# Talk:Auguste Rodin

Ok, so I eliminated a spacing error (as I saw it), but the result is that now the text runs into the picture.  I have no idea how to edit pictures, so I'm waiting for someone else to make it all work.  Sorry about leaving a mess. Unschool 23:02, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

No worries. It was fine to remove the space and the picture layout problem has been around for a while. I've now shifted the second picture a little to avoid clashing with the text. -- Solipsist 07:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! I've been hovering over my computer 24/7 for a week, waiting for someone to fix that! :)Unschool 07:52, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Is this not vandalism with anti-french sentiment?

"We well know now that the French word for Resistance is "capitulation" and ultimately the town accepted the sculpture for its artistic power even though they were offended by its air of submission"
--5telios 14:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes quite possibly. I believe the French word for 'resistance' is actually 'résistance' [1] and has nothing to do with captiulation. On the other hand, the recent group of edits that introduced this section does more or less correctly describe some of the reaction to this unconventional sculpture. Also the Norton Simon Museum does appear to have a copy of The Burghers of Calais [[2]. Their description seems somewhat better than this chatty version too. -- Solipsist 15:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Come to think of it, we have a whole article on The Burghers of Calais, so we don't really need the description in this article. -- Solipsist 15:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information.  I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list.  Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article.  Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this as a model for the editors here.  Regards, Durova 15:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

The list of locations has become something like a fetish, and is in dire need of a trimming to the essential eight or ten (which would be plenty!); right now there are 27, some of which are of marginal import, or less. However, I fear that cutting into this will engender some possessive or chauvanistic reactions. Can an experienced editor in the arts offer some suggestion? JNW 00:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

We could start by trimming the locations that don't even listed the pieces held. Or, the section could be split off into List of Rodin sculptures by location, for example. Truthfully, I don't think the article is in good enough shape now that this list detracts from it... –Outriggr § 00:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Good thoughts--thank you. In some cases, as in a Rodin-specific or other world class museum, there is no need to have individual sculpture listed. My concern is more for minor entries, collections that hold one or two pieces. I think I noticed the list because in a few more weeks it will be as long as the article. JNW 01:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I see. I think you should go ahead and trim it. When I mentioned the condition of the article, I only meant in relation to the fact that it's supposed to be a "core" biography! –Outriggr § 03:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Understood. It might not be there yet, but you have done good work to raise the level of the article. JNW 05:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

There's an ISBN finder on my user page - I can't find an ISBN listing on World of Rodin, 1840-1917.  Amazon.com says it has an "ASIN: B000HKSXHA "  I don't know what that means?
According to Amazon.com, Janson's History of Art has seven editions - do you have an ISBN on the third?  I can't find it either.
Note, ISBNs aren't required, but they're a nice touch, and make it easier to find the exact version you used - I can't find it on Amazon.com
It would be good to diversify the Hale sources - it's old, and I can't find commentary on how good it is.
Referencing looks very good, but Quoted in Flash presentation of. National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C.. Retrieved on 2006-12-12.  should be NGA Sculpture Galleries: Auguste Rodin as title.
Since GroveArt requires a subscription, you might delink it from the title, adding it at the end as "Available at ... "  Since it's a magazine, you're not required to add a URL, but some object to clicking on a URL and finding fee required (I don't).
Can you switch to one, consistent date format in refs?
I'm unclear on ref placement here - maybe you can investigate? (For example, as a result of this limit, The Burghers of Calais is found in 14 cities.)[30]
Found a weasle here:  Although Rodin used several models for some of his sculptures, Camille Claudel is thought to be the main model for several of his works.  (cite needed - thought according to whom?)
Not sure why, but this sentence structure isn't working for me - Lacking features such as arms, legs, or a head, fragments like The Walking Man, Meditation without Arms, Iris, Messenger of the Gods are notable examples.
I'd like to see more citations for two reasons:  1) it's a bio, and 2) it's about a "subjective" subject (art).  For example:  Rodin increasingly sought more soothing female companionship in Paris, and Rose stayed in the background.  And:  The two formed a passionate but stormy relationship, and influenced each other artistically.  And:  Decades after the charges of surmoulage early in his career, he was still sensitive to the controversy—he ensured that the size or design of his figures made it obvious that his creations were entirely his.
That's the surface stuff - I like to read a hardcopy - printing it out for tonight's bedtime reading, but I'm not great at analyzing prose :-)  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

