Wikipedia

Talk:El Greco/Archive 1

< Talk:El Greco
Latest comment: 7 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified
Archive 1

Comments

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

"...which images are cenceived in the mind..."


conceived is spelled incorrectly, ill edit it

I am curious, are any academic decathletes using this article?

El Greco is a talented artist who was famous for his dramatic use of colours and exaggerated mannerism.

That's your opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.72.63.70 (talk) 21:29, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Anachonisms

Latest comment: 13 years ago10 comments3 people in discussion

The article gave El Grecos birthplace as Fodele, Heraklion, Crete, Greece. However:

  1. There was no place called Heraklion at the time of El Greco's birth. It was called Candia in Venetian (the rulers' language); and in Greek, Μεγάλο Κάστρο or Χάνδακας. The name Heraklion was coined in 1913, based on a Roman port Heracleum in the same general area.
  2. There was no such country as Greece at the time of his birth. Crete was part of the Venetian Empire. The term Greece was used as a geographic designation at that time, but probably did not include Crete, Cyprus, etc. at the time. "Crete" is a clear and unambiguous geographic specification of his place of birth.
  3. He said himself that he was from Candia in a document exhibited in Iraklion in 1990 (Burlington Magazine 132:1052 (Nov., 1990), pp. 813).
  4. On the other hand, obviously the ethnonym "Greek" was in use (referring to his native language? to his Orthodox religion?); after all, he called himself Il Greco in Venice and El Greco in Spain.

Therefore, I changed the birthplace to read Fodele, Candia (modern Iraklion), Crete. Miskin changed it back, claiming "rv according to the infoboxes found in the Louvre and probably every art museum worldwide". I don't know what the label says in the Louvre, but I suspect it says that he is "Greek" and that if it specifies where he was born, it says "Candia, Crete", not "Heraklion, Greece".

I have tried to do a bit of Web research on this. Using general Web search is confounded by the El Greco Hotel, tourism sites, etc., so I looked on scholar.google.com. There is approximately the same number of results for [El-Greco Candia] as for [El-Greco Heraklion], but if you look at the individual results, you discover that most of those including Heraklion are the addresses of exhibitions or research institutions. So in scholar.google.com, Candia seems to be the preferred form. --Macrakis 15:45, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

You're right, it is an Anachronism, yet sources refer to it by its anachronistic name, hence it should stay that way. The infobox in Louvre says "Crete, Greece". Miskin 15:50, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
It's not even important, you must be really bored to make such lengthly discussions for such insignificant debates. Miskin 15:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Obviously this one case is unimportant in itself. But the principle is important across the entire Wikipedia. It is ridiculous to talk about Kaliningrad, East Prussia; Istanbul, the capital of the Byzantine Empire; or Heraklion, Greece in the 16th century. If you expect to have the historical names of Greek cities in Asia Minor and Magna Graecia to be mentioned appropriately, you should accept the principle that historical names be used universally.

As for your specific argument, I am not sure where you found "Crete, Greece" in the Louvre: online, I find Candie (Grèce). And as I say, other scholarly sources preponderantly favor "Candia, Crete". --Macrakis 16:17, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

PS I don't know why you removed the reference to Fodele and especially to Iraklion/Candia. He is certainly from the region of Iraklion/Candia. Whether he is actually from Fodele (as is widely claimed) is less certain, of course. The solution to that is: "Fodele (?), Candia, Crete". --Macrakis 16:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I found it in the Spanish section, under his own paintings. This has nothing to do with wanting the word "Iraklio" to appear, it has to do with your pettiness confusing the readers. Furthermore, to make the long story short, Britannica reads:
"Not much is known of El Greco's early life, his family, or his artistic training. By his own testimony, Domenikos Theotokopoulos was born about 1541 in Iráklion on the island of Crete." [1] Miskin 16:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

What edition is that from? (Oh, I see now, that's the "student edition".) Let's look at the full current online edition of the Britannica, where that phrase doesn't appear, and which starts off "born 1541, Candia [Iráklion], Crete". The 1911 edition starts "Cretan painter... born in Crete" (with no mention of Greece, Candia, or of course Iraklion/Heraklion, which didn't yet exist). Tell me something, as far as "not confusing the readers", do you really want articles to say things like "Patriarch Nicephorus I was born in Istanbul"?!?! That is precisely the same case. --Macrakis 16:43, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Unless you consider Crete a historically Venetian territory occupied by Greeks, I don't see any possible relevance. I still don't see why would the student edition be less reliable as you imply. I proved that at least one version of the story has an official status, hence neither version is POV. What happens in such cases? Miskin 16:50, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

The student edition is an abridgement (540 words out of 3000 in the full article), apparently of an older version. There is no such thing as an "official status" here. We are trying to write a good encyclopedia. We use our judgement. The EB, the Louvre tag, the scholar.google.com evidence are all elements of what one hopes is a constructive discussion. There is no absolute numerical principle, there is no definitive answer. When we (e.g. you and I) disagree, we try to come to a solution which we both think is good, and which represents all reputable points of view. I think your current version is fine, except that Candia/Iraklion should be linked (trivial issue), and that it doesn't make sense to mention "Greece". Where would you say Archimedes was born? Syracuse, Sicily is certainly correct -- more so that Siracusa, Sicilia, by the way. But neither Syracuse, Sicily, Greece, nor Syracuse, Sicily, Italy makes any sense. Syracuse was unquestionably a Greek city culturally -- probably more Greek in every way in Archimedes' time than Candia was Greek in El Greco's time. But it is not part of some geographic entity called Greece (Magna Graecia is not Greece). It is arguable whether it is part of a geographic entity called Italy, and certainly has nothing to do with the political entity called Italy. If we want a correct political identification of El Greco's Candia, we'd have to say Candia, Crete, Republic of Venice, but I don't see any point in that....

