Talk:Han van Meegeren

An amusing story.

One can only wish that another frustrated artist and contemporary of van Meegeren's - Adolf Hitler - had chosen such a nonviolent means of assuaging his damaged ego. -Kasreyn

Where are they now?

Any info on what became of van Meegeren's paintings? They still must be something to look at, if they fooled the experts, and certainly they are a terrific historical curiosity. -R. fiend 01:50, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

There is at least one (the first Emmaus) in the Boymans en Van Beuningen museum in Rotterdam.

Lord Kilbracken has given a list of the whereabouts of Van Meegeren's fakes in his 1967 book.

Improving the article

The sentence "Christ With The Adultress was found in the Austrian salt mine by Allied forces, and led to Van Meegeren's arrest" should state what crime van Meegeren was arrested for.71.224.204.167 15:54, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

A reference is required for the assertion that the supposed van Meegeren forgery entitled "Laughing Cavalier" is the one in the Wallace collection: I think it may be a different painting in the Groninger Museum (http://www.mystudios.com/gallery/han/media.html)Mastiff 02:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

It appears that you are right. The provanance of the Cavalier at Wallace proves that their painting could not be a van Meegeren forgery. I have edited the page to reflect this. --DO11.10 17:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Van Meegeren

You could add that there exist two recently published books

1. Han Van Meegeren Masterforger by Frederik H. Krerueger (in Dutch, but translation in preparation) Amsterdam 2004 ISBN 9076988536

2. The Deception (in English) by Frederiik H. Kreuger A novel which follows Van Meegeren's life for 95% and ends with a short history on his real life Rijswijk/De Haag 2005 ISBN 9059590317

This remark added by the author, F.H. Kreuger.

Dear Mr. Kreuger, I can't find your first book on Amazon or anywhere... if it has pictures, I would like to see it :( Ashibaka tock 15:45, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear Ashibaka: I'm surprised that Amazon could not deliver this book. But the problem was perhaps that you asked for the title in English, whereas it should be in Dutch: "Han van Meegeren. Meestervervalser" Try that one, please. If that doesn't work you could as well e-mail the publisher: eeskens@veenmagazines.nl . It has more than 100 pictures, many of them not published before.

Frederik H. Kreuger

Improvement and Expansion

I am working on an English translation of the fabulous German article on Han van Meegeren. I expect that this translation will vastly improve this article and provide a much more comprehensive look at his life. I expect to complete the translation shortly.--DO11.10 19:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

condensation of introduction

This article, overall, is superb. However, if there is one thing that needs to be improved, it is that the introduction is much too long -- it does not need to go into so much detail, since that is what the article is going to do. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

DO11.10 deserves a round of applause for an excellent job cutting the introduction down while keeping it informative and readable. Nice work, DO! -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Aw shucks, thanks. I have changed several other things within the article, as per the suggestions of peer reviewers. Do you have any other suggestions?--DO11.10 03:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

GA failed

I have reviewed this article according to the GA criteria and have quick-failed the article due to a lack of inline citations. The article is very comprehensive, which is excellent to see. There are a few inline citations found throughout the article, but a lot more need to be added due to the amount of information and the length of the article. Entire sections throughout the article are not referenced. Go through the article and for every statement you think that may be questioned about its verifiability, then add an inline citation after it. Once you have addressed these issues and looked over the other criteria, consider renominating. If you disagree with this review, you can seek an alternate review at Wikipedia:Good article review. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Nehrams2020 18:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

GA on hold

After misinterpreting the inline citations due to use of Harvard referencing, I am reviewing the article again. Please address the following issues and I will pass the article.

