Talk:Paul Gauguin

message: His description should include some famous paintings. Nandor1 (talk) 15:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paintings 

message: When was Gauguin born and when did he die?
According to Britannica (http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9036212?query=Paul%20Gauguin&ct=) it's June 7, 1848 -- May 8, 1903. 85.234.35.187 10:08, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lifespan 

message: Support I'm not that familiar with current conventions for visual artists, but a separate list seems to be standard for composers where such a long list of works is necessary but crowds the main article. --MarkBuckles 04:11, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Split for list of paintings

message: Put on main page that he was born today --Shandris 12:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main page 

message: In 1903, due to a problem with the church and the government, he was sentenced to three months in prison, and charged a fine. Surely, it is known what this socalled 'a problem' was. Probably worth detailing it in the article. Also interesting since the article seems to suggest that the church was involved in getting Gauguin sentenced. 20:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Imprisonment 

message: This article was automatically  assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 07:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: I have changed his recorded date of death to 8 May, which appears to be the one most frequently cited, although 9 May also appears in a number of sources. Could the 8/9 May discrepancy possibly have something to do with the International Date Line, given the location of Gauguin's death? -- Picapica 20:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date of death 

message: Should there be a reference the the Calvin and Hobbes May 1, 1992 strip by Bill Watterson that specifically refers to Gauguin? 
http://www.marcellosendos.ch/comics/ch/1992/05/19920501.gif
The comic text follows:
Calvin (to mother): Paul Gauguin asked, "Whence do we come? What are we? Where are we going?"
Calvin (to mother): Well, I don't know about anyone else, but I came from my room, I'm a kid with big plans, and I'm going outside! See ya later!
(Blank panel of Calvin's mother looking confused)
Calvin (back from outside to mother): Say, who the heck is Paul Gauguin, anyway?
Rouge568 (talk) 02:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think we need this ... Wikipedia discourages trivia sections. Stumps (talk) 08:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Calvins and Hobbes strip 

message: Speculation at best, not accepted fact and needs independant corroboration...Modernist (talk) 22:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: To ear is divine

message: While its probably irrelevant to the article, it might be interesting to learn whence Gauguin obtained his paint while in Tahiti. Weepy.Moyer (talk) 13:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Paint source

message: Large sections of this article are identical with the biography on www.paul-gauguin.net/biography.html (licensed under CC but forbids commercial use). Gugganij (talk) 19:24, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I am removing the tag - The last line at www.paul-gauguin.net/biography.html - says FROM WIKIPEDIA. How do you know that it isn't the other way around....A lot of sites just copy text from Wikipedia...Are you certain that this site hasn't just copied our page? Modernist (talk) 19:42, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I did some checking, and our bio predates theirs...Modernist (talk) 19:54, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for clearing that up. Gugganij (talk) 21:47, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyvio?

message: Could someone please put a small ogg link to how to pronounce his last name? I have a dispute going. :)  Kristinwt (talk) 18:52, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation Request for last name 

message: In the references, is the spelling "Gaugin" in the book title
"Danielsson, Bengt, Gaugin in the South Seas, New York, Doubleday and Company, 1966"
correct?
Tashiro (talk) 04:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed, good catch...Modernist (talk) 11:30, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling "Gaugin" in book title 

message: The first line of the 'Early art career' opens with: "Gauguin had been interested in art since his childhood. In his free time, he began painting." This makes it sound as though he had been painting (or making art of some kind) since a young age but I've been reading short books on Gauguin over the past weeks - just collections of his work with short biographies, all unfamiliar to me until now - and each book has noted that he did not begin painting until adulthood, until his twenties. I've seen nothing to contradict that until coming here. Maybe it's just a poorly worded paragraph or maybe the suggestion is that he began work in childhood, I don't know. I don't want to edit the article myself, my knowledge of Gauguin comes from just a few books from the library and nothing more, but maybe someone else more thoroughly acquainted with the topic can correct that section if they see fit. At the very least, someone might find a citation for the claim he began painting in childhood if that's the claim being given.
As to possible references supporting the story that he began painting in adulthood, there's this here, which talks about the dating of his work and when he's thought to have begun:
http://www.jstor.org/pss/874680
It seems generally accepted that he began painting in the 1870s as earliest, it appears to me. For more references, just search Google for 'Gauguin painting as hobby.'--Breshkovsky (talk) 22:49, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. If the childhood bit is verified, it can be added to the previous section. Please feel free to use those few books as references to add to the article. Ty 02:04, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gauguin had been interested in art since his childhood. In his free time, he began painting...  