As I say, all this is important not because of this particular case, but because of the more general issue. Some editors recently have been taking to removing Greek names from Turkish and Republic of Macedonia cities, for example. This traduces history. It also traduces history to claim that Candia in the 16th century was a part of some "Greece". (And again, this is a completely different issue from El Greco's identification as a "Greek"). --Macrakis 17:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Dr Makrakis, your above comment is only confusing. Greece was called Greece even in the middle ages. But if you insist on the opposite and if you live in USA or Latin America, find all those with the surname "Griego" and ask them to change their name because is "anachronistic". They are all descendants of Greeks who left Greece (including islands like Crete, Rhodos, Chios etc) after the Ottoman invasion and migrated to Spain. My opinion is that they knew very well what they were and were happy with their name.--Euzen (talk) 20:47, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Is Fodele El Greco's birthplace?

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

They clearly believe so in Fodele, and not only there:

A the village's square under a plane-tree aged over one thousand years there is a memorial, of the great painter Domenikos Theotokopoulos who was born in Fodele in 1541. This is a plaque, standing on a marble base, with the face of the painter engraved and a text which says:

"THE FACULTY OF HISTORY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF VALLADOLID, IN THE VERY HEART OF CASTILLE, PRESENTS THIS STATE, CUT FROM THE ROCK OF TOLEDO, TO FODELE IN MEMORY OF THE IMMORTAL FAME OF DOMENIKOS THEOTOKOPOULOS. JULY 1934 This plaque was brought to Fodele in 1934, by a team of professors, representatives of the University of Valladolid. An other memorial to the painter stands at the village, since 1964 when the 350th anniversary of his death was celebrated. It is a bust made by the sculptor Apartis. Within a small distance from the village 's square, one kilometer to the west, is the small settlement "Arhontiko", with the house where it is believed that EL GRECO was born and passed its childhood.[2]--Aldux 11:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, they believe that in Fodele -- in fact, I was the one who added the Fodele reference to the article in the first place (and also filled out the Gazi article). However, I have not yet found solid evidence that it is true. I would be happy to learn of such evidence and remove the question mark! --Macrakis 19:12, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Notes and questions from copyediting

Latest comment: 18 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

I've just finished the first two sections of the article (not counting the lead). I have a few things to point out and a few questions as well:

  • There is no need to link dates unless they are very important. Really, only birth and death dates need to be linked.
  • I've removed a few POV terms.
  • I moved a sentence in the 3rd paragraph of the second second section around. It makes better sense to talk about Venetian influence and then Roman influence instead of having a sentence of Roman infulence in the middle of things. You may want to check the cite.
  • In the caption for the Dormition, what is the 61 a reference to?

I'll add more items as they arise. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 16:43, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

  • 1st paragraph of the "In Spain" section has the sentence:
In Rome, El Greco had earned the respect of certain intellectuals, but was also facing the hostility of certain artistic cyrvles.
I presume "cyrvles" should be "rivals"? I can't find "cyrvles" in the dictionary.
  • Is it Liisa Berg or Lisa?
  • The first sentence of the first paragraph in the Re-evaluation of his works section makes it appear that El Greco was understood in his lieftime, yet at the moment of his death he suddenly became incomprehensible. I'll leave this sentence alone in the article, but might I suggest saying something like, "Future generations found little appreciation in El Greco's work and often found them incomprehensible."?

Ok, I have gone over the article with a fine toothed comb. I have done a little bit of re-writing here or there for clarity and ease in reading. Feel free to change anything I have changed, I shan't be insulted. I really think this is a fine article and serves as a great monument to El Greco's genius. I would suggest that you may want one other person to copyedit it. Also, you may want to creat stubs for the red links or unlink them. You may also want to add another paragraph to the lead discussing influence and interpretations. Let me know if I can assist you any further! Cheers! *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 19:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

More comments

Latest comment: 17 years ago22 comments2 people in discussion
  • Last sentence of the lead:According to evidence from his time, Doménicos Greco acquired his name, not only for his place of origin, but also for the sublimity of his art: "Out of the great esteem he was held in he was called the Greek (il Greco)". - 1)Doménicos Greco isn't explained as alternative name earlier

2)No explanation of why he should be called the Greek as a result of his art. I like the quote but it seems shoehorned in here.