1. "was a Dutch painter, and art-restorer," I think the comma should be removed after "painter". Done
2. "He had masterfully replicated the styles and colours of the artists he copied..." "Masterfully" may be seen as POV, please reword. Done changed to "had so well"
3. "These crimes threatened the death penalty; and so van Meegeren fearfully confessed to the forgery, he then sought to exonerate himself by painting another “Vermeer” from his jail cell." Move the semicolon to after "forgery". Done
4. "On 12 November 1947 van Meegeren..." Wikilink full dates. The next occurrence is in the next sentence. Go through the rest of the article and wikilink the rest (including the infobox). Done
5. "Korteling had been greatly inspired by Johannes Vermeer". "Greatly inspired" doesn't seem encyclopedic, consider rewording. Done removed "greatly"
6. "Unfortunately, his father did..." Don't use "unfortunately". Done
7. "In the summer 1914 van Meegeren moved..." "In the summer of 1914" Done
8. "He completed the diploma examination at the Royal Academy of Art in The Hague, receiving his diploma, in drawing, on August 4, 1914." Remove the comma after "diploma" and "drawing". Done
9. Add a wikilink for his salary of "75 guldens" to Dutch gulden. Done
10. "Although he had not passed the portrait-painting section of his diploma examination in 1914, he now dedicated himself to portraiture, as it served to earn him the most money" Add a wikilink for portraiture. Done
11. "Van Meegeren felt that his genius had been misjudged," In prior occurrences where sentences started with his last name, "van" was not capitalized, but it is here. I don't know what the exact rule is for capitalizing "van", but choose which one is best and stick with it. You may have to go through the whole article to see that it is uniform. The next instance I noticed was two paragraphs later. Done-I did some checking, apparently with the first name it is Han van Meegeren, but when used alone the name should be Van Meegeren, I have changed this to be consistent throughout.
12. "Vermeer had not been particularly well-known until the beginning of the twentieth century, his works were both scarce, only about 35 of Vermeer's works have survived, and valuable." Add a semicolon after "century". Done
13. "Another factor that may have influenced his choice of Vermeer was that during WWII most of Vermeer’s actual works were in protective storage and were unavailable for comparison with van Meegeren's forgeries." Add an inline citation for this. Done
14. "for 550,000 guilders ($300,000 or about $4M today)." Spell out million. Done
15. "In November 1944, van Meegeren moved to Amsterdam, where he took up residence in the exclusive Keizersgracht 321 (Boissevain, 1996:233)" This sentence is missing a period. Done
16. "He used this money to purchase a large amount of real estate, as well as works of art, and to further his luxurious life-style." There shouldn't be a hyphen between lifestyle, unless you are using another region of English (I'm using American). If you are, ignore this suggestion.  Done The article is written in British English so it should probably remain.
17. "Niedl later sold it to Reichsmarshall Hermann Goering for 1.65 million guilders ($625,000 or $7 Million today." Million shouldn't be capitalized. Done
18. "Göring wasn't too concerned about the money, however, since he paid in counterfeit currency." Is the Bailey reference in the next sentence covering this statement as well? If not, add an inline citation.  Done(Removed sentence)
19. "Several experts were wary of van Meegeren’s tale of the "Vermeer", so between July and September, 1945, in the presence of 6 witnesses; a Vermeer expert, a photographer and four police officers, van Meegeren painted his last forgery, Jesus among the Doctors." Reword to "Several experts were wary of van Meegeren’s tale of the "Vermeer", so between July and September 1945, in the presence of 6 witnesses (including a Vermeer expert, a photographer, and four police officers), van Meegeren painted his last forgery, Jesus among the Doctors." Done
20. "Over a two year period," Add a hyphen between two year. Done
21. "The urn will remain at the cemetery until at least 2008." Add an inline citation for this. Also, why until 2008, is it going to be moved somewhere else? Done (removed the bit about the urn, it was in the original German without citation, but I couldn't verify, I did find a cite his burial place though)
22. "When Coremans refused, van Beuningen sued him, alleging that Coremans’ wrongful branding of The Last Supper II diminished the value of his “Vermeer” and asking for compensation of £500,000 (about $1.3 Million or about $10 Million today.[3])" Million shouldn't be capitalized. Done
23. "It is difficult to accurately describe the life of Han van Meegeren because, by definition, he led a conspiratorial life." This statement doesn't seem encyclopedic, but more an ending sentence in an article. Consider rewording, unless you think it should remain. Done I've removed the sentence entirely.
24. "His hero like status" Maybe reword, might be POV. If not, add a hyphen between hero and like. Done changed to "new found popularity"
25. "A Dutch opinion poll conducted in October of 1947 placed Han van Meegeren’s popularity second in the nation, behind only the Prime Minister's." Add wikilink for the Dutch Prime Minister. Done
26. "Han van Meegeren remains one of the most ingenious art counterfeiters of the 20th century." If this sentence is going to use ingenious, then it is going to have to be immediately followed by an inline citation. Done
27. "So, in an amusing turn of events, not only have some “Vermeers” been forged by Han van Meegeren, some “van Meegerens” have actually been copied by a new generation of forgers." Add an inline citation for this. Done-removed, couldn't verify.