message: Folks here might be interested in reading & maybe referencing this Mark Hudson, Paul Gauguin at the Tate Modern: desire, death, myth, Daily Telegraph, 17 Sep 2010 recent article about the upcoming Tate retrospective which looks to be a superb and fairly comprehensive treatment of the great man. Peter morrell 20:09, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Telegraph article re upcoming Tate exhibition 

message: Vincent van Gogh and Paul Gauguin were two of the greatest painters of the late 19th century. A brief but intense collaboration occurred between the two artists.
They met in Paris in the autumn of 1887. Each man tried to learn from the other and admired the other's work. Their collaboration was marked at first by mutual support and dialogue, but there was also competition and friction.
The men differed sharply in their views on art: Gauguin favored working from memory and allowing abstract mental processes to shape his images, while Vincent held an unshakeable reverence for the physical reality of the observable world of models and Nature. This is reflected in the very different techniques each artist used. But toward the end of 1888, a series of violent incidents around Christmas Eve brought a dramatic end to their collaboration. This is the story of their personal and professional relationship  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gallery-of-art (talk • contribs) 05:54, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This information needs to be referenced before adding to an article...Modernist (talk) 12:27, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Better is : Paul Gauguin and Van Gogh 

message: Regarding the recent removal - leave the images alone...Modernist (talk) 03:37, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Images

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests May 2012 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant 
This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 06:10, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Paul Gauguin - Deux Tahitiennes.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: There are 193 Artworks of Paul Gauguin on ArtGalleryEnc.com with information about the year, material, dimensions, museums added for each Artwork.
Vv.Grecu  —Preceding undated comment added 21:12, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't continue adding your spamlinks...Modernist (talk) 21:32, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  193 Artworks of Paul Gauguin 

message: Photography and filming are not allowed in the Musée d'Orsay, i.e., it is forbidden to take pictures and to film inside museum galleries. See Musée d'Orsay, Copying, filming, photography. So, the claim by a Wiki user that the previous image of Gauguin's Oviri could "be replaced by a free photo of the same statue", and that "anyone can create a freely licensed replacement by simply going to the Musée d'Orsay with a camera" and that it was "replaceable by a different photo of the same sculpture" is unjustified.
This image of Gauguin's Oviri (more accurate in colors than the Orsay photograph) was obtained with great difficulty. :) Coldcreation (talk) 18:10, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the input, it's been an uphill battle all the way...Modernist (talk) 10:35, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oviri, Musée d'Orsay 

message: This template: for|the cruise ship for Paul Gauguin Cruises|Paul Gauguin (ship), only serves to advertise (like spam) the Cruize ship with the same name as the artist. It should not form part of the Paul Gauguin article, and so I have removed it. Please do not place it back in the article unless other editors feel it is essential. Thanks in advance. Coldcreation (talk) 01:01, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: If you wish to nominate those articles for deletion as advertisements then go ahead. Until they are deleted however they should be regarded as existing Wikipedia articles which, as entirely normal, should be linked with a hatnote from the top of this article. Such linking is not in itself advertising or spam but a navigational device to enable readers to find (and get to) the article they are looking for. See WP:HATNOTE. Tassedethe (talk) 01:06, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Perhaps linking to a disambiguation page would solve the problem nicely. Let me look into that possibility before any further modifications to the Gauguin article are made. Coldcreation (talk) 01:14, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template Paul Gauguin (ship)

message: Paul Gauguin's and Geneviève Huais' (or Huet) daughter, Germaine, was born in Paris in 1891 (August 13rd), and died in Montmartre in 1980 (october 16th). She apparently painted under the name of Germaine Chardon. She married Maurice Bizet, who was himself a painter and an architect. Information about her may be found in: "DICTIONNAIRE DES PEINTRES À MONTMARTRE", by André Roussard, or, in "Paul Gauguin, a complete life", by David Sweetman.
The belgian painter Germaine, Paule Rosa Renée, Chardon, was born in 1909 (June 30th) in Brussels. She died in 1999 (March 21st) in le Cannet (France). She is burried in Nyons (France), where she lived for more than twenty years. There, she bought and restored the feudal castle with her second husband, Henry Dratz. She also lived in Belgian Congo.
In Brussels she studied at the Académie Royale des Beaux-Arts, where she was a pupil and a friend of the Belgian painter Frans Smeers. Information about her may be found in Benezit, "Dictionnary of Artists".
--MRcontrib (talk) 00:14, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personal life 