  • Linking of years is inconsistent
  • His possible conversion could do with expanding, especially in light of the claims made by Puppi
  • It's better, but the claims by Puppi seem like hyperbole with the added context. Does he give any reason for seeing it as a "profound spiritual agony"?
  • "...according to a letter of the Croatian miniaturist, Giulio Clovio, ..." - owned by, from, or to?
  • "In 1571, a year after El Greco left Venice, his brother Manoussos settled there" - do we care?
  • "...Fulvio Orsini, whose collection included seven paintings by the artist..." - did he acquire the paintings after he met him or before?
  • After he met him. Do you think I should rephrase?
  • "His stay in Rome also influenced his works with elements such as violent perspective vanishing points" - the elements aren't doing the influencing are they? I assume the elements are included in the works as a result of the influences of Rome.
  • "During that period, the construction of the palace of El Escorial was practically complete" - which period? Also, being "practically complete" would sound better if tied to a specific time rather than a period.
  • "renowned El Espolio" - if it is renown it should have an article, or at least a description. Also later referred to as plain Espolio - should the definite article be in there or not?
  • "the number of rooms in his house had risen to twenty-four" - sounds like his house grows rooms. Is he building on or moving? This seems to clash with the later description of his tenancy and is out of chronological order.
  • "The inventory of the household goods does not retain, however, the memory of a large house." - don't understand that at all. Perhaps "The inventory of his household goods does not, however, give the impression of a large household"?
  • "Jorge Manuel (Γιωργής Μανουήλ)" - is a Greek transliteration of a Spanish name necessary?
  • 'According to Lambraki-Plaka "intuition and the judgement of the eye are the painter's surest guide"' - this reads like a general statement about "the painter" , any painter.
  • "...as was proved by the campaign to raise the funds for the purchase of Saint Peter..." - it would be nice to know how this proved it.
  • "Directed by Yannis Smaragdis, the film began shooting on the island of Crete; British actor Nick Ashdon has been cast to play the artist at the age of 27" - when did it start shooting? Has he been cast to play a 27 year-old El Greco, or is he 27? And if he is 27, do we care?
  • "...status of Wethey's (still highly esteemed) catalogue is at the centre of these disagreements" - if the catalogue is still highly esteemed it can't be at the centre of the disagreement - needs rewording.
  • "A few sculptures, including Epimetheus and Pandora, have been attributed to El Greco. This doubtful attribution is based on the testimony of Pacheco" - why is it doubtful?
  • That's good now.
  • Some mixing of British and American English (color and centre)

Overall, it's very impressive, comprehensive and interesting. I found it to have a few too many direct quotes - some recasting into alternative language wouldn't go amiss. The chronology is sometimes a little confused - he appears to move to Toledo a number of times. A few fixes and it is an easy FA though. Yomanganitalk 01:59, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

A Few Critical Observations

Latest comment: 17 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

Picking up on my comments at FA, let me make a few critical remarks about this article. For the most part, the level of research is excellent and it is also well written, so let me state at the outset that I am quite impressed.

That said, here are the issues i have. The cited scholarship too often impedes instead of contributing. Take this paragraph:

Some scholars, such as Lionello Puppi, argue that, shortly before leaving Crete, El Greco may have converted from Greek Orthodoxy to Roman Catholicism;[8] Puppi reads into this disputed conversion a "profound spiritual agony" and a "suffering quest for religious truth".[8] According to another theory, El Greco was born a Catholic in Orthodox Crete, where his family may have been part of a Roman Catholic minority.[9] Nora Hamerman regards El Greco as a "devout Catholic" and asserts that "a relaxed interchange between Greek Orthodox and Roman Catholic rites had prevailed on the island [of Crete] during [El Greco's] youth".[10]

Ok, as an encyclopedic article on El Greco, we need to assume implicit authorial authority. thus, the main question raised by this paragraph is: which view is preponderantly held by scholars, if either. The article needs to do a much better job contextualising the scholarship it cites. As it stand, i could rephrase this paragraph in three ways:

  1. The confession of El Greco's birth remains a matter of controversy. An earlier tradition that assumed El Greco was part of the vibrant Catholic Cretan minority [cite source] has subsequently been challenged based on ... (insert reason - archival evidence/ reading of his works...? what?). Scholars now tend to the view that El Greco was born into a Greek Orthodox rite and subsequently converted prior to his leaving the island. (cite)
  2. Despite claims that El Greco may have been born Greek Orthodox (cite), most scholars believe he was part of the Cretan Roman Catholic minority, although as Nora Hamerman points out, the relationship between the two faiths was characterised by a "relaxed interchange." (cite)
  3. It is an open question whether El Greco was born into the Roman or Greek Orthodox rite. The lack of archival baptismal records on Crete (which were uncommon in pre-Tridentine Europe) means that his original faith cannot be determined, and scholars are evenly divided on the issue. (cite) It is known, however, that by the time he left Crete, El Greco was practicing the Catholic rite. (cite)

Obviously, it is problematic if there are three different ways of reading this paragraph. In the end, the citation of scholarly authority is simply another way of using weasel words. Which view predominates?

This brings up a related point. Not all scholarship is good scholarship. What is the comparative authority of the two authors cited? Whose work/argument is generally accepted? This is a problem that permeates the text and leads it at times to read more like an undergraduate essay (look, here are some authors I looked up) rather than an encyclopedic treatment, which should characterised by a broad knowledge of the topic, extending to a critical evaluation of scholarly material. Citing an author in this context implicitly gives credence to her ideas, but is that, in fact, legitimate? If an El Greco scholar read this, would she find that it reflects the generally predominant view (which is what an encyclopedic treatment should do) in the authors that it cites? Using citation to advance an argument is not only unnecessary, it can also be irresponsible since it entails the risk of bringing peripheral scholarship to the fore, in contradistinction with generally accepted views. That is not to say that controversial issues should not be given space, but the text needs to make it much, much clearer what the general viewpoint is.

Moving on.

According to professor Harold E. Wethey, because Crete was then a Venetian possession (the island had come under the sway of Venice as early as 1211), El Greco was a Venetian citizen, so it was natural that he would study in Venice.[1] Another example of an unnecessary and laborious citation. "As a Venetian citizen (Crete having been a possession of the Serenissima since 1211), it was natural for the young El Greco to pursue his studies in Venice."