He played a pivotal role in redefining sculpture in the late nineteenth century, both excelling at and transcending the academic Beaux-Arts tradition. His work redefined sculpture at a time when painters such as Cézanne and Monet were redefining painting through Impressionism.  Three redefines in two sentences.
Despite Rodin's dynamic character and his misgivings with the staleness of contemporary sculpture, Not sure what is meant by "dynamic" character, and misgivings about staleness isn't working.
Despite Rodin's dynamic character and his misgivings with the staleness of contemporary sculpture, he did not set out to rebel against tradition. He was schooled traditionally, and wanted academic recognition.[1] Yet Rodin's most notable sculptures were roundly criticized during his lifetime.  Maybe connect the first two sentences with a semi-colon, and the "yet" doesn't follow.  Or connect the second and third sentences - not getting the connection.
A pose might be considered too informal; the exactness of his forms too real; or the lack of a heroic theme found disrespectful.  commas instead of semi-colons? Not sure.
Expand the final sentence of the lead into a paragraph, to summarize more of the article.
 At 14, he attended "la Petite École",  See WP:MOS - I think foreign phrases are italicized.
Rodin submitted a clay model of a companion to the École des Beaux-Arts in 1857 in an attempt to win entrance. He did not succeed, and two further applications were also denied. Connect the two sentences with a semi-colon - do we know why he was denied?
Rodin, attempting to combine Michelangelo's mastery of the human form with his own sense of human nature, studied his model from all angles, at rest and in motion; he mounted a ladder for additional perspective, and made clay models, which he studied by candlelight. Use an em dash for the attempting clause?
and The Age of Bronze was purchased by the state for 2,200 francs Hard date may need a cite.
I stopped there - it's really quite excellent, but since I know nothing of the visual arts and I'm not that good at analyzing prose, these are only ideas.  Good luck - it should be ready to go quite soon! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the review Sandy! I've addressed some of your feedback, and other points, relating to the lead and referencing variety, will (hopefully) come later. The only point that stumps me is your comment, "Can you switch to one, consistent date format in refs?". I'm not sure what this means. Do you mean the (year) information after an author's name in journal cites? All other references are showing traditional date formatting--or do you mean in the internal markup? –Outriggr § 03:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I meant this:
Rodin, Famous Sculptor, Dead", The New York Times, November 18, 1917, p. E3.
vs. for example
"Auguste Rodin. His Sculpture And Its Aims.", The Times, 1917-11-19, p. 11.
and then, retrieve dates:
Ward-Jackson, Philip. (1) Camille Claudel. Grove Art Online, Oxford University Press. Retrieved on 2006-12-19.
It's not basis for an object, nor a big deal, but it's nice when dates use either one format or the other.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
OK, I don't see that, so it must be because of date preferences. My date format preference is set to "16:12, January 15, 2001", so the items entered as 1999-01-01 are translated. What is yours set to? In the cite templates I use  [[1917-11-19]] because it's the most convenient way to refer to dates... in any case, I would have thought that the default date preference would change those to something more display-friendly. –Outriggr § 20:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that this is definitely of GA quality. Nice work. I am including some comments below in case you want to go for FA and that would improve the article overall.