message: Prior to the intervention of Nonc01 the lead section of this article served as an introduction to the article, summarizing its most important content. It was an overview of the entire article. The version written by Nonc01 (the second paragraph of this edit) is long and drawn out, a mishmash of words and banal trivia that create no interest in reading any further into the article. Coldcreation (talk) 02:04, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Compared to similar biographies, my summary, which is rather clear and concise...maybe even too concise, is certainly not long. There you go with hyperbolic adjectives again. It's the same length as Florence Fuller which is a much shorter edit, and shorter than Vincent van Gogh, of similar content length. I am not stopping you from making NPOV changes or summary alterations to the lead. Nonc01 (talk) 02:38, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

text: That being said, I would support a reversion to the original introduction if that is your remaining concern, following our additions of some previous content to my edit. Nonc01 (talk) 03:50, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: The lead

message: Prior to the intervention of Nonc01 the Biography section of this article consisted of:</br>
1 Biography
:1.1 Early life
:1.2 Artistic career
::1.2.1 Early paintings
:1.3 Cloisonnism and synthetism
:1.4 Martinique
::1.4.1 Martinique works
:1.5 Gauguin and Van Gogh
:1.6 Tahiti
-------------------------
The version proposed by Nonc01 was listed as such:</br>
1 Life
:1.1 1848–1871: Early life, Lima and the French Merchant Navy
:1.2 1872–1890: Paris, Copenhagen, Brittany, Panama, Martinique
:1.3 1891–1895: Tahiti, final return to France and farewells
:1.4 1895–1903: Return to French Polynesia and death
:1.5 Gauguin and Degas
:1.6 Gauguin and Van Gogh
2 Art
:2.1 Technique and style
:2.2 Primitivism by way of cloisonnism and synthetism
:2.3 Monotype, oil transfer drawing, ceramics, woodcuts, zincography
---------------
The latter format is more confusing to the reader, too specific (with many dates, and many cities and countries listed), too complicated, with long drawn out titles, leaving a potential reader with no direction as to where to go in the article. It separates the artists life from his art. Coldcreation (talk) 11:57, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The current organization is confusing and haphazard to a visitor regardless of their knowledge, which makes it harder to navigate. "Artistic career" as a subsection is vague and misleading to what follows; is 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6 not part of his artistic career then? Maybe 1.2 "Artistic career" should be called "Early artistic career" with 1.2.1 being "Paintings" instead of "Early paintings". This would be less misleading. Part of the reason why these sections can afford to be so brief, is because the biography has many holes, although I believe my headings could potentially be shortened. I'm not brave enough to be original on Wiki, I got my content template ideas and guidelines from the best rated art-bio articles. Also, "Cloisonnism and synthetism" should appear after "Martinique" Nonc01 (talk) 14:01, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Biography

message: I would like to propose a reversion to (this edit) by Modernism. I should not have reverted, I feel like we can work from this, starting with removing my lead in favour of Coldcreation's preference of the old lead. Further content amalgamation or concerns could be discussed. The linked edit by Modernism is a better sourced and more complete art-bio from which to modify and improve, including with pertinent previous material. Help me? Nonc01 (talk) 11:25, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I can live with that. Hopefully  will weigh in also...Modernist (talk) 11:52, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, good points...Modernist (talk) 12:22, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

text: That math is incorrect, since your numbers from four sources add to 288; 57 more than the total number of citations. Gallery is not MOS or essential based on Wikipedia's finest related articles, however it's not a concern of mine at this point. Ultimately, the most significant issue to me with this edit would be the loss of the three sections: "Gauguin and Degas", "Technique and style" as well as his auxiliary medium section "Monotype, oil transfer..." They are vital to Gauguin and could be worked in easily, I can limit citations as requested. Following that, I am pretty burned out with the project and probably won't propose anything else in the near future. Nonc01 (talk) 13:54, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ok, sounds like a plan to me. Never despair. Editors work together to make articles better. Thanks for your collaboration. I look forward to seeing the final draft. Coldcreation (talk) 14:40, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Cheers, I'm not even going to bother throwing those sections in right now. I'll probably have another edit ready to see in my sandbox within a week, taking all concerns into account. With a gallery, even! :) Nonc01 (talk) 12:35, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

