Talk:Amedeo Modigliani

message: The title of one of Modiglian's most well known paintings was removed by ZOE. I have reinstated this important factual information. Too, Modigliani's nationality was determined by ZOE alone to be Italian. This was done by her without facts, and obviously no knowledge of him, his life, or his works. I removed it, leaving FACTS which is what an enclclopedia is supposed to be. Too, she arbitrarily removed my reference to this important painting. Go figure, but then, ignorance is bliss...DW
My removal of the painting's name was unintentional.  When I reverted the arbitrary changes you made, I left in the change that you made when you put the title back in.  I don't even know why I'm responding to this, because I told you I wasn't going to be talking to you any more unless you learn how to be civil.  So consider this my last message.  -- Zoe
Not only are you destructive to this sight, you try to cover it up by lies. This is not an "isolated" accident. It is you playing God after I pointed out your ignorance and lack of knowledge YESTERDAY. PLEASE explain to everyone your reason for removing the title. I'm sure people would like to know before they expend energy doing hard work that you will "unintentionally" destroy....DW ESQ
A little more proof of your conduct: YOU SAID ABOVE:I left in the change that you made. Right, so what about the next change when I reinstated the reference to the portrait in the text, text that took me hours to prepare but seconds for you to wilfully destroy? Nice play on words to cover up your destruction. I don't object to any improvements and certainly recognize my dedicated work can always stand imporovement. But why do you choose to destroy important facts, then lie and manipulate your words to deceive readers? I'm sorry, I just don't understand this kind of thinking, nor do I understand why you would even touch a subject on WHICH YOU KNOW ABSOLUTELY NOTHING...DW
:How on earth did it take you "hours" to write "including "Madame Pompadour" shown here"?Tokerboy
::Please don't feed the trolls. --Brion 05:28 Jan 27, 2003 (UTC)
I reinstated the following important reference that was deleted by ZOE: --- including "Madame Pompadour" shown here,--- I would like her to explain how this is either Wikifying an article or adding to it, or improving it?
----
DW, if you explained why you don't think he should be described as Italian, others may very well agree with you.  Is he known to have objected to being called Italian?  Did he self-identify as something else?  Is there a debate over his nationality?  For example, my grandmother could be correctly called Italian because she moved to the US from Italy, and was born there.  She would self-identify as Sicilian, though, and would not like to be called Italian as she considers the nationalities distinct, and actually doesn't like Italians too much.  If, for some bizarre reason, she warranted a wikipedia article, she should be called Sicilian and not Italian.  I, on the other hand, am nearly 100% Sicilian in ancestry, but self-identify as Italian (in the US; elsewhere, I would say American).  I wouldn't object to my nationality being referred to as Sicilian, but, if asked, I say Italian (and would do so even if being Sicilian did not lead to Mafia-related questions most of the time). Hence, if I had a wikipedia article, I should be called Italian-American with maybe a mention that I'm descended from Sicilian immigrants. Tokerboy
You've called this an "arbitrary" distinction and the like.  While all nationalities are arbitrary, they are also real things that deserve to be mentioned where appropriate.  What makes you think that it is inappropriate in this case?  (Or do you not think biography articles should never mention a person's nationality?) Tokerboy
:I don't *know* what DW's point was, but I can guess.  Since Modigliani was racially Jewish, DW was probably upset that Modigliani was classified as an Italian.  DW could either have been offended due to a sense of credit for Modigliani being "stolen" from the Jews, or due to a desire to "protect" Italian racial purity, although I have no idea which.  In Tokerboy's hypothetical wikipedia entry, he would call himself an Italian-American.  Perhaps similarly we could classify Modigliani as a "Jewish-Italian", but that phrase would never have been used by the man himself.  As far as how Modigliani identified himself, I know little beyond the fact that he occasionally introduced himself as "a painter and a jew".  Still - calling him an "Italian Artist" reflects only one vision of the facts.
----
DW, you have given no-one any reason why this page should not follow standard style. If there is a reason why Italian should not be used here, say it. If not, stop tampering with this page. And stop making childish threats to vandalise pages of people who touch 'your' pages. JTD 03:31 Jan 30, 2003 (UTC)
----
The content below was posted at Modigliani, now a redirect. Charles Matthews 11:25, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I added fact about the recent sale of a Modigliani painting of his then lover, Jeanne.  I site the following link : http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4118496.stm .
I am somewhat bothered by the statement "...and the few paintings that change hands can sell for more than $15.6 million."  Exactly where does the figure $15.6 million come from ?
Thanks to everybody who has contributed to this article !
- KLestes
Maybe it was one of the multitude of fakes created by Elmyr de Hory?
The Clifford Irving book, Fake!, of 1969 has 35 pages mentioning the
times de Hory created Modigliani drawings (which he would knock
out by the dozens) & paintings as well as the ease he had selling
them to galleries and Algur Meadows (either personally or thru his 
"sales agent", Fernand Legros).  Clifford Irving was de Hory's 
next door neighbor on the Spanish island of Ibiza.  Irving of
course is famous in his own right for the Howard Hughes diary hoax.
Fake! -- LoC #72-86087.  A good read.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbryant 94560 (talk • contribs) 01:07, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent sale 