Sculpturally, he possessed a unique ability to organize a complex, turbulent, deeply pocketed clay surface. - This sounds a little poetic for the lead, in my opinion.
I think that the lead should say a little more about Rodin's life - reflect the article a little more than it does.
The predominant figure sculpture tradition of the time required an almost formulaic approach, and most sculpture was either decorative or highly thematic. - wordy (watch for this at times in the page)
The article has excessive commas. Ex: He was schooled traditionally in Paris's École des Beaux-Arts system, and desired academic recognition.
You might like commas, but this comma (like several others in your article) is used incorrectly. (I like the comma too, by the way). Awadewit 04:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Is it necessary to have an infobox?
Rodin was born in 1840 into a working-class family in Paris, the son of Marie Cheffer and Jean-Baptiste Rodin, a police department clerk. - awkward wording
Misfortune surrounded Rodin - is surrounded the right word?
If you want to go for FA eventually, you will probably need to cite a few more things. EX: In 1883, Rodin agreed to supervise a sculpture course for Alfred Boucher during his absence, where he met the 18-year-old Camille Claudel. The two formed a passionate but stormy relationship, and influenced each other artistically. Claudel inspired Rodin as a model for many of his figures, and she was a talented sculptor, assisting him on commissions.
Could you integrate the "Character" information into the biography section?
Could you say more about who Rodin influenced in the "Legacy" section? Awadewit 12:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for reviewing the article Awadewit, and for leaving comments. I agree with many of your comments. However, I like commas!, and I don't find the sentence you mention "wordy". If the article requires more references for FA, it may wait indefinitely, as I am not inclined to add more references from my main source so far—a book that would likely be reviled for not being scholarly enough. That said, at some point I also must fall back on the "likely to be challenged" clause of WP:WIAFA. The influence and connection between Rodin-Claudel is standard fare in all sources and not really up for debate. I did treat Rodin's influence under "Legacy", but his influence was not so much "on artist x or y" as on the entire artform, broadly and over many decades. Regards, –Outriggr § 01:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
FAC seems to require at least one citation per paragraph (tiresome though it is). You might keep that benchmark in mind. Also, I don't think that citations are necessarily just about proving controversial claims; they are also about proving wikipedia's legitimacy. I tend to overcite for just that reason. I would never litter my dissertation with the number of citations that I do my articles here, but citations are used here more for legitimacy than anything else. They also make the FAC reviewers happy. Awadewit 12:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
A "guideline" that is read as a requirement for one citation per paragraph has the splendid effect of making criticism possible, even for those with no information whatsoever concerning the subject. Democracy in action! --Wetman 16:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, form before content. Awadewit, I've even seen it claimed that "Good article" status requires one citation per paragraph. I presume that's not the working standard; otherwise, fail this immediately! –Outriggr § 00:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Have you forgotten? "Form is content." Awadewit 13:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

1. Please include examples of where Rodin was a "painter and print maker " ?  (all I've ever seen are watercolors -- which would better be called "drawings")
2. "Rodin played a pivotal role in redefining sculpture. The predominant figure sculpture tradition of the time required an almost formulaic approach, and most sculpture was either decorative or highly thematic.Rodin modelled the human body with high realism, and celebrated individual character and physicality"
If examples of "high realism, and celebrating individual character and physicality" can be found before Rodin (and they can) -- the above claim is disproven.
Also -- if there's not much sculpture immedately after Rodin that has these qualities -- it would be very difficult to say that sculpture had been "re-defined"
(I realize that the footnotes provide a  source for  this claim -- but that doesn't make it true)
3. "Rodin was a naturalist, less concerned with monumental expression than with character and emotion"
Again -- a footnote does not prove a claim -- it only shows its origin -- and Rodin's "concerns" are a matter of un-verifiable opinion.
If this phrase (which I would dispute) is going to be included -- it should be prefaced by "According to some critics etc etc.."Mountshang 15:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

1. A recent editor splashed a number of references to printmaking. Out of balance I'd say. Watercolor isn't painting? In addition to the sketchy, minimalist watercolors, I'm quite sure Rodin did more substantial painting—as the article says, during his 30s.
2. The WP:LEAD is not satisfactory and in my limited efforts to create one, I've not come up with much. WP:SOFIXIT does apply. The lead should summarize the content of the article.
3. Fine, but if it said "according to some critics", someone would claim that that was a WP:WEASEL phrase. With only one citation, the plural "critics" would not technically be truthful. We are left with trying to convey a general impression, and we cite one critic because it's better than nothing. In comparison to the sculpture around him, and immediately before him, #3 is undoubtedly true. We are not in the business of "proving claims". (What is truth in art?) We are in the business of WP:ATTributing reliable sources. –Outriggr § 23:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
OK - I understand the principle of "no original research" -- but at the very least, the composers of an entry must choose among a variety of published authorities -- and as they do so -- shouldn't that choice be informed by their own experience with the items being discussed -- in this case --- with the other sculpture made before - during - and after the career of Rodin -- before presenting statements about his place in art history ?
The problem with having that experience, today, is that so many of the prominent sculptors of the late 19th - early 20th century are ignored in contemporary surveys of the period -- so that when you write that  "In comparison to the sculpture around him, and immediately before him, #3 (Rodin  less concerned with monumental expression than with character and emotion)   is undoubtedly true." --- I have to wonder how much of those things you have actually seen ?  How many names do you know ?
Even the entry as it stands, contains contradictions --- for one the one hand he had a "pivotal role in redefining sculpture" but on the other "Rodin did not spawn a significant, lasting school of followers" (as Maillol did).
Please be patient.  Over the course of the upcoming months, I'll keep an eye out for various quotations that might be relevant to this entry.
Here's some surveys of sculpture from that period that might interest you:
http://mountshang.blogspot.com/2006/09/modern-tendencies-in-sculpture.html
http://mountshang.blogspot.com/2006/10/modern-french-sculpture-part-2.html
http://mountshang.blogspot.com/2006/12/taft-on-modern-german-sculpture.html
Mountshang 12:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Rodin was not schooled in the École des Beaux-Arts. He was never admitted there, and for such reason he went to the Petite École.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Catalina elias (talk • contribs) 11:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC) 