text: Here's the edit in my sandbox 
*Almost 100 citations have been cut, which in combination with author adds from the current edit, makes the sourcing nicely varied I believe. 
*Life and Art has been re-imagined into Biography and Repertoire so as not to overtly suggest a separation of life from art. I think the change reflects what I was trying to achieve before but couldn't: a bio section that comments on the art sufficiently unto itself, with the additional section (repertoire) indicating a more detailed and technical overview of it. Likewise, the bio has been split from four into five sections in an effort to de-clutter, dates have been removed and titles shortened. These were probably the best criticisms. 
*Added a substantial amount of Martinique info from the current edit. 
*Sweetman and Richardson remain in the legacy section and information on his children has also been placed there. I moved Rewald's only appearance in the current edit to the last bio section. 
*I was thinking about Coldcreation's thoughts on the gallery and how it allows for reflection upon Gauguin in-page, which inspired me to increase the size of images within the body. I feel like they can now be studied as opposed to being mostly referential. 
*Having a gallery has grown on me a lot, I've included one, my only request would be that images within the body aren't duplicated in the gallery. Nonc01 (talk) 14:40, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for your effort Nonc01. I've added to your Sandbox the Infobox and Lead section of the current article, in order to visualize the entire article proposal. Now I will look at it more in detail. Please excuse me for playing in your sandbox without asking permission first. :) One quick point: I notice that many images are far too large. But this is a minor fix. In fact, I will make that change too (in you sandbox), unless you get to it first. You can always revert it if not satisfied. It looks good on certain computer screens, but way too large on others (depending on the pixel ratio of the user's screen). Coldcreation (talk) 15:28, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Citation section is now in three columns. Otherwise it's is still too long. Coldcreation (talk) 15:35, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Good! Since the lead has been added I've done some minor tinkering without trying to alter content. Most notably I removed the part about Shchukin which goes back to the trivia(l) thing (not unimportant, but seems out of place in terms of lead. Mentioned in legacy anyway) as well as removed the comment "his art became popular after his death" which is redundant considering it's established he became appreciated after his death in the opening sentence. Nonc01 (talk) 17:34, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

text: Yes, hopefully Modernist comes along soon, I have found the changes productive. Although I did put back the closing sentence in the lead, simply because Gauguin did not do much engraving. The majority of his prints are woodcuts and secondarily, I think you'd have to consider his wood reliefs and wood sculpting more important than the limited engraving as well or at least an equal. Anyway that's why I thought wood in general might be more appropriate. I am also under the impression that most art bio articles are wrong in their capitalizing of movements MOS:DOCTCAPS#Doctrine, to me they should not be but perhaps you can shed some light on the issue. Nonc01 (talk) 13:22, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

text: My new issue with that woodcut & engraving bit on the end is that it's not saying anything specific about it, just mentioning that he did it, which has already been encompassed in the opening sentence with his mediums. I have kept the word around by trying to make it specifically relevant. Nonc01 (talk) 21:39, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm about halfway through it...It looks very good - however so far I have several problems with wording and again with the lack of mention of Rewald's essay regarding Letters between Vollard and Gauguin which contributed - in my opinion - directly to Gauguin's misery and death...Modernist (talk) 13:56, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I would just change the wording how you see fit on the spot if you can, or point it out if you want. I'm all for integrating a thought on Vollard/Gauguin correspondence via Rewald, but in the current edit it sounds too much like a Rewald advertisement. Nonc01 (talk) 14:50, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

text: If someone had access to the book (I don't) you could select a Gauguin letter to Vollard for the correspondence section, where Rewald could be introduced in a similar fashion. Nonc01 (talk) 15:09, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

text: For sure, it should absolutely be consistent, I just need convincing that it's correct according to Wikipedia. I see caps in books as well, but it seems like Wikipedia may not want it as such, despite what the majority of editors have done on here to-date. Nonc01 (talk) 15:09, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