Next we get this tortured paragraph:

While in Rome, El Greco dismissed Michelangelo's Last Judgment in the Sistine Chapel,[f] while lavishing praise on Correggio and Parmigianino.[16] According to Sethre, he despised Michelangelo's Judgement because "he wished to mirror the Incarnation by spiritualizing nature, not by crushing the heavens with physical things".[17] Nevertheless, some modern scholars argue that Michelangelo's influence on El Greco's compositions was profound. London scholar Allan Braham asserts that, although El Greco reacted strongly against Michelangelo, he found it impossible to withstand his influence.[18] According to Lizzie Boubli, El Greco's inventions in the Allegory of the Holy League "transfer part of the Last Judgement to a very different iconographic context".[19]

Again, this is an encyclopedia article, not an undergraduate term paper, so we need a clear and concise elucidation of the scholarly consensus which, as far as I know, is that El Greco rejected the tradition represented by Michelangelo. Why quote Sethre? Is he representative? Or is he paraphrasing something that El Greco himself said (almost certainly not). Then you have two scholars who are trying to buck tradition and claim that despite consensus view, El Greco was influenced by M.A. Ok, but if we go back and look at the geography of your paragraph, we have the consensus view expressed in one sentence, a largely meaningless quotation in the second and the half the paragraph on competing views that do not have wide currency. Moreover, because so much time is spent dredging up these dry scholarly points, the main point is lost entirely, that El Greco's time in Rome gave him the chance to explore the works of the leading artists of his day. Thus I would rethink this paragraph: what does it want to say, what are the most important points, what does a casual reader of El Greco want to learn.

"While in Rome, El Greco had the opportunity to study the work of leading figures of the late Italian Renaissance, including Michelangelo, Parmigianino, Tintoretto, Correggio, Raphael.... While singling out Parmigianino and Correggio for particular praise, El Greco was famously dismissive of the works of Michelangelo. Although some scholars maintain that Michelangelo's influence can be seen in later El Greco works such as the Allegory of the Holy League,(cite) most scholars view El Greco's distinctive style in part as a reaction against the idealised forms of Michelangelo and Raphael that he encountered in Rome.(cite)"

  • It seems that the "consensus" about Michelangelo and El Greco is a bit more complex than it seems. Anyway, I rephrase the paragraph taking into consideration your remarks and my further findings.--Yannismarou 09:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Some more tangible points:

Philip II's dislike of the Allegory is well-known and the subject of a lot of commentary. The one argument asserted again reads to me like weasel words. Art professors Marina Lambraki-Plaka and Jonathan Brown believe that Philip did not care for the works of El Greco because they violated a basic rule of the Counter-Reformation, namely that in the image the content was paramount rather than the style. Well, that may be, but a more common view is that Philip II simply disliked El Greco's style, Counter-Reformation or no - PII's fave brushsmith was Titian after all. I would suggest that, again, the specific citation blurs the larger point. The Spanish version is much more to the point:

Aunque El Greco trató de obtener el apoyo del rey Felipe II para quien pintó El martirio de San Mauricio y la legión tebana, estas peculiaridades estilísticas del pintor no fueron del agrado del monarca, que nunca le brindó su mecenazgo.

That last bit raises another issue. The failure to secure royal patronage was a, maybe the, major issue of El Greco's life. This is treated peremptorily. Which is more important to an encyclopedic article: two specific art historians (rather wishy washy) views about Philip II, the Counter-Reformation and art? Or the specific, tangible issues encountered by El Greco in trying to obtain his sponsorship.

I'll stop there. The article has many other instances of this problematic approach. I think the structure and general layout is very fine indeed, and there are many judicious details. But the article has been hijacked by an overly laborious attempt to provide scholarly rationale for every assertion, major, minor and irrelevant, to the point where major issues are obscured or lost entirely. Eusebeus 14:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. If something happened from this rushy FAC is that I have in my hands another excellent review. I agree that I have overdone it with the scholarly references! Some of them are really unnecessary. And this paragraph about conversion will change and will be probably trimmed. After further research I tend to believe that the assertion of El Greco's conversion looks ungrounded. I'll work on your remarks and I'll let you know when I'm over, in order to have more feedback from you. Thinking once again my edits, I think that in most cases you are mainly right.--Yannismarou 08:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

He was NOT greek

Latest comment: 13 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

He was not greek.he was venetian italoian.greeks calling him el grecko becuase he spoke some greek.i speak english and im not english.please remove his fake ancestry and remove him from Greeks page —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Egejski4eva (talk • contribs) 11:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC).

Also, the page has been tampered with.

What are you talking about? He was born in Crete. In the time it may have been part of the Venician empire, but that doesn't means he isn't Greek. Just because the Netherlands were part of Spain before the Eighty Years' War doesn't make the Dutchmen Spaniards now does it? Further more, all historic evidence and sources point out he was to be considered a Greek. Just because you seem to disagree with the fact won't mean it will be changed in this encyclopedic article. --Soetermans 08:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Soetermans you might want to check WP:NOFEEDING. (check all 5 or 6 contribs and username) NikoSilver 11:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I figured. It is safe to assume he is more than just a little biased, eh? --Soetermans 23:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

By the comment of Egejski4eva you can how propaganda blinds society.The user is almost surely from the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (the ending of the user's name show this).Be patient Egejski4eva, and continue like that.I hope, visiting this article in a few days,you to have written about his descendance,which for sure is common with yours.Good night Egejski4eva. Pnsx (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:16, 1 December 2010 (UTC).

> He was Greek. His name is Dominikos Theotokopoulos. And just because people from Venice RULED Crete that time, he is not to be considered Italian!! He is Greek ! :]

-Christina —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.228.145.98 (talk) 14:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

A grave mistake - missing Name

Latest comment: 17 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

The summary in the "front" page does not include his name! As I am sure the editor/s of this excellent, deeply researched article, know, El Greco went into great lengths -both artistically and socially- to underscore his Greek descent, as the full article, rightly points out. I think that the intro in the front page should read something like this:

El Greco popular name of Domenicos Theotokopoulos (name in Greek characters) was a prominent painter, sculptor and architect of the Spanish Renaissance.[...]