message: I was quite surprised to see what a small proportion of this page was devoted to Modigliani's art. No doubt his personal life is relevant, but at the moment the page reads like tabloid character assassination (e.g. philanderer in the first paragraph), virtually ignoring his significance as a portrait painter. Furthermore a lot of the details about his personal life, particularly his sexual exploits, are unsourced and fail to make the distinction between legend and events which are actually known to have happened. I don't have the knowledge to fix this myself, so am adding a standards tag. Zargulon 12:26, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've made a start at this, trimming some of the more tabloid-like material and POV, citing a couple of facts, and adding citation requests to some others.  The amount of work needed on this article is certainly daunting, and I ran out of steam by the Personal Life section, which I think would benefit from heavy pruning.  More information about the significance of his painting would be even more beneficial.  —Celithemis 02:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Overemphasis on personal life

message: Of course it's hard not to get drawn into his life story (so satisfyingly tawdry), and, as with any artist, not easy to separate it from his work. It's a matter of finding the right balance for an encyclopedic entry, which you, Trenavin, and previously Celithemis, are working to provide. JNW 02:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Personal life

message: I wish people would refrain from spouting the usual bohemian myths surrounding people like Modigliani.  A common one with him is that he was some sort of extravagant hedonist, but the fact is he was just to destitute to afford to be drunk or high on narcotics all the time as he is all to oft portrayed.
One need look no further than his Tuberculosis and apalling poverty, and so poor living conditions, to explain his untimly death.
Amedeo Felix 14:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bohemian myths 

message: This is a question really to anyone who may be able to help in clearing this matter up.  Something I have been told by my father as to why Modi gave up sculpting was his TB, combined with poverty - that is to say he could not continue due to his health, stone requires preparation (i.e. a great deal of carving before getting down to the precise work which produces the finished sculpture) and the dust produced by this simply played havoc with his condition, and of course, unlike a monetarily successful artist, he could not afford to hire an artist's assistant to do this work for him, and so he was forced to give it up.  So of course what I am asking is has anyone else ever come across this explanation and still further what was the source?  Amedeo Felix 09:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Giving up sculpture. 

message: What about the most important thing to begin with: the name of the man?!?
I haven't seen any discussion or any proof anywhere that would lead to the idea that his name was Amedeo. He was italian, so his name must have been Amadeo.
Are you all from the united states or what??
88.157.68.219 (talk) 16:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Pardon???  It's Amedeo in Italy.  Look it up.  There have been numerous famous Italian footballers bearing the name for a start...--Amedeo Felix (talk) 07:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I confirm, the italian form is Amedeo. The same is written evrywhere about him. Ciao. --Simoneschiaffino (talk) 19:09, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: His Name?