text: I have put in a request for comment on project visual arts about caps on movements, I think that will help us. Nonc01 (talk) 15:29, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll change some wording as I go along; unfortunately I still have no access to my books - which includes Rewald - they are in storage probably for another couple of months...Modernist (talk) 15:52, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Well for now I'd just put it as-is in a spot of your choice, so it's there and we remember. Maybe Legacy or as an introduction to Correspondence? Nonc01 (talk) 16:13, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably best for me to wait until I can retrieve some of my books; I'll add Rewald later...Modernist (talk) 20:37, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Modernist I see you have added some citation requests, which is fine with me I can retrieve them, but where applicable they have been sent to the 'end' of their final usage under the guidance of Coldcreation. So you two can decide on the future of that between yourselves. Nonc01 (talk) 22:01, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

text: Sounds fine with me, although I'd rather not chop them up since they are already snippets from longer letters. I would rather remove one outright, probably the quote on Renoir even though it's hilarious and illuminating an often unseen part of his personality. Let me know your preferences. Nonc01 (talk) 16:14, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Au contraire, since they are already snippets from longer letters it should be no problem to snip them a little further. To tell you the truth I didn't even read that section. I'm sure it's interesting but I didn't have the courage to sift through its lengthy paragraphs. As soon as I have a minute I will browse through it. Coldcreation (talk) 16:30, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  As long as it still sounds unified and doesn't necessitate a bunch of ellipses connections per. Nonc01 (talk) 16:45, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

text: Check:WP:VAMOS re caps...Modernist (talk) 16:57, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The section makes no claims; champions dictionaries and Wikipedia MOS as well. Nonc01 (talk) 17:51, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

text: Well - let's see what the Metropolitan Museum of Art does: ; ...Modernist (talk) 19:46, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: And MoMA: ...Modernist (talk) 19:59, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: How is this relevant to your need to provide a burden of proof on Wikipedia for your MOS claims? If you feel those sites are valuable references then you should take it up with the Visual Arts Board to improve WP:VAMOS in order to cement your claim. But right now you are skirting a very basic issue and being juvenile with your reversions of MY sandbox with zero evidence on Wikipedia. Nonc01 (talk) 21:07, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

text: It's not my fault you refused to cite your opinion with a Wikipedia guideline that could refute MOS:DOCTCAPS#Doctrine. Nonc01 (talk) 21:54, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

text: Thank you to Coldcreation for having the decency to at least try and help improve the article. Nonc01 (talk) 22:22, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Collaboration

message: Capitalization of art movements and art style names is a complex issue.  The  College Art Association style guide for Art Bulletin says (or, it seems, used to say):
 In general, sharply delimited period titles are capitalized, whereas large periods and terms applicable to several periods are not: e.g., Archaic, Baroque, Early and High Renaissance, Early Christian, Gothic, Greek Classicism of the fifth century (otherwise, classicism), Imperial, Impressionism, Islamic, Mannerist, Middle Ages, Modernism, Neoclassicism for the late-eighteenth-century movement (otherwise, neoclassicism), Post-Impressionism, Pre-Columbian, Rococo, Roman, Romanesque, Romantic period, Xth Dynasty, antique, antiquity, classicism (see above), medieval, modern, neoclassicism (see above), postmodern, prehistoric, quattrocento.
In passing references to details of style, it may be appropriate to use lower-case terms e.g.: baroque, gothic, mannerist, modernist—but always Renaissance, Impressionist, Middle Ages.   
A style guide at zeal.com suggests using a dictionary to determine capitalization. However, dictionaries vary on art movement/style capitalization. (See User:Sparkit/capitalization.) The Wikipedia Manual of Style does not touch on art movements and styles in particular, but implies that Wikipedia style is to use lower case. Bringing us back again to using a dictionary. Thus, the question of what to do when dictionaries do not agree with one another may remain. 
See Netherlandish for the distinction between this and "Dutch" or "Flemish" in art.
:MOS:DOCTCAPS#Doctrine is very clear that movements are not to be capitalized, so unless you specifically find a MOS that blatantly states an art movement is to be treated differently, this is a non-argument. Nonc01 (talk) 21:07, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Haha you are such a dramatic cry baby. You said it was very good yesterday. What pathetic claims. Enjoy protecting your terrible C-class (closer to Stub than B-class) article like the hack "editor" you are, you were meant for each other. Nonc01 (talk) 21:54, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

text: *Bye!..Modernist (talk) 22:12, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

