itself outward into the space of the viewer,thus creating a seventh zone in which both the viewer and the king and queen stand."

• With regards to the significant statement, I haven't found an online source for this, except for an essay, which is apparently a student essay and uses this "fact" without referencing it. Of course the reason for that could be that the writer got his info off Wikipedia and couldn't use it as a ref for his university assignment.

The young man who wrote this assignment has quite an impressive CV actually, a string of degrees including a MA in Humanities from California State University, (2011) along with a Black Belt and an Eagle Scout award and a certificate for completing the New York Marathon! Gee Wizz! To think how excited I was when my son got a book prize for coming top of Divinity!

Here's the reference, for what its worth: Robert Milton Underwood, Jr. Critical Analysis of Diego Velázquez’s Las Meninas (2008)

• The "multi-layered" nature of this painting is so widely accepted that students use it continually to demonstrate 3D computer graphics. Unfortunately, these are done without sound so I can't get at a source.

But the "fact" is that the picture much resembles Joseph Cornells little boxes, on a grand scale. When computer wizzes recreated it in 3D as a tiny little little pic on the screen it looks remarkably Cornellish.

Examples:

1. This one has a commentary in Spanish and shows Velazquez working with a huge mirror in front of him [1],
2. This is a good one [2]
3. [3], [4], [5] and [6], [7], [8],
4. 3D stereo greeting card [9],
5. This contains a number of different 3D interpretations [10]
6. This one needs red and blue glasses [11]
7. This artist's class created a 3D model, and then painted it using a mirror [12]

The list here is the tip of the iceberg. I got 318,000 Google hits to "Las Meninas 3D"

(For comparison, I googled "Last Supper 3D" and came up with a million hits. But the vast majority of them refer to sculpture in low relief, balsa construction kits and and all the other assorted kitsch associated with that artwork. This is a typical example Walmart, Dynasty Accents Last Supper 3D Wall Art in Multi Color)

• I am of the opinion that not to discuss the "multi-layered" nature of this painting when it is so widely used to demonstrate that precise point, would be a serious omission.

What we need is somebody who isn't stuck at home sick and can get to a library and find a suitable reference.

• If a suitable source cannot be found (other than the online student essay) for the "seven layers", then that "unreferenced fact" could probably be replaced by some statement that refers to the 3D nature of the work and is supported by a video, possibly the one with Spanish commentary. (I don't speak Spanish)

Amandajm (talk) 06:07, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

There's no omission here--the article already thoroughly covers the painting's three dimensionality, perspectival complexity, mirror image, modeling of forms, etc. It is the primary theme of the article. If anyone can find a reliable source specifically mentioning the stratification of the interior into a series of layers parallel to the picture plane, please add it. JNW (talk) 13:52, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with JNW and Freshacconci, the unreferenced addition is unnecessary; Amandajam might enjoy seeing Eve Sussman's interesting and amazing film 89 Seconds at Alcázar...Modernist (talk) 14:21, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, well, Never mind! If I come across anything about layers, I'll drop it in! Toodle-oo! Amandajm (talk) 16:25, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

You've got me returning to my Velazquez books, always a good thing. Thanks, JNW (talk) 18:58, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

References

Image map problem

{{Las Meninas}} I felt forced to removed the image map template (which I put here at the side) since it does not work in Firefox... I think it's not nice to have the ugly format with no frame and the empty infobox under it if the template does not work properly. --'''Attilios''' (talk) 12:24, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Well it obviously does work in Firefox. Otherwise it would not have stood review on the main page or in the many months since it was put there. Is it not usual to ask consensus before making a change to an FA........ thats how this image map was included. I intend to move it back if there is no 3rd party comment. Victuallers (talk) 08:39, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

scary

i find the ambience in this painting very eerie and twisted. is that a normal reaction to this painting? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.117.249.20 (talk) 15:19, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, its deliberatly like that. Its very nostalgic, the room is very cavernous, and the figures are not a litle haunting, like apparations. Ceoil (talk) 22:18, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Geometrical Interpretation

Snyder and Cohen are entirely correct in identifying the mirror reflection as reflecting, not the King and Queen, but the canvas on which Velasquez is working. In other words the mirror does not reflect those who might otherwise occupy the centre of projection (or viewpoint) on the scene. I've put together a very careful reconstruction of the scene in order to test this theory and it's entirely correct.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j43c_VYFcxk

Now insofar as the mirror reflects what Velasquez is painting, and Velasquez is looking towards the viewpoint, then we can infer that the viewpoint is occupied by the King and Queen. Now I'd suggest that the scene as a whole can be understood as a portrait of the King and the Queen, in the sense that it depicts that which the King and Queen would see as they model for Velasquez. So the scene as a whole depicts the two sides of any image, the 'objective' side (reflected in the mirror, as an outside in depiction) and the 'subjective' side: as an inside out depiction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.166.228.163 (talk) 01:23, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

No sources?

This article seems to have long passages with little sourcing. They read a bit like opinion. Should we do something about that?Keaigougou8080 (talk) 09:56, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Keaig. The article has 91 references, and its such a well detailed and examined painting, there are many more to choose from. I don't think anything in the page is contentious, and it was written by people who have read widely on the subject. I'd be doubtful that anything in it at present is not backed up by a source, though because its a large page, the inlines might be far apart. Do you have specific concerns that I could address? Thanks for looking, bty. Ceoil (talk) 10:10, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Las Meninas. 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/20080227170031/http://paul.rutgers.edu/~mosteiro/goya-las-meninas.jpg to http://paul.rutgers.edu/~mosteiro/goya-las-meninas.jpg

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: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:31, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Las Meninas. 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 http://arquivo.pt/wayback/20090714102607/http%3A//www%2Emuseupicasso%2Ebcn%2Ees/eng/collection/cont_collec%2Ehtm to http://www.museupicasso.bcn.es/eng/collection/cont_collec.htm

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: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:49, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Las Meninas. 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/20110918123558/http://www.audioviator.com/en/Audio-tour-Museo-del-Prado-Las-Meninas to http://www.audioviator.com/en/Audio-tour-Museo-del-Prado-Las-Meninas

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: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:11, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Las Meninas. 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/20071024003349/http://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/cgi-bin/WebObjects.dll/CollectionPublisher.woa/wa/work?workNumber=NG2926 to http://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/cgi-bin/WebObjects.dll/CollectionPublisher.woa/wa/work?workNumber=ng2926

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: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:34, 7 November 2017 (UTC)