message: It seems too dismissive of Hebuterne to refer to her as "the current love of Modigliani's life." As biographers have pointed out, Modigliani's friends considered her the love of his life, period. Modigliani had many, many love affairs before he met Hebuterne, but few or none after her.  Significantly, she was the only woman he ever referred to as "ma femme"--my wife.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Younggoldchip (talk • contribs) 13:11, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're right.  The "Jeanne" section should be expanded. - Josette (talk) 16:05, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jeanne Hebuterne's Place in Modigliani's Life 

message: Is there any reason why Woman with a Necklace is not listed anywhere as a work of Modigliani?
http://www.artic.edu/aic/collections/artwork/59923
208.116.214.226 (talk) 18:52, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia doesn't necessarily list artists complete works; or even incomplete lists of artist works; there are only a few artists who have lists so far...Modernist (talk) 20:31, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Woman with a Necklace 

message: I trimmed this a bit, but it's growing again. Please see Wikipedia is not an image repository. The bulk of this gallery would make a good Commons gallery page, with just the "best of the best" here. --Pete Tillman (talk) 22:44, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I added some important portraits that belong in this article as well as his painting included here: List of most expensive paintings, the gallery is long but not overlong...Modernist (talk) 22:51, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oversize gallery 

message: How can the lineage be traced to the 17th-century Dutch philosopher Baruch Spinoza  when Spinoza is known never to have married nor to have fathered any children?  At the most the lineage can be traced to his siblings but certainly not to himself. Marklinklaters (talk) 11:16, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Family's relationship with Dutch philosopher Baruch Spinoza. 

message: I removed the sentence that said that Modigliani in the studio of Micheli was steeped in "19th century Italian art". Mainly, I do not think it is possible to characterize Italian 19th century painting as one style or even styles to "steep in". Nor do I think Micheli studio functioned in that manner, nor was Micheli a good representative of any one academic style. Clearly Micheli had a greater attachment to Realism, and the discombobulating experiments of Picasso and Cezanne came too late in his career to lead him to drift in the range of Modigliani. It was however revolutionary in the first decades of the 19th century to start to paint outdoors and the real landscape. It was revolutionary for Florentines to splash color. I do not think that the paragraph understands the nature of Machiaioli. I would not have make Morelli its precursor. Also while I can find his early work such as the Sicilian Vespers, melodramatic; I am not sure it was viewed in that light under the autocratic Bourbon monarchy. Nor do I find later Morelli to be melodramatic: dramatic? yes, but melodrama is pejorative.
Ultimately Modigliani's triumph is rooted in Italian love of art, but sparked by the Parisian revolutionary spirit. I am not aiming to rewrite the Modigliani entry. Only mild additions.Rococo1700 (talk) 16:52, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I re-added the omitted sentence even before reading your explanation here. Your essay above seems to indicate you study the period's art yourself and you seem to have your own views on the art and on the history of art developments of the period. But on Wikipedia, all the views you express above would be called "Original Research," unless there are other secondary reliable sources that you can point out to that would express these same views. Feel free to re-write the entry section, but point to sources that would express the views you are adding per Wikipedia policy, please. Regards, warshy (¥¥) 20:24, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, actually, , it's the content currently in the article that reads like original research – a whole mass of fanciful speculation with little or no support from reliable sources. We read that "Among his colleagues in that studio would have been Llewelyn Lloyd, Giulio Cesare Vinzio, Manlio Martinelli, Gino Romiti, Renato Natali, and Oscar Ghiglia". Why do we care who they would have been? What we want to know is who they actually were, with a citation of a reliable source to back the statement up (the Treccani page on Micheli does indeed list those people as having passed through his studio, but does not give dates). And the same goes for the rest of it: "In his earliest Parisian work, traces of this influence, and that of his studies of Renaissance art, can still be seen. His nascent work was shaped as much by such artists as Giovanni Boldini as by Toulouse-Lautrec." Says who? And where? And is there any reason to believe that they are right? It's a pity  is not planning to rewrite this page, because I believe it would benefit from a major overhaul. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:36, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not write the page, except for some sentences in it, and from my memory nothing related to the sentences you mention. Feel free to rewrite whatever you wish. warshy (¥¥) 19:05, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Guglielmo Micheli and Domenico Morelli

message: You can check here (look for "Modigliani" – notice it gives phonemes, but Italian phonetic transciptions as per MoS require vowel lenght in stressed open syllables. Your * is a nonstandard (rather Northern-like) pronunciation.--Carnby (talk) 19:14, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It's all mostly Chinese to me. But according to that dictionary I guess you have made your case. Thank you very much for putting my doubts to rest finally. warshy (¥¥) 19:26, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  IPA 

message: I've redirected Reclining Nude with Blue Cushion to this article for now. Feel free to expand! ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:10, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Reclining Nude with Blue Cushion'' 