The lead says that he was schooled in the École des Beaux-Arts system. From my research I have taken the system to include the Petite École, where he was admitted, as well as the Grand Ecole, where he was not. If you know otherwise, please advise. –Outriggr § 03:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

While we might like to include every piece of information on Rodin to make this a truly encyclopedic article, that is not possible. We have to carefully select items of true import. If you can find Rodin scholars who explain the artistic importance of the genealogy of Rodin's tools, we will include that information. However the citation you have included is to a commercial site, which is not reliable (see WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:ATT - these pages outline our policies on reliable sources). "Verifiability" is one of the cornerstone policies here at wikipedia. Thanks again! Awadewit | talk 22:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I have removed this information again. Please read these policies and source this information to reputable, scholarly publications. It looks like you should have no trouble doing that. Thanks! Awadewit | talk 22:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Is is possible for you to provide me with WorldCat number for Into the Fire? I can't find it in a quick google search or at my research library. I thought I could use the information in the article to add more of a transition from the rest of the "Legacy" section to the tools bit. Awadewit | talk 23:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I have not been able to verify that Into the Fire exists. It may, but it is incredibly difficult to track down. It would be very helpful if the editors who added it could point us to where we might find it. Thank you. Awadewit | talk 22:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
If the later history of his tools has any importance then it is to Snowden, not Rodin. Yomanganitalk 23:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Into the Fire is a supplementary publication to Art and Business News. I continue to dispute the exclusion of information about the whereabouts of Rodins' tools, or his creative successors. If I must, I will create a new page "Auguste Rodins' tools" or wherever it is most suitable, as I find it incredible that fellow scholars would suppress information in an encyclopedia. Cttomassotalk 10:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
It does not strike one as a suppression of information, so much as an attempt to recognize suitability of content for a biography--the disposition of Rembrandt's brushes after his death, for instance, would be a footnote, at best. In other words, and this concept comes up time and again, not all information is of equal weight WP:ROC. JNW (talk) 20:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The dry list that someone deleted is here. It would seem to be of use to the Wikipedia reader. --Wetman (talk) 16:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The list was commented out (hidden) before Someone's (my) edit. I originally commented it out on the basis that lists don't seem to be encouraged on more well-developed articles, and I wasn't sure if its completeness warranted its presence in any case. I'll paste it here, and someone can make a new article to develop it, if they like. –Outriggr § 05:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
"Locations of works"

Musée Khalil, Giza, Egypt
Alte Nationalgalerie, Berlin, Germany
Art Institute of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, United States
University of Louisville, Louisville, Kentucky, United States
Baltimore Museum of Art, Baltimore, Maryland, United States - The Thinker
Boulevard Raspail, near Boulevard Montparnasse, in the 6th arrondissement of Paris - a statue of Honoré de Balzac
Brooklyn Museum Cantor Gift, Brooklyn, New York, United States
Calais Hotel de Ville - The Burghers of Calais
California Palace of the Legion of Honor, San Francisco, California, United States
Detroit Institute of Art, Detroit, Michigan, United States
Hermitage, Saint Petersburg, Russia
Pushkin Museum of Fine Arts, Moscow, Russia
High Museum of Art, Atlanta, Georgia, United States
Los Angeles County Museum of Art, Los Angeles, California, United States
Maryhill Museum of Art, Maryhill, Washington, United States
Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York City, United States
Museo Nacional de Bellas Artes, Buenos Aires, Argentina
Nasher Sculpture Center, Dallas, Texas - Eve
National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C., United States
National Gallery of Australia, Canberra, Australia
National Museum of Western Art, Tokyo, Japan
Norton Simon Museum, Pasadena, California, United States - The Burghers of Calais
Rodin Museum, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States - Largest Rodin collection outside of Paris
Stanford University, Sculpture Garden, Palo Alto, California, United States
Trammell Crow Center, Dallas, Texas
Vatican Museums, Rome, Italy
Victoria Tower Gardens, Palace of Westminster, London, United Kingdom - The Burghers of Calais
the World Room, Journalism Hall, Columbia University, United States - a bust of Joseph Pulitzer