Most of the above suggestions are really easy to fix, and there are some requests for adding inline citations. Please fix the above issues within seven days and I'll pass the article. If you have any questions or when you are done, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Nehrams2020 22:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

GA passed

I have passed this article according to the GA criteria. A few minor things that still need to be fixed:

1. "In 1907 Van Meegeren, compelled by his fathers demands", add an apostrophe for "father's"
2. "75 Dutch gulden" For this I meant 75 [[Dutch gulden|guldens]]; sorry, I wasn't clearer.

Other than this, the article looks great. Again, I'm sorry for failing the article the first time, as it turns out it was quite a mistake! Keep improving the article and make sure that all newly added information is properly sourced. If you have the time, please consider reviewing an article or two at GAC to help with the current drive to remove the backlog. Each new reviewer helps to cut down on the waiting time for nominations. Keep up the good work, the article was an interesting read! --Nehrams2020 04:46, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Van Meegeren owned no nightclubs

It is extremely unlikely that Van Meegeren "owned nightclubs" when he was arrested. Before the liberation of Holland there was a curfew where nobody was allowed in the streets between 10 at night (sometimes 8 o'clock) and 4 in the morning. And people were starving. What use of nightclubs? After the liberation nightclubs soon appeared but Van Meegeren was arrested within two weeks after the liberation. Moreover, Van Meegeren was extremely rich after all his forgeries, so why exploit a nightclub? The only explanation I can think of is that among the many houses Van Meegeren owned (he invested his capital in houses, stocks, diamonds, etc) one was used after a while as a nightclub. The refence to a nightclub is by Schueller: but this gentelman wrote a study about recognizing the fakesof Van Meegeren, he didn't make a study of the life of Van Meegeren. The other reference is by Godley who did excellent work when writing his biography. However he never met Van Meegeren personally, so a remark about a nightclub can easily have come to him by way of rumours. The remark on owning a nightcub shall thus been deleted I'll wait for an answer for some time, if none is coming I'll delete this passage.== --Primasz (talk) 09:31, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

You've made some good points. I don't have a problem with removing nightclubs statement.--DO11.10 (talk) 19:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

new information on Van Meegeren's arrest

I’ am the Dutch biographer of Van Meegeren, Frederik H. Kreuger. Recent research has shed new light on the arrest of Van Meegeren and subsequent events. I published the results in 2004 and 2006 in Dutch and recently in English in "A New Vermeer, Life and Work of Han van Meegeren", 2007, publisher uitgeverij@quantes.nl in Holland. I’ll try now to correct the details of Van Meegeren’s arrest in the article about Van Meegeren. As a newcomer to Wikipedia I tell this in order to show that I’ am not vandalizing the article but genuinely try to correct it.

If after a while the Wikipedia community has recognized the honesty of my intentions, I’ll have some more corrections to make, partly because I know the country and the language of Van Meegeren somewhat better, partly because I have found more new sources. Could an experienced Wikipedia-user reply to this entry or does Wikipedia not work in that way? Primasz 14:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

First off, I very much appreciate your approach here. I essentially translated this article from the German wiki-article, but based some passages on several English language sources. I was also the one who reverted your prior changes. Not because I thought you were vandalizing the article, but because you removed cited passages and citations and inserted some POV statements. Clearly you know a lot about the subject here, and I would welcome a discussion of changes. These cannot be based on original research, but since you have published the material it should be okay. Can you include the new information without removing current sources? Also, I have not read this book, and I cannot seem to find it anywhere based on the ISBN, I would love to read it though. It would be immensely helpful to me to know what kind of information you plan to include or exclude. Cheers from a fellow VM buff!--DO11.10 00:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your reaction, for me as a newcomer to Wikipedia it is difficult to feel my way around. I would much appreciate to have a discussion with you via e-mail, there's a lot to discuss about the results of my research and the correct to enter these in the Wikipedia article. Please mail me at primasz@freeler.nl and we could start. Primasz 14:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