message: Tried to add this, but it got blocked.  --Look I Forget My youknowwhat (talk) 12:31, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't find any image additions in your total of four Wikipedia edits, so not sure what you may have tried to do. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:09, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Untitled 

message: I edited the opening which referred to Modigliani as "Italian Jewish". There is no reason why the ethnicity/religion of a historical figure/artist should be mentioned in the opening. As a matter of fact, it's usually avoided in Wikipedia articles, unless there are specific reasons which makes such an indication relevant to whatever the circumstances that made the figure historically renown. Anyone can easily verify that this is the case by having a look at the articles of other prominent Jewish figures in this enciclopedia: they are never defined as "Jewish" in the opening, their origins/family background/religion being discussed in the biographical section. The versions of this article in other languages (the French and German ones more specifically) also don't mention Modigliani being Jewish in the opening.
 
Another user (User:Modernist) has engaged in an edit war to reinstate the "Italian Jewish" phrasing. They have never offered a reason for doing so except a extremely vague "it's better", "it's useful". I hope other users will discuss their reasons for reverting my edit in this talk page, or abstain from undoing the edit. -- Sansgloire (talk) 21:38, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: In my view, there may be here some new material to add on a subsection of the article, about M.'s attitudes toward the rampant Anti-Semitism he found, to his surprise, in Paris. But, in general, except for Jewish cultural sites trying to squeeze something specifically "Jewish" about M.'s art, there is not much anywhere that shows how his Jewishness was relevant to his original art. As such, the mention of his ethnic origins are more than enough as given in the biographical sections, as argued by Sansgloire, and the specific ethnic mention does not have to be on the opening sentence, in my view. Thank you, warshy (¥¥) 13:48, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I tend to agree. When did "Jewish" first appear in this opening sentence of this article? Has it always been there? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:57, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, it wasn't always there. I had found the edit which introduced it but I can't retrieve it right now. Anyway, it was added at some point and any successive attempt at removing it was reverted (with no explanation given). Sansgloire (talk) 14:05, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I know there is even a little WP app/piece of code that can find when a specific change was introduced to a page and by whom, but I've never tried to use it. But a little work on the history of the page should be able to locate it. warshy (¥¥) 14:10, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Coldcreation tells us this is the "stable" version. So perhaps he could tell us? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:14, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

text: Well, not really. It appears that a couple of times someone happened to be bothered by it, but their edits were always promptly reverted in order to upheld the "stable version", as it is currently being called (by the same user that was involved in maintaining the "Italian Jewish" phrasing in the past). It almost look like that this page has become the personal fief of a few users who don't feel like they have to explain why they undo edits. Sansgloire (talk) 14:47, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

text: Ooops, sorry. Actually it is the very next edit to the above. It is this diff. Hope I got it right now... warshy (¥¥) 14:34, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep. So, oddly enough, the date of the diff is 2/29/2016... warshy (¥¥) 14:38, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  I found that yesterday, that is why I called the current version a stable version, but I suspect it was present circa 2008 in light of the discussion above. Coldcreation (talk) 14:40, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sure enough. Diff. Coldcreation (talk) 14:43, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, let me state clearly, for the record. His Jewish Livornese ethnic origins are definitely important and relevant to his personality and his amazingly original work. And they are appropriately covered in the biographical section, I believe. But the ethnic mention does not "make" his original art, and it does not need to be mentioned in the opening sentence. Thank you, warshy (¥¥) 14:51, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

text: It was edited in September 2009, the edit was motivated with "no ethnicity in the lead section": https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Amedeo_Modigliani&direction=next&oldid=314386014 Then that "stable version" was edited in 2016 to add the "Jewish" qualifier. Anyway, I saw you have reinstated the new "stable version" pending consensus in the talk page - how do you propose we move toward a consensus? Sansgloire (talk) 15:01, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Modigliani was a well-known personality in Paris (Montmartre and Montparnasse). There is no need to reduce the lead to references of his artwork alone. Coldcreation (talk) 15:06, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not following. What are you talking about now? Sansgloire (talk) 15:10, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