### Posthumous sale
Rodin's bronze "Eve, grand modele - version sans rocher," was sold for $ 18.9 million  at Christie's auction in New York on May 6, 2008.Afp.google.com,   Monet fetches record price at New York auction --Florentino floro (talk) 07:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

According to User:Sharkface217/Awards Center,

Help get Auguste Rodin to FA status
One of my favorite artists of all time, Rodin currently has a pretty good Wikipedia article. Still, it can easily be improved. More pictures could be added to the page, as well as external links, references (although the article is already well referenced), etc. --Sharkface217 00:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I'll do some images--Ainlina (talk) 08:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, this is how you improve an article! Shit, I should never have spent 50 hours in earnest reading and writing about the subject. Have at 'er. –Outriggr § 00:14, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

This is hilarious... ...and sad at the same time. I'm confused ;-) --Dschwen 00:21, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Four photos of Rodin in 1902 are now PD.[3] Ty 09:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

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


### GA Sweeps: Kept
As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing Sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I went through the article and made various changes, please look them over. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good Article. Altogether the article is well-written and is still in great shape after its passing in 2007. Continue to improve the article making sure all new information is properly sourced and neutral. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 22:01, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Could anyone add bibliographic description of Hale book to "References"? There are several editions of it, if I'm not mistaken. --Blacklake (talk) 07:52, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I found the Hale ref from the time of the GA sweep in 2009 and restored it.  (Hale, William Harlan (1973) [1969]. World of Rodin, 1840-1917 (Time-Life Library of Art ed.). New York: Time-Life Books. LCCN 70-105511)  More work is probably needed to replace Hale with multiple sources, but I'm not the guy for that.--Hjal (talk) 10:30, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Please don't use the | character within the number part of the {{LCCN}} template.  I have fixed it here and in the article.  It is considered an error. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 15:45, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

The Google doodle for November 12, 2012, shows the Thinker and recognizes Rodin's 172nd birthday; this article is the top of search list, after the doodle's news coverage in the Times of India.--Hjal (talk) 06:33, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I like it when Google doodles feature WP articles. It really helps the articles develop. :) -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:07, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

François-Auguste-René Rodin (12 November 1840 – 17 November 1917), known as Auguste Rodin (play /oʊˈɡuːst roʊˈdæn/ oh-GOOST roh-DAN; French: [oɡyst ʁɔdɛ̃]), was a French sculptor. Although Rodin is generally considered the progenitor of modern sculpture,[1] he did not set out to rebel against the past. He was schooled traditionally, took a craftsman-like approach to his work, and desired academic recognition,[2] although he was never accepted into Paris's foremost school of art."
That is the worst-written paragraph I have ever seen in Wikipedia.
1. Why would the "progenitor of modern sculpture" set out to "rebel against the past?"  The leading "Although" clause, (indeed, the entire sentence) STINKS of plagiarism.
2. Why would anybody ever use the phrase "rebel against the past?"  Seriously, is that Wikipedia tone?
3. The last sentence goes on so long it nearly made me fall asleep in my own dream, where doubtless Leo DiCaprio would steal my secrets.
4. The paragraph isn't a particularly good summary of Rodin.  What pieces of art did he make?  Who did he influence?  What characterizes his works? Aside a (shudder) workman-like approach. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.20.11.24 (talk • contribs) 

