Talk:Ozias Humphry

Untitled

I have merged the Ozias Humphry and Ozias Humphrey articles. Also removed proposed deletion notice - IMHO: if an artist is sufficiently notable to be elected as a Royal Academician, he is worthy of inclusion in the Wikipedia (to delete Humphrey would also leave a 'gap' in the list of artists named in the RA piece. Paul W 11:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I've added more - there should be no question of notability. The Austen, Blake & Stubbs connections each would probably make him notable. Did you realize how topical this is? Why did you go for Humphrey as the title - Humphry seems more common. Johnbod 01:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Out of date?

How out of date is this article? Are his works still in the Morgan collection? The intial article came from the Brittanica, so we don't guarantee that it's still up to date. Corvus cornix 22:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I tried the Morgan Library website, but the online catalogue doesn't cover paintings; they seem to have some papers. I imagine any miniatures are there or in the MMA, which got a lot from Morgan. Johnbod

Rice Portrait

I eased the terms "perhaps" of Jane Austen to "said to be" of Jane Austen. The arguments against this portrait being Jane Austen are strong and compelling, although there is little doubt that it was some member of her family. Artemis-Arethusa 22:19, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not really sure "said to be" is weaker than "perhaps". I think there is much doubt that it was of a member of her family, though clearly owned by one later. Johnbod 23:23, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. It's certainly not her. Artemis-Arethusa 01:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I've changed it to "claimed to be...". My impression is that the fashion argument is less strong against it than the fact that Austen's family were in no financial position to commission such an expensive portrait of a daughter probably some way pre-"coming-out". Johnbod 02:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

That's a perfectly reasonable edit. It is "claimed to be", but it cannot possibly be her ("perhaps" allows for some possibility, after all). I should not have spoken about whether it was or was not some member of Miss Austen's family, as I am not familiar with the history of this painting -- not my area of expertise and I apologise. There are several different good arguments against this painting's being of Jane Austen. I had thought of the expensive-portratit-middle-class-clergyman argument as well, which is a good one. However, the fashion argument is in fact very strong -- near watertight to anybody familiar (in a historian's capacity, not as a recreational reader of popular fashion histories) with the fashions of that era. You cannot fudge that painting to as early as they want to. Artemis-Arethusa 11:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

This portrait probably does not even belong in this article. If, as evidence strongly suggests, it was painted around 1810, Humphrey cannot have painted it. He went blind in 1797. Artemis-Arethusa 17:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. UtherSRG (talk) 06:06, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

---

Ozias Humphrey → Ozias Humphry – There used to be two articles on Ozias Humphry on Wikipedia which were merged in 2006 (see above). Although the merging was perfectly fine, the choice of spelling for the combined article was not. Humphry is the nearly universally used spelling, while Humphrey is rare and most likely used in error (mainly in very old articles). See for example oxforddnb and National Art Library search result page. Gerbis (talk) 12:29, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

As an afterthought, I wrote a chapter entitled "Name" into the article, which should make things a little clearer (please see there). Gerbis (talk) 16:46, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support -- I would always follow ODNB, a recent heavily researched work on a disputed issue, unless I had very clear evidence that it is wrong. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:58, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ozias Humphry. 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/20110525060203/http://www.vam.ac.uk/content/articles/p/portrait-miniatures-india/ to http://www.vam.ac.uk/content/articles/p/portrait-miniatures-india/

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) 13:15, 30 November 2017 (UTC)