Talk:Daniel Filipacchi

message: I need help, here.  I've put a lot of effort into developing this bio page in a way that is interesting and accurate.  But since yesterday, someone keeps adding words to the introductory paragraph that are not appropriate and are inaccurate.  I keep reverting the changes, but he/she keeps redoing them, each time from a different computer (different IP address).  He has now started threatening me, saying things like "Last warning to Fender."  I don't know what he means by that.  He does not even have an identity nor a track record of having contributed usefully to Wikipedia.  He doesn't even have a consistent IP address.  If you look back in the history of changes I've made since yesterday (4 Jan 08), you'll see that I tried changing the paragraph in many different ways, hoping I would find one way that would satisfy him/her.  But he always changes it back to his inaccurate version.  I'd really appreciate some help. I cannot spend all my time watching this page and reverting his inappropriate changes, so unless others help me out, the page will probably contain his change which is inaccurate and inappropriate.
I do not think his change is appropriate or necessary for a personal biography.  It also seems to have a POV problem, seems to be pushing a certain agenda.  There's a complex corporate history that is not relevant for this page and to explain it accurately would require going into far too much detail for a biographical page like this (it doesn't belong here, and is covered on the pages devoted to the relevant companies). The simplest way to put it is this: according to the Matra page on Wikipedia, the company Matra that is referenced did not exist for the entire period covered by the introductory overview of this biography.  
( Gabrielle Fender (talk) 01:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've re-added the cleanup and refimprove tags, those are not vandalism.  I did not replace the dubious tag, as it was unclear what statement was dubious, nor did I replace the "largest magazine publishing company..." line, as it was unsourced.  --Kbdank71 16:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

text: removed bogus links to JL Lagardere articles that are not relevant here. (QualityControl64 (talk) 23:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

text: seemes that JL Lagardere is a very