text: People like you are why Wikipedia lacks content editors. In a way I shouldn't be surprised such a bigwig editor like yourself has no desire to follow Wikipedia MOS, or the ability to edit above C-class content. Cya! Nonc01 (talk) 22:34, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Nonc01, you have been shown how institutions such as Museum of Modern Art and The Metropolitan Museum of Art deal with capitalization of art movements, e.g., Impressionism. Notwithstanding, your insistence on lowercase clearly shows your lack of experience dealing with not only Wikipedia:WikiProject Visual arts articles, and with art related literature in general, but it also shows your unwillingness to accept the fact that Wikipedia is a place where editors collaborate on projects, providing their expertise on the subject matter of certain articles. Furthermore, comments made in the wake of this learning experience on your part have proven to be less than respectful. Finally, such an attitude can only get you nowhere fast. Coldcreation (talk) 07:34, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Modernist was asked to give a MOS that could trump MOS:DOCTCAPS#Doctrine and rationalize their egotistical reverts. They couldn't, so proceeded to run away and instigate the insults. (My editing) speaks for itself that I was continuously collaborative and dealt with your ideas and all concerns raised, whereas Modernist was never really willing to collaborate and decided to throw a hissy fit the one time they couldn't get their way. If you can't achieve being anything more than his little mutt, then that's really quite sad since Wikipedia has been their life and they're not even good at it lol. Talented editors have succeeded in spite of them, but I'm sort of relieved I wasn't another they could ride the coattails of to a GA. Nonc01 (talk) 14:35, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Getting a little tired of your personal attacks, read WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. I pointed out to you - that major museums use caps and in general MOS are guidelines - not policy...Modernist (talk) 14:42, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right it isn't needed. The article itself is entirely evident of your shortcomings as editors; self-described as experienced experts who have created and guard this article, which has been poorly rated by your peers, is a stylistic nightmare and contains factual errors. It's a bad, incomplete source of information on Gauguin, but I know you're extremely proud of everything you do.........Nonc01 (talk) 17:34, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Capitalization and art movements

message: I have replaced much of the "Further reading" section that seems to have totally disappeared over the course of edits in the last six months or so. It's a valuable resource for any readers wishing to pursue the subject further. Xenxax (talk) 15:01, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you! Nonc01 (talk) 15:12, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further reading section 

message: New to me, and also the dozens of other editors who cite it in numerous edits.
However  is sure enough of his grounds to revert me twice for this citation  and insist I take it to the Talk page.
I dare say he has his reasons. I cannot imagine what they can be. I shall email Saatchi Gallery to let them know that the grand old man of Wikipedia's visual arts considers them unreliable . For myself I don't have the time or patience for this. Modernist can have it. It remains only for me to record my reasons for the citation. 
It concerns Gauguin's relations with young girls on Tahiti. This is alluded just once in the article and the citation (American public radio, so much more reliable than an internationally respected UK gallery) somewhat coy on the problem, "sexual misconduct" is what is alluded to. Other commentators these days are more direct: they brand him a "syphilitic paedophile". I thought it worthwhile at least to cite their opinion.
: Added:  well, honesty and fair play compels me to note that last observation apparently has its roots in David Sweetman, who wrote a number of popular biographies of artists of the period: popular, but I think it's only fair to say not scholarly and I wouldn't for myself have thought it worth citing his opinion had I known the source. c1cada (talk) 22:01, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Saatchigallery.com not a reliable source? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 9 external links on Paul Gauguin. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bonjourparis.com/story/gauguin-where-he-lived-and-loved/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150906032942/http://arthistory.about.com/od/first_eight_exhibitions/a/eighth_Impressionism_exhibition.htm to http://arthistory.about.com/od/first_eight_exhibitions/a/eighth_Impressionism_exhibition.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/art/8011066/Is-it-wrong-to-admire-Paul-Gauguins-art.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://histoire.assemblee.pf/articles.php?id=332
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/7231391/Gauguins-Nevermore-voted-Britains-most-romantic-painting.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/art/news/gauguins-british-relative-disputes-artists-notoriety-2191988.html
*Added  tag to http://www.moma.org/interactives/exhibitions/2014/gauguin/home
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.alaintruong.com/archives/2011/03/31/20773802.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.tate.org.uk/context-comment/articles/men-women-pacific
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://hyperallergic.com/111730/posthumous-prognosis-for-supposedly-syphilitic-gauguin-via-his-teeth/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:34, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Re the illustration 'Gauguin's maternal grandmother, Flora Tristan (1803–1844) in 1838'. Do we know the name of the artist? Valetude (talk) 00:56, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who sketched Gauguin's grandmother? 