I dont know if I posted this in the right place but I think that someone needs to address it asap. --Grolsch101 03:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of his undoubted underscoring of his Greekness, the real name is always a very important piece of information that must not be missing from any bio intro. I completely agree. NikoSilver 11:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
The mistake is mine who wrote the summary for the main page intro.--Yannismarou 12:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Never fear, Rob is here! Or something. I changed the main page summary to include his name. For the future, non-admins can list requested changes at WP:ERRORS, while admins can change the message at the appropriate TFA template (today was Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 19, 2007). --RobthTalk 13:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Rob, for the infos and the change you implemented.--Yannismarou 13:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Yanni your apparent non-obsession of your Greekness is a rare quality. The modesty in your reply to Robth while it is becoming apparent that your user status is changing is even rarer. I cannot help but expressing my gratitude to Robth for both making the correction and discretely implying it, and my sincere admiration to your unbiased character. NikoSilver 13:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Nico, but it is also a rare quality to praise other people's actions, as you did here, if you believe that they deserve this praise.--Yannismarou 13:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Nice to 'meet up' the people behind this great article. Many kudos! Bravo! One minor recommendation regarding the intro, if you don't mind. His name does not belong inside brackets. He may came down in western historiography, as "El Greco" but he had a name and, in my view, he did his best to show it to the rest of the world. Also, the "given to" part, I think, is excessive; the format "Alias/Nickname , popular name of RealName X" is common in biographical articles or snipsets of this kind. I still think that "El Greco, popular name of Domenicos Theotocopoulos [...]" is the best choice, but hey... Thank you for this little gem -Grolsch101 14:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

western civilization

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The end of the intro says: "...marrying Byzantine traditions with those of Western civilization." Our own (linked) article on Western civilization, though, includes the "Greco-Roman" tradition as almost definitional of Western civilization, and the Byzantine empire was of course Greco-Roman, being the Greek-speaking Eastern Roman Empire. I understand what it's trying to say here, but at the very least it seems contentious, and I'd propose something like "marrying Byzantine traditions with those of Western Europe". --Delirium 17:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Excellent work

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

This is one of the best featured articles I've ever read. Superb work all around.--Idols of Mud 17:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I could not agree more. This may be the best, most thoroughly researched article I have ever encountered on Wikipedia. I aspire to such quality output. --Nonstopdrivel 12:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

A highly opinionated article. It contains many subjective statements that may not be shared by other people. There are very few objective remarks. The aricle was obviously wriiten by members of the El Greco Fan Club.173.72.63.70 (talk) 21:33, 19 June 2012 (UTC)Hans Wurst

Two major series

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There is no mentioning of the major series - "Apostolados". They represent Christ and the Twelve Apostles in 13 canvases: one in the sacristy of Toledo Cathedral (1605–10) and another, unfinished set (1612–14) in the El Greco House and Museum at Toledo. Perhaps this should be included in a feature article. Tavilis 19:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Missing biography

Latest comment: 17 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

This might be part of the pervasive vandalism that has occured over the past two days, or part of some editorial decision left unmentioned either here or in the edit summaries, but El Greco's biography has mysteriously disappeared. If this is not supposed to be so, all those who are making revisions to versions without the biography should begin to make revisions to those versions of the article with biographies. Thanks for your time, Geuiwogbil 02:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. I have restored the Life section from here. But I will not do this without a rant!: It pains me that an entire section of a featured article can be deleted by vandalism for 2½ days in spite of (but also due to) being on the front page. The deletion actually occurred while it was on the front page, without being corrected. When Wikipedia's best works are so subject to this kind of fate, where's the incentive to create them? This is a very recently promoted featured article, and you'd expect it to have a greater-than-average number of people watching it for quality during its high-exposure period. (Main-page FAs should be semi-protected.) –Outriggr § 03:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Outriggr, the article was feeling a bit light. I don't know what to make of your proposal as I'm generally unfamiliar with vandals in general and main-page articles in particular. I didn't correct it myself as Yannismarou himself had made a revision to a version without it. Thanks again for clearing that up. Geuiwogbil 03:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
It seems someone has taken it upon themselves to vandalise the whole article, and I am in no position to correct it myself.

Ceph'Ji'Wu 03:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Right now the missing parts of the article are restored (thanks to Geuiwogbi and Outriggr); thus, I don't see (for the time being) a serious threat from vandalism.--Yannismarou 18:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:El_greco.JPG

Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

This image seems to have an improper proportion. It's squished and looks too high. Someone should find a replacement. It also seems to not be tagged correctly. —msikma (user, talk) 23:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The proportions are correct. The vertical elongation is characteristic of the artist. Vilĉjo 17:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

- The description of the image in the article says it is circa 1595-1600, however [this link http://web.archive.org/web/20040617145523/http://gallery.euroweb.hu/html/g/greco_el/1601-05/09selfpo.html] says it is circa 1604. What should we do? WolfgangAzureus (talk) 05:11, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

The Metropolitan Museum of Art website says ca. 1590 - 1600, seems ok as is...Modernist (talk) 15:56, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Citations....

