Talk:Sanders portrait

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sanders portrait. 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/20131017005645/http://www.cci-icc.gc.ca/caringfor-prendresoindes/articles/sanders/index-eng.aspx to http://www.cci-icc.gc.ca/caringfor-prendresoindes/articles/sanders/index-eng.aspx

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) 22:00, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Bad sentence

The sentence "The image has often been overlooked by scholars, with a host of subjective excuses" reeks of POV and doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Unfortunately I'm not sure what to replace it with, being totally unfamiliar with this subject. 1.157.95.133 (talk) 07:07, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

The whole article reeks of POV, but that's definitely the worst sentence. This article could really stand to be re-written entirely by an expert, but reading between the lines, the only experts on the painting are on its owners' payroll. ~2025-34448-62 (talk) 00:06, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

I've undertaken an extensive rewrite, but there's still a lot of issues. My read on this is that there's only 2 or 3 actual underlying sources for any of these claims, and all of them were paid for by the owners of the portrait. On the other hand, it doesn't seem like there's a ton of scholarship out there tearing this portrait down, there just isn't an acceptance of it - but the pro-portrait apologetics (including the former state of this article) all assume an extremely defensive posture. Quite frankly, it stinks to high heaven, but I don't have nearly the knowledge to give this the proper ground-up rewrite it needs, but at least for now this article isn't just a polemic arguing for the portrait's authenticity. ~2026-12847-33 (talk) 23:04, 17 March 2026 (UTC)