message: "In recent years, Gauguin has become a controversial figure at art galleries due to criticism of his voyeuristic artwork created in French Polynesia and his relationships with underage girls." This (citing only one source, which isn't visible without a subscription) is evidently considered important enough to include in the article lead, but the statement is vague (which art galleries? Criticism from whom?) and if it's that important warrants expansion, either in its present location, or somewhere in the main body of the article. Surely there are more sources regarding this apparent reassessment of Gauguin?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.78.53 (talk) 02:32, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I agree. I noticed it with dissatisfaction turning to Gauguin's Wikipedia biography after watching the BBC4 documentary Gauguin - A Dangerous Life (https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000bynv) being aired at this time. That documentary does indeed raise the issue of the age of Gauguin's wives, but not in the terms suggested by the editor. In particular "voyeuristic" is not suggested of his paintings and "underage" not used of his wives. I think the edit should be deleted. Соловей поет (talk) 13:07, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

text: Wholly agree about that BBC documentary. Regarding this statement, the lead section should be a summary of the entire article. It should therefore have nothing that is not fully explained in the main body. And (if it's not controversial) that's where any ref(s) should be. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:58, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Not just that, but the entire section "Gauguin and colonialism" is a distortion of the cited source, which posits an altogether different explanation that is conveniently omitted. This is POV editing at its best and the editors who did this should probably be verbally sanctioned.  You can't just just cherry pick one POV and ignore the rest. Viriditas (talk) 20:06, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Update: I removed everything based on the above concerns. Viriditas (talk) 20:10, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

text: Looking further into the sources up above, the concern was cited to a subjective interpretation of a Gauguin painting by Nancy Mowll Mathews, hardly conclusive.  Another cited concern was an interpretation of what Gauguin wrote in his journals, but little is said about this.  The general consensus by others is that at that time, women married young because they died young. Gauguin married Tahitian girls at age 13; allegedly, these girls were considered "women" by their culture at the time, according to the historians cited by the NPR story linked above.  The story also cites Mathews exclusively on this subject with no other supporting art historians.  I'm sure that has changed over the years, so an attempt should be made to revisit this, but the current use of the sources to make these points did not work.  Having written quite a bit about these artists, I'm of the opinion that most of these people were assholes, racists, sexists, etc.  I've written extensively about Renoir and was horrified by what I found (I mention these findings on the talk page for his biography). Further, the way Renoir treated women in his life is terrible, and to this day, nobody knows what happened to one of his first children, Pierre, who just disappears from the literature.  So there's a lot of problems with these people, and I think I recall Simone de Beauvoir or another person point to institutionalized misogyny and sexism in French culture as one likely explanation. In any case, if more solid citations beyond Nancy Mowll Mathews just saying to NPR "I think Gauguin's painting says bad things" can be found, I would support it, but the way this was previously worked into the article just didn't work nor was it policy compliant. Viriditas (talk) 20:34, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Update:  One way forward is to start making more use of the book Paul Gauguin: An Erotic Life (2001), which is used widely in this article, but not for this topic.  We can then compare the content in this book with other scholars, and where there is parity or disagreement, we can expand the material.  I should note that many of the claims are highly speculative and disputed by other art historians. Viriditas (talk) 22:03, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe you used a 2019 discussion about a very different version of this article to single-handedly remove, without consensus, an entire section written in 2023. The scholarly opinion of Gauguin's legacy has been a source of controversy in recent years (decades) and, if I understand correctly, you also agree that enough secondary sources exist to make a section of Gauguin's troubled legacy WP:DUE. I appreciate your taking a critical look at this—and I'd be happy to hear your thoughts on how that can be improved and work together to find a good solution—but I am slightly disheartened by how this issue was handled. I look forward to hearing your thoughts. Ppt91talk 23:58, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement in lead

message: The "Residence in Tahiti" section says "He built a spacious reed and thatch house at Puna'auia in an affluent area ten miles east of Papeete".  But Puna'auia is actually about 5 miles southwest of Papeete. I don't know just where in Puna'auia he lived, so I haven't corrected the article.  BMJ-pdx (talk) 20:13, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Puna'auia is southwest of Papeete, not east