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I was wondering... The main outstanding issue with the article seems to be citations (although it is still pretty good on that front), but if we do a 'citation drive' on this article so to speak, could it achieve FA status?--86.138.232.97 01:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Apparently so. Though I did not find this article because of its FA status. I only looked it up because a visiting scholar presented a lecture on El Greco to our local writing guild yesterday. This article is a delight. Good writing and scholarship are not yet dead. --Nonstopdrivel 12:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Paintings in Santo Domingo el Antiguo

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have changed two references to the paintings for the church of Santo Domingo el Antiguo, because this convent (you can see in Spanish wikipedia --> es:Convento de Santo Domingo el Antiguo) is not "at Escorial" but in Toledo. El Escorial is in the province of Madrid, Community of Madrid, whereas Toledo is in the province of Toledo, Castile-La Mancha. It's easy to find out through the internet, because it is specially protected by the law--Joanenglish 16:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Original religion

Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Is it in fact a matter of "controversy" whether he was baptised Orthodox or not? The two references on the matter lead to RC websites that demonstrate no great grasp of the situation in Crete when he was born. Unless the possibility that he was Catholic from birth can be more reliably referenced, I think it should be removed. Also what is the evidence that he received a "humanistic education"? Is anything known about his education at all? Johnbod 22:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

After further checking, I see Xavier Bray in the book accompanying the 2004 National Gallery London exhibition says that his family "was almost certainly Greek Orthodox". This is not a major work, but can be assumed to reflect current scholarship - ie it is not really an "open question" as the current article says. Another book, by Robin Cormack records complaints by the Venetian procurator of intermarried Venetian families going "native" religiously & implies the "relaxed interchange" was mainly in that direction.

Also nothing at all is known about his education, although we know the books he had decades later.

I will edit on these two points, keeping all current refs, but some in the notes. Johnbod 21:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

  • I agree that most scholars argue that he was an Orthodox, but I reedited some of the arguments of the Catholic sources in a note, making clear in the main text what is the opinion most scholars follow.--Yannismarou 13:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
It would be useful if an actual scholarly reference claiming or arguing the opposite in the last 40-odd years could be produced. None of the references for this view at the moment can be described as scholarly, and I am sceptical there are any scholars now holding this view. It would also be useful, and worth adding to the article, if someone could confirm what I think is correct, that for an Othodox person to "become" Catholic, no particular action beyond starting to practise as a Catholic was required - ie Othodox baptism etc accepted as valid. Does anyone know? Johnbod 13:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Timeline

Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

How does one edit the "Timeline" of his life, which has things that should be changed - eg he did not "auction" but sell by lottery his painting before leaving Crete? Johnbod 23:39, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Anybody knows more about this? I am interested in creating a timeline in another article and I am trying to figure out if there is a standard way of creating timelines like this one or if one just uploads an image. Ebruchez (talk) 06:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
This is what you are looking for, I believe:
Hope this helps. Burlywood (talk) 17:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Art in Rome

Latest comment: 13 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion
I've cut: "By the time El Greco arrived in Rome, Michelangelo and Raphael were dead, but their example continued to be paramount and left little room for different approaches. Although the artistic heritage of these great masters was overwhelming for young painters, ..." - Raphael had in fact been dead for fifty years when El Greco arrived in Rome, and there had in fact been enormous developments and "different approaches" in Roman art since then, although certainly the High Renaissance retained huge prestiege. There are ways to phrase this point, but not this way. Johnbod 12:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
So, this is not inaccurate (and it is cited, by the way!), that is what you say, hm? And when we do not like a phrasing we just cut it?! I reedit the two phrases, and, if you don't like it, please improve them by rewriting them.--Yannismarou 12:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
It would not be inaccurate to say that Giotto, or Julius Caesar, were dead "By the time El Greco arrived in Rome", but it would be rather misleading, as it is with Raphael. Do the references say there was: "little room for different approaches"? A rather odd statement if they do. Johnbod 13:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

This passage is causing some disagreement: "By the time El Greco arrived in Rome, Michelangelo and Raphael were dead, but their example continued to be paramount and left little room for different approaches. Although the artistic heritage of these great masters was overwhelming for young painters, El Greco was determined to make his own mark in Rome defending his personal artistic views, ideas and style. ref name="ScholzTazartes">M. Scholz-Hänsel, El Greco, 20
* M. Tazartes, El Greco, 31–32</ref> ...."

- As noted above at the time, I cut the first part, here italicised, as misleading - Raphael had been dead for over 50 years by the date of El Greco's arrival, and really just untrue - a perusal of Wittkower or any history of Roman or Italian painting over the period would show there was plenty of "room for different approaches", for example those of Parmigianino & Corregio mentioned imediately after. Does anyone else have thoughts? Johnbod 13:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I have just read this article for the first time, and I would like to congratulate Yannismarou on a wonderful read and an excellent piece of work. I learned a great deal, particularly about the Byzantine influences on El Greco. I agree with Johnbod on the point in question, though, because that very sentence jarred with me too. Whatever the source says, Raphael doesn't really come into the equation in that way. The point makes sense for Michelangelo, however, because his style did exercise a powerful grip over his successors. What has always struck me about sixteenth-century Italian art is not how bound it was by the example of Raphael and co, but how far it departed from it. As Johnbod says, there were all sorts of major stylistic developments between Raphael and El Greco. One gets the impression that El Greco had tapped into these long before he arrived in Rome. qp10qp 00:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I see this either was not removed or has re-appeared. If you wish to justify it you will need to quote the exact passage from the source in full. I have removed the worst bit, but the way Raphael's death is put is still misleading. Johnbod (talk) 02:34, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

What about inquisition??