text: I assume you are not going to follow your own advice. Sansgloire (talk) 15:21, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  That was is response to warshy's: "But the ethnic mention does not "make" his original art." Warshy correctly point out however: "His Jewish Livornese ethnic origins are definitely important and relevant to his personality and his amazingly original work." This is all that is needed as far as notability (and it is reflected by multiple reliable sources) to be mentioned in the lead. Coldcreation (talk) 15:22, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  (My response was to Modernist, suggesting *I* shouldn't beat the dead horse) No, it isn't. warshy explicitly argues for the opposite of what you are saying (it shouldn't be mentioned in the lead according to him). Very bizarre of you, taking his opinion to buttress yours when the two don't agree. As I stated previously, you failed to provide sources that were relevant to what we are discussing - a couple of Jewish cultural outlets going out of their way to find something "Jewish" about Modigliani's art (which is what makes Modigliani notable) won't do. Sansgloire (talk) 15:33, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

text: The point is: Ethnicity is perfectly acceptable in the lead when it is relevant to the subject's notability (per MOS:CONTEXTBIO). Clearly, this is the case; not particularly in relation to his style as an artist (as opposed to that of Chagall, Soutine or Kisling), but in relation to his life in Paris, his social milieu and that of his entourage of the School of Paris and at places such as La Ruche. Coldcreation (talk) 15:47, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to clarify: you're not saying: "even if he had never produced any paintings or sculptures, he would have been notable for being Jewish", are you? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:51, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: No. I'm saying he was notable for being Jewish in addition to being an artist. He could very well have been a poet, a philosopher or anything else. He did not have to represent Jews in his sculpture or painting (or poetry, or philosophy) to be a notable Jew. Coldcreation (talk) 15:59, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a lack of logic in your argument. Being a notable Jew has nothing to do with whether his ethnicity should be mentioned in the lead section. Again, Albert Einstein is no doubt a notable Jew, he is not introduced as such in the opening of his article. Sansgloire (talk) 16:09, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: It certainly should be mentioned in the lead of the Einstein article, and it certainly was mentioned in the lead of the Einstein article until this edit on 2 March 2021. Coldcreation (talk) 16:44, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it was only mentioned in a paragraph further down (which would have been ok, because that referred to a specific circumstance of his life in which Einstein's ethnicity/religion was certainly relevant). It wasn't included in the opening statement that introduces the figure (it didn't say "a German-born Jewish physicist"), which is what I am talking about. You are free to think that it should be mentioned in Einstein's case too, but Wikipedia guidelines explicitly take the opposite stance (i.e., ethnicity shouldn't be mentioned unless relevant for some reason). Sansgloire (talk) 16:59, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

text: That's hardly comparable. It's certainly not in the very first sentence and is by way of explanation for a another fact. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:49, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

text: Then I think the article is currently sadly lacking the academic sources to support this view. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:01, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: "Italian Jewish"

message: Should the lead section of the article states Modigliani ethnicity/religion, and thus introduce him as a "Italian Jewish painter and sculptor", or should that be discussed in the biographical section, and only his nationality mentioned in the opening ("Italian painter and sculptor")? Sansgloire (talk) 16:05, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: * I am happy with the proposed compromise also. warshy (¥¥) 18:42, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

text: *Yes, but are you still insisting, as you have up to now, that it has to be in the opening sentence? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:50, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

text: *Could you also clarify whether you think that needs to be in the opening sentence? Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:45, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: *IMO the opening sentence works...Modernist (talk) 21:02, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

text: *The article doesn't say how he introduced himself? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:59, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

text: *And what does "that seems externally the norm" mean exactly? What norm, where? The sentence does not really make sense to me... Thank you, warshy (¥¥) 15:08, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

text: *How was his Judaism "obviously important to his art"? Was Jewish recognised as a "nationality" in Livorno in 1884? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:06, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: *I am not sure what is the point that Cynistrategus is making. For what it's worth, under the Constitution of the Kingdom of Italy subjects had the same civil and political rights regardless of their religion. Sansgloire (talk) 12:29, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

text: There is significant dissent, so the RfC should run at least 30 days, which is standard. Let someone uninvolved close it after that. Softlavender (talk) 00:39, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC about how Amedeo Modigliani is introduced 

message: This is a Level 5 vital article, but vast amounts of it are completely uncited. I have therefore placed a template at the top of the article until such time as this is completely remedied. Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 00:37, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vast amounts of this article are completely uncited