I would like to respond to the trollish fuck who posted the above. As the "author" of most of this article (all but the appendage on "Rodin in America" and a bit on technique), I am nevertheless a rank amateur, as is to be expected of most on Wikipedia.
"Progenitor" refers to a critical consensus after the fact; Rodin did not see himself this way. You could make it clearer, but it seems implied (I don't think you're so smart). Here is a change to the sentence that would make it senseless: "Although Rodin considered himself the progenitor of modern sculpture, he did not set out to rebel against the past." Is that how you're reading it? It makes sense to me to say that an artist who is now seen as an important transitionary figure nevertheless did not consciously set out to rebel against the past. That is a purposeful contradiction that is supposed to lead the reader into the biography.
I have no qualms with the phrase "rebel against the past" in an encyclopedia article, depending on the context. What are you looking for? Fix it! One million page-view-ers didn't. (Yes, I am writing to posterity.)
Then you have a poor attention span and/or recursive mental capacity, and surely would not be able to follow the DiCaprio movie at all.
You are right that the lead as a whole isn't as "summarizing" as it could be. As everyone says, leads are the hardest to write, and sometimes after an article body is fleshed out, one never rewrites the introduction.
I am pleased that Rodin received 1 million page views on Google Doodle Day. It underwent no substantive change from that much scrutiny other than, if I remember, the correction of a caption indicating the wrong museum collection. But you can rest assured: you will not see another candidate for worst-written paragraph on Wikipedia from me, because I can no longer find any reason to contribute here in the "hard" ways, intrinsic or extrinsic.
To future editors, there are still citations to books that are no longer listed in "References" due to editing decay/vandalism. (Janson, Tallandier, Jianou & Goldscheider, Tucker...) In fact, many of the works listed in References were not used to write the article (all of Butler, most of Elsen...). I did not "watch" this article in recent years, and—as an idealistic nod to the individual on Wikipedia—when those who have developed articles stop "OWNing" them, they often deteriorate in odd ways. I was going to dig the citations out of the article history around the time of Google Doodle Day until I read your screed... I was "retiring" anyway, and your bullshit capped it. Riggr Mortis (talk) 09:37, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
What, so that's one ignorant screed out of a million viewers? The intro is fine. JNW (talk) 13:18, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
I restored the intro to the version of last summer.  A single purchase of a single work is too trivial for the article, and certainly does not belong in the lede.  I removed Butler, but have not yet determined which Elsen work was used in the article.  Kablammo (talk) 19:18, 9 January 2013 (UTC)  I have now replaced the Eslen works with the book actually used to write this article.  A "References" section is not for "Further reading".  Kablammo (talk) 22:12, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Auguste Rodin/CommentsTalk:Auguste Rodin/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
Last edited at 03:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC).
Substituted at 08:36, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

The Tate has a creative commons license picture of "Fallen Caryatid Carrying Her Stone." http://www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/rodin-the-fallen-caryatid-carrying-her-stone-n05955
I know nothing about uploading pictures to wikipedia anymore. I realize it may not be important enough for the article, but many articles have a "gallery" near the bottom, of thumbnails that link to full size pictures uploaded to wikipedia. 
I'm actually looking for this because the cover of Heinlein's book Stranger in a Strange Land  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stranger_in_a_Strange_Land is based on this sculpture. The link there, and in the Rodin article, actually only link to the "caryatid" wikipedia article.
I would be very grateful if someone could upload this. Poidkurdo (talk) 12:35, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Back in the 90's, I drove some people for the Berkeley Student Cooperative Association during the summer to "Stanford to see the Rodin Sculptures."  From the floral dresses, I guessed it might be their graduation.  It was a small area.  However, looking at this page The Thinker looks more green than black.  It was a small sculpture garden of roughly 8 statues.  I was familiar with "The Thinker" from my Art History class at Southeastern Louisiana State University.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:E944:B500:1B6:73F3:7CFB:EBC1 (talk) 01:12, 17 December 2017 (UTC) 

from 1915 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AREa9OoYB9A  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Man74 (talk • contribs) 20:17, 13 January 2018 (UTC) 

I've read that some of his works were destroyed in the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center. Do we have any details?  --  Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 01:36, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, see here and there is coverage in the Guardian also. Will take a further look later in the week; its defiantly worth including. Ceoil (talk) 15:07, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Defiantly indeed. :) --  Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 21:57, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

There's eight (!) outstanding citation needed tags on this article. One is enough to prevent an article from becoming a GA. I've never seriously tried to expand an article on a 19th-century person, and I suspect most of the information here will be in books (and I have no clue where to start to search), so I'm hoping someone else can at least get things started here towards getting this article back to GA status. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 08:21, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