My book on Van Meegeren is called "A New Vermeer" after the article by the art-expert Bredius in 1937 where he announced Van Meegeren's fake Emmaus as the "finest Vermeer ever seen". It can be found at *www.quantes.nl: English Van Meegeren biography. Primasz 14:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I also open tonight a website on Van Meegeren: www.vanmeegeren.com where I hope to find more people who want to share my interest in this "brillant rascal" as he was called by one of his friends. Primasz 14:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Further answer to DO10.11, I lately made a survey of the primary and secondary sources of the know-how contained in the books about Van Meegeren. I would like to send you this; at what e-mail address could I do that? (I didn't yet receive mail yet). Or could you mail me at primasz@freeler.nl? Primasz (talk) 11:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Bail

The article states that Van Meegeren "was released on bail" after which he continued to paint. However, "bail" does not exist in Holland, so the words "on bail" shall be omitted. I'll do that within a few days, unless anybody protests. Primasz (talk) 18:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

New insights

I just noticed a series of articles in de NYTimes about VanMeegeren: [1], [2] and [3]. It gives some new insights as, apparently, he adored hitler. I am not an art contributor, so I leave it to someone else to look into this. --VanBurenen (talk) 20:24, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Han van Meegeren/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

See my remarks on the fulfillment of the criteria below --Primasz (talk) 08:37, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Starting GA reassessment as part of the GA Sweeps process. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose):

   b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references):

   • A large number of paragraphs are unreferenced. I have paced citation needed tags. ref #5 [4], and ref #18 [5] are dead. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)  Done

   b (citations to reliable sources):

   • appear reliable

   c (OR):

   • Some sections need references as noted above Y

3. It is broad in its scope.

   a (major aspects):

   b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):

   b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   • This is an interesting artcile, the flaws are the dead links and the lack of referncing parts. On hold. Major contributors and projects will be notified. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC) Y
   • OK, I am happy to say that this article deserves to keep its GA status. Thanks for your hard work. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Checking against AG criteria: an answer

Dear editor: Although I agree in general there are, however, a few points to be made:

about point 3: broad in scope. That's true. Howevere, there is one section that oversteps the scope. That is the section "The Carnegie Mellon examination". This examination proved a point in the Van Meegeren case that had already been proven twice by the Dutch judicature. The text is therefore not needed for the article and could possbly scare the reader with its highly technical language. My proposal is to strike this section, the result will be a shorter and clearer article (and not less accurate).

about point 4: neutral point of view. The heading of the section "To my believed Fuhrer" is too suggestive and does not represent the neutral character of Wikipedia. I would rather replace this with a more balanced text as follows, see between >> <<

>> ===How “wrong” was Van Meegeren during the war?===

In occupied Holland people were sharply divided. The majority of the population, loyal to the country and to their Queen, strongly distrusted the Nazi-following minority. People were labeled either “goed” or “fout”, meaning “right” or “wrong”; there was no middle road. In accordance with this sharp division Han van Meegeren fell just on the wrong side of the line. Although he was not a Nazi and did not endorse their doctrines, he flirted with the officials of the Nazi-infested Ministry of Culture because he wanted to display his art at exhibitions.

Although one might rightly consider Han van Meegeren’s behavior during the war as “wrong”, in the larger scheme of things he did no evil. He did not betray or thwart anyone. Nor was he anti-Semitic, despite rumors about purported anti-Semitic sentiments. These rumors can be traced back to an art-historian (M.H. Van den Brandhof, 1979) who had suggested that one of van Meegeren’s large drawings (Corn, Oil and Cotton) was an anti-Semitic pastiche. However, a detailed study of the drawing revealed no anti-Jewish symbols at all.