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Watching movie about him; check web and there were issues and incidents; and it but nothing here ;-( His fans here should get busy. ;-) Carol Moore 17:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

There is a link in the references (see below), but it is broken (404) and there is nothing in the text. I'm curious if the inquisition thing in the movie was real and if there's been a purge/vandalism here, or just fringe theories? Simanos (talk) 20:29, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4159/is_20040208/ai_n12751299/pg_2/ http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4159/is_20040208/ai_n12751299/

OK I found a reference http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2242/is_1660_284/ai_n6141997/pg_5/

El Greco himself had trouble with the Inquisition over his Despoilment of Christ (Toledo Cathedral; replica at Upton House, Warwickshire) painted in 1579, soon after his arrival in Spain, for the vestry of Toledo Cathedral. As part of the Counter Reformation, the Holy Office had decreed that artists should follow scriptural texts strictly and literally in their biblical scenes. The detail of the three Marys, for whose presence at the disrobing of Christ there is no authority in the Gospels, outraged the local enforcers of doctrine. El Greco, threatened with imprisonment, consented to remove his offending holy women. It is a sign of the joint ferocity and incompetence of the Inquisition that he left them there with impunity, and went on to include them in ten replicas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simanos (talk • contribs) 20:48, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Sgourafos

Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I'm a bit confused by this contract: from the main text, "Three years later, in June 1566, as a witness to a contract, he signed his name as Master Menégos Theotokópoulos, painter (μαΐστρος Μένεγος Θεοτοκόπουλος ζωγράφος)." Then from the footnote: "Menegos is the Venetian dialect form of Doménicos, and Sgourafos (σγουράφος=ζωγράφος) is a Greek term for painter." What did he actually write? The main text appears to give an original Greek text with an English translation; but the footnote on "sgourafos," which doesn't appear in the main text at all, seems to imply he signed it in some sort of Cretan dialect. In any case, better to give the original in the main text together with a translation, than to prettify the actual text into standard modern Greek. --Javits2000 (talk) 14:46, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, you are correct! Great perceptiveness! I'll fix the problem.--Yannismarou (talk) 17:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

The name Greco could very will be from Spanish

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

According to the Real Academia Española, the body that regulates the Spanish language, greco[3], in Spanish is:
"greco, ca.

(Del lat. graecus).

1. adj. Perteneciente o relativo a Grecia."
"greca, greca (from Latin, graecus) 1. adjective. Pertaining or relating to Greece"
So, El Greco could very well have been his Spanish attribution at the time, not a combination of Italian and Spanish as the footnote to his name in the article supposes. caz | speak —Preceding undated comment added 04:24, 6 August 2009 (UTC).

My Life

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

He had no children —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.35.91 (talk) 00:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

El Greco's signature

Latest comment: 14 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

The article has:

«Δομήνικος Θεοτοκόπουλος (Doménicos Theotocópoulos) ἐποίει». The words El Greco used to sign his paintings. El Greco appended after his name the word "epoiei" (ἐποίει, "he made it"). In The Assumption the painter used the word "deixas" (δείξας, "he displayed it") instead of "epoia".

How did he sign it, "epoiei" or "epoia"? ἐποίει is the Katharevousa Greek imperfect 3rd person sg. of the verb ποιώ, but "epoia" seems to be incorrect. The Modern Greek aorist 1st. sg. of ποιώ is ποίησα. As to δείξας, it seems also to be an incorret form. The Modern Greek aorist 1st. sg. of δείχνω ("to display") is δείξα or έδειξα.
As I am no specialist or a Greek native speaker, and as I have no access to the original, I cannot decide those questions. But it seems the article needs to be revised here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oiophron (talk • contribs) 07:58, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

"Epoiei" and "deixas" are not forms of modern Greek. "Deixas" is definitely correct. It is a past participle of "δείκνυμι". About "epoia-epoiei" I restored the grammatically correct form ("epoiei"), until I can check my sources. In any case, I want to stress that it does not matter what is right or wrong! What matters is how Theotokopoulos signed. He could have signed "epoia", if this is how he learnt the past tense of the verb "ποιώ" in his home, or if this is how he, one day, decided to sign! This is the only thing we are interested in.--Yannismarou (talk) 18:30, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Correct, δείξας is the Ancient Greek masc. sg. aor. participle of δείκνυμι. But I suppose El Greco would not have used this Ancient Greek form in his signature; besides, the construction would be unidiomatic. It seems to me no Greek would have written δείξας ("having displayed"), unless as a subordinate, quasi-adverbial expression to introduce some further idea, e.g.: "having displayed it, he became famous". Since the article does not mention its source here, those questions are not irrelevant. To put it clearly: did El Greco really write δείξας? Does anyone have a picture of this signature? Did any palaeographer analyze it? I don't want to be right nor wrong. I just want to know for sure. If El Greco did write δείξας, I think this in itself would be an important biographical (and linguistical) fact. --Oiophron (talk) 07:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Why wouldn't have he used it? He used it rarely, but it is beyond doubt that he used it! See, for instance, the google book sources or jstor. I think the full signature was "Δομήνικος Θεοτοκόπουλος δείξας" instead of "Δομήνικος Θεοτοκόπουλος εποίει". But I repeat that I'll check once again my sources as soon as I have access to them. In any case, I don't see why we should be surprised that El Greco signed using forms of ancient verbs ("epoiei" and "deixas"). You admitted that these ancient forms of verbs were also used by katharevousa. But katharevousa was the official language of the Greek state until 35 years ago! My father can still write in katharevousa using such archaical forms!--Yannismarou (talk) 12:35, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
  • After consulting my sources this is what I found:
  • El Greco did used the form "deixas" not only in the Assumption (Lambraki-Plaka, 17–18), but also in one of his famous early works, the "Dormition" (Lambraki, 17–18; Hatzifotis, 10 — Hadjifotis is not an expert on El Greco, but he cites Nikos Hadjinikolaou (editor), "Δομήνικος Θεοτοκόπουλος ο Κρης", 1990). The full signature in the Dormition (and probably in the Assumption as well) was "ΔΟΜΗΝΙΚΟΣ ΘΕΟΤΟΚΟΠΟΥΛΟΣ Ο ΔΕΙΞΑΣ=Domenikos Theotokopoulos who displayed it, who gave it shape, who "revealed" it. In another of his early works, "St. Luka", El Greco chose other words for his signature: ΧΕΙΡ ΔΟΜΗΝΙΚΟΥ= [made by the] hand of Domenikos (Lambraki, 17–18; Hatzifotis citing Hadjinikolaou).
  • As regards ΕΠΟΙΑ–ΕΠΟΙΕΙ, I admit I could not verify ΕΠΟΙΑ. Tazartes (2005) mentions only the ΕΠΟΙΕΙ form. But I do want to search a bit more on that. I cannot recall to my memory why I was so sure that it was ΕΠΟΙΑ, although ΕΠΟΙΕΙ is the grammatically common form. I'll check if Wethey says something on that in his article in Britannica or somewhere else.--Yannismarou (talk) 11:18, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Stray note

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Beautiful article, and very well-written. One detail: note "j" is repeated at the end of the first paragraph of the "Legacy" section, where it appears to have no business at all; the note's content seems entirely irrelevant to the text in that section, and there is no second arrow for note "j" in the Notes section to link to that point in the text. Is it there in error (possibly meant to be a repetition of note "k", which addresses El Greco's supposed madness)? Is it vandalism? Or is there some logic behind this arrangement that I cannot see? Waltham, The Duke of 08:21, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

"Beautiful article, and very well written." That is certainly the opinion of User talk:The Duke of Waltham.Hans Wurst — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.72.63.70 (talk) 21:37, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

question on naming

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Shouldn't the opening sentence read something along the lines of "Δομήνικος Θεοτοκόπουλος (Doménikos Theotokópoulos), known as El Greco..." Esotallica (talk) 16:48, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

The article is using the most well known name for him which is "El Greco". But it should still say El Greco, also known as Dominikos Theotokopoulos (Greek: Δομήνικος Θεοτοκόπουλος ).  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 17:07, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

"On Crete" vs. "In Crete"

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Which is the correct form? I suggest that "on Crete" is the correct one because Crete is an island and "on island" is the correct form. TGilmour (talk) 22:17, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I came up with the exact same issue on the article about Crete yesterday.  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 23:36, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

"Annotated Vasairi"

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The article refers to an "annotated Vasari" being among El Greco's library.

Someone, an unnamed editor, dropped this throw-away comment on the Giotto talk page: how about some other opinions on Giotto, like El Greco's? it appears a bit one-sided at least from a byzantine standpoint eh...

I queried how we were to know about El Greco's opinion and got back the following response a fortnight later:

"Who knows what El Greco's opinion might have been" - We do know what his opinion was considering that we have his comments on Vasari, however. My basic point was that Vasari's opinion appears right in the intro with almost no further explanation (yes, the real point is the "break" though Vasari himself would have seen it as a break in a better direction), so it looks as if the article is adopting that viewpoint. Imagine if we replaced the comment with "Giotto's simplistic style compared to the Greek manner" right in the intro because another great guy wrote it back then, instead. 87.202.155.71

I was left none-the-wiser about El Greco's opinion, because no indication was given as to how to find it. But, observing today in this present article that El greco owned an "annotated Vasari", I Googled and found the following link Hand-written note shows El Greco defending Byzantine style in face of Western art.

The article states that this is his only criticism of Vasari. There is no indication of any other annotations in the book, so perhaps the implication carried by the words in the El Greco article "annotated Vasari" are misleading, if only a single annotation exists.

The location of the annotation is Vasari's description of Giotto's breaking with the "crude Greek style" (i.e. Byzantine style). The annotation says:

“If [Vasari] really knew the nature of the Greek style of which he speaks, he would deal with it differently in what he says. He compares it with Giotto, but what Giotto did is simple in comparison, because the Greek style is full of ingenious (variously translated as "deceptive") difficulties.”

If this highly pertinent example of El Greco defending the Byzantine style is not already included in the article, it needs to be.

Amandajm (talk) 03:50, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

English

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Those follow is wrong - that follow is correct in the context of the sentence...Modernist (talk) 16:51, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

FA 2007

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Since then we got a lot of much better files. I personally think a bit of an update would't hurt. Lot of the pictures used are rather murky and small, not quite the high resolution files we got nowadays. Hafspajen (talk) 16:21, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

LGBT perspective

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Beginning in the 20th century, writers such as Jean Cocteau (in Le Greco) and Ernest Hemingway (in Death in the Afternoon) have speculated that El Greco was gay/bisexual based on the following reasons: the sensuality of his nude male portraiture, his lack of a relationship with the mother of his only child, and his close relationship with Francesco Preboste (who had power of attorney for El Greco and lived with him). Since El Greco lived during a time when sodomy was illegal it is unlikely he would have blatantly outed himself. The interpretation that El Greco was gay seems as valid as other interpretations mentioned in this article such as the one about his eyesight. Rpotance (talk) 21:11, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

El Greco fallacy

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hey. I've just created El Greco fallacy, and despite the fact that the fallacy page is of a more philosophy/psychology bent, I thought maybe this page and that one might both be able to benefit from the other. It's possible those editors who monitor this page don't think the fallacy page is relevant to the El Greco page (or vice versa), but I just thought I'd just mention it. — Harry (talk) 01:10, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on El Greco. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 09:44, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on El Greco. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 17:34, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:El_Greco/Archive_1&oldid=1038874264"