@Skarmory: I agree with your concerns about the uncited statements. Would you like to bring this to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 18:00, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
@Z1720: My concerns from a year and a half ago appear to have been resolved, as all eight of those citation needed tags were replaced with citations in this edit by FuzzyMagma. I would not know where to start with a GAR here given that.
I will say a quick scan of the article turns up a couple of statements which I have tonal concerns with:
Regardless of the immediate receptions of St. John and The Age of Bronze, Rodin had achieved a new degree of fame. Students sought him at his studio, praising his work and scorning the charges of surmoulage. The artistic community knew his name.
Without finessing the join between upper and lower, between torso and legs, Rodin created a work that many sculptors at the time and subsequently have seen as one of his strongest and most singular works. This is despite the fact that the object conveys two different styles, exhibits two different attitudes toward finish, and lacks any attempt to hide the arbitrary fusion of these two components. It was the freedom and creativity with which Rodin used these practices – along with his activation surfaces of sculptures through traces of his own touch and with his more open attitude toward bodily pose, sensual subject matter, and non-naturalistic surface – that marked Rodin's re-making of traditional 19th century sculptural techniques into the prototype for modern sculpture.
If either of these sentences were in a BLP, I would assume it was a puff piece. The first is unsourced (I suppose I should tag it with a citation needed tag, which I will now), while the second is sourced, but I'm not entirely sure what from the source supports this grand of a statement. Unfortunately, I still do not have the subject expertise to feel comfortable handling either of these myself. Given how quickly I found these two, I would not be surprised if there's more. I'll give editors more familiar with the subject a bit to chime in or edit about these issues before I start with the GAR process, unless someone else wants to start it. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 21:54, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
I took another look at the source for the second of those quotes, and apparently I'm blind, because the way it was written I wanted to make sure it wasn't copyvio. It's actually citogenesis. Quote from the source: It was the freedom and creativity with which Rodin used these practices, along with his open attitude toward bodily pose, sensual subject matter, and non-realistic surface, that marked Rodin's re-making of traditional 19th century sculptural techniques into the prototype for modern sculpture. The vast majority of this long sentence is in the article, and it existed in the article before the book's publish date of 23 January 2021. (The source itself gives attribution to Wikipedia at the bottom, though it's a little unclear what it's actually attributing, other than "some text somewhere in the article".) Skarmory (talk • contribs) 22:11, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
@Skarmory: I still see lots of uncited statements, and you have brought up concerns about the article's tone. Do you want me to add citation needed tags? Should this go to WP:GAR, or are you interested in working on this outside the GAR process? Z1720 (talk) 16:08, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
I am interested on working on this, so please feel free to flag any thing that need to be fixed and I will try and have a go as soon as possible. Sadly, I am bit busy these days. FuzzyMagma (talk) 16:21, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
I am also somewhat interested, though as I have mentioned, I do not have as much subject expertise as I would like here, and I am on the busier side for the next few weeks. Citation needed tags and any other reasonable inline tags would be good. I may remove the lines that I have tonal concerns with soon, as neither is sourced. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 23:46, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
@FuzzyMagma and Skarmory: The article has been tagged with citation needed tags. Are you still interested in making improvements? Z1720 (talk) 01:38, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
I am. I should be able to take a look at it over the next few days. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 01:56, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
Me 2. March madness is done, I have time now FuzzyMagma (talk) 06:17, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
fixed most for sentences with straight facts. The remaining 7 sentences with flowery descriptions will need some digging to be confirmed or else they need to be taken out or rephrased. FuzzyMagma (talk) 22:06, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
Done FuzzyMagma (talk) 05:48, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
@Z1720 I see you have tagged: "Notable examples are The Walking Man, Meditation without Arms, and Iris, Messenger of the Gods". with CN. Why do you think it need a citation? I removed the tag previously per WP:Sky is blue, especially as these examples are linked pages the met the notability criteria, hence saying "notable" is assumed and self-evidence. FuzzyMagma (talk) 12:05, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
@FuzzyMagma: SKYBLUE is an essay, as is WP:NOTBLUE: they both say at the top, "This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community." Neither can be used as a justification to add/not add citations. I put a citation there because I think a source needs to verify that these are notable examples of Rodin's work that, as it says in the proceeding sentence, "took sculpture further from its traditional role of portraying likenesses, and into a realm where forms existed for their own sake." Z1720 (talk) 14:22, 30 June 2025 (UTC)