Another sensitive topic involves the large book of drawings that was found in the headquarters of Adolf Hitler, with the hand-written dedication Dem geliebten Führer in dankbarer Anerkennung gewidmet followed by the signature H. van Meegeren. Han protested his innocence, pointing out that many of his books were sold with his handwritten signature on the front page. He argued that a Nazi customer could well have bought such a copy, added the dedication and sent it to Adolf Hitler. Investigations by handwriting experts yielded no decisive answers as some stated that the handwriting was Han’s, others that is was not. Whatever the case, if Han had indeed sent a copy to Hitler it would have been the most stupid thing he ever did in his life. On the other hand, if he was innocent, he was now being well punished for having consorted with Nazi officials.

We can conclude that although Han van Meegeren’s behavior during the war was neither prudent nor admirable - not “right” as perceived at that time by his compatriots - his conduct was certainly not that of a fascist or an anti-Semite. <<

The opinion that Van Meegeren was a Nazi-follower or an anti-Semite is highly controversial and should not be fought out here. Therefore my proposal for a far more neutral point of view.

about point 5: Stable (no editing wars)This is related to the above. I would have liked to strike the suggestions of pro-Nazi and anti-Semitic earlier but I didn't like to start an editing war. But now you're asking me in this discussion, I give you my opinion here. (I lived in Holland during the war and know the situation at that time). I'll apreciate to hear your answer. --Primasz (talk) 08:34, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, I will bear them in mind and perhaps the major contributors to this article will, if they ever turn up. They have been notified. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:01, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I have added the requested citations, and updated and removed the dead links you mentioned. WRT the "Fuhrer" section, I have tried a bit of a compromise by removing some of the leading statements for a bit of neutrality, but we can't really be sure what van Meegeren was thinking or whether he even really wrote the inscription, so I think it is best left a bit vague. Please let me know if you find my changes sufficient. Best--DO11.10 (talk) 19:59, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Controversial section: Teekeningen 1 discovery

A contradictory report by a Dutch expert on the alleged dedication of Van Meegeren to Hitler:

(according to the cited interview of J. Lopez by E. Morris in New York Times)

The book Teekeningen 1 by Han van Meegeren (1942) is said to have been found by the journalist Jan Spierdijk, correspondent of the Dutch Communistic Journal De Waarheid (Waarheid is Dutch for Pravda). It would have been found in the completely bombed and burned down Chancellery of Hitler in Berlin. The dedication to Hitler was, according to Spierdijk, written on the fly-leaf of the book Teekeningen 1. The circumstances of this find have, however, never been cleared and have raised many questions.

The first publication of this find was in De Waarheid of 11th July 1945, called “Once the pride of Berlin, now a ruin”. The second publication was in De Waarheid of 6th November 1945 where an alleged photo-reproduction of the fly-leaf and cover of this book were added. The book itself, however, had vanished and was never seen again. It is thus impossible to have an impartial and critical judgment of this question.

An unknown hand-writing expert is quoted to have judged that the (detached) letters of the dedication were written by one and the same person who would have been Han van Meegeren. Van Meegeren denied that the dedication was by his hand. He told that about 150 copies of his book had been sold with his autograph on the fly-leaf and that any Nazi-friendly buyer could have added a dedication.

The “Ereraad voor de Kunsten” (Purging Council) who commanded the graphologic investigation has never pronounced a verdict against Van Meegeren. From the minutes of this Council it follows that no indications were found that Van Meegeren would have been politically incorrect. Moreover, a written report of the hand-writing expert is missing.

In the judicial process of Van Meegeren (on account of his forged paintings) a dedication to Hitler, or other possible political mistakes, were not mentioned. This follows from the text of the recently (2009) retrieved sentence, hearings of witnesses, reports of experts, etc. of this process (A.H. Huussen, Cahiers uit het Noorden XX, Zoetermeer, Holland 2009. A copy has been sent to the Library of Congress).

Or to quote an English source: Lord Kilbracken, the first biographer of Van Meegeren came already in 1967 to the conclusion that there was no truth in the allegation of a Führer-dedication by Han van Meegeren (Van Meegeren Masterforger, New York 1967, page 160) .

Conclusion: from an uncertain dedication like this, no far-going conclusions may be drawn regarding the political views of Han van Meegeren. The arguments given by Lopez in the interview are biased and not well documented, but based on talk from hearsay.

Zoetermeer, Holland, 25th July 2009

Professor A. H. Huussen, historian

Emeritus professor University of Groningen

Consequence for Wikipedia

It is clear from the above that the section “Teekeningen 1 discovery” about an alleged Führer-dedication in the Van Meegeren article is highly controversial. This is not in accordance with the principles of Wikipedia. The section shall therefore, I’m afraid, be deleted.

What are the opinions of other Wikipedians?

Primasz (talk) 08:16, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

In the light of what happened in the Holocaust it is unfair to accuse anybody of Nazism, like done to Van Meegeren, or even suggest so. Older English investigations and recent investigations in Holland have shown that an accusation of a Führer-dedication by Van Meegeren is unfounded (see the discussion above). I shall therefore remove this section.

The section was not only unfair to Van Meegeren, but also to his grandchildren who still live in Europe and could see it as an affront, or even as libel. Wikipedia shall not be involved in a highly controversial case like this.--Primasz (talk) 09:33, 16 August 2009 (UTC) 16 August 2009

If so wanted by the officials of Wikipedia I'm willing to write a more neutral text about this Teekeningen 1. Please let me know. Primasz (talk) 09:42, 16 August 2009 (UTC)16 Aug 2009

Forgery of Vermeer's Jesus and the docters

Martinevans123 asks some questions in the edit changes. (it should have been more clear to ask them here)

Question: So by whom was the original. Answer: Jesus among the docters is painted by many painters, not by Vermeer. Van Meegeren painted it in the style of Vermeer. After all this is not a forgery, he never said Vermeer painted it. He painted it while other people looking. It's an original Van Meegeren. The earlier text under the picture is more correct. he demonstrated his forgery techniques. That is what the Tnunn-source says too. The other source says: he would paint another Vermeer, but that should be read as in style of Vermeer. Salix2 (talk) 14:44, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. That caption could be restored. (Although it is quite a long caption, don't you think, especially for a lead image?) I was trying to include the significant fact that it was meant to look like a Vermeer. A single image of van Meegeren alone might be better - or is this seen a career defining moment? Obviously it was his intention to produce a "fake Vermeer", even with observers who had instructed him to do just that. I think it is a grey area as to when a "fake" really becomes a fake. We can't definitely say that Vermeer never painted a Jesus Among the Doctors - it is simply a fact that one has never yet been found or documented - this might indeed be a fact that van Meegeren could rely on to produce his "fake"? So perhaps somewhat of a paradox. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:19, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

You can restore the caption or write: Han van Meegeren in 1945, painting Jesus among the Doctors, his last painting in Vermeer style. (The text of the trial is in the article.)

Under see also I added another Dutch forger. He still lives and paints. He works in the style of several artists, but writes copied after ...(name of original painter) or words like that, and signs with his own name. Salix2 (talk) 22:05, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok. Fascinating. I would perhaps call him "a copyist" rather than "a forger". Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:16, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Biopic

Someone should note on the page the film about the man: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Real_Vermeer

His "Vermeers"

Did he ever claim any of these paintings were actually Vermeer or did the buyers simply assume they were based on the style of the paintings? Does that make him a forger or the original artist? Valgrus Thunderaxe (talk) 05:01, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

Han van Meegeren

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:29, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

This 2007 listing contains significant uncited material, failing GA criterion 2b). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:03, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

I've never done anything related to a good article reassessment before, but I'm interested in crime, so I'll give it my best shot to bring it up to snuff. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:12, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi PARAKANYAA, do you intend to continue working on this article? No worries if not. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:38, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29 Yes I do, and will get back to working on it now. I acquired some of the book sources and am looking through them. I'm unsure if I can get it good enough to maintain its status but I will try. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:37, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Hey PARAKANYAA, are you planning on returning still? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:01, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29 Yeah I don't think I can save this. I could probably fix the citation needed issues with enough time but after reading some of these books there are more severe structural/content issues with this article that I can't fix in any reasonable amount of time. Should probably be closed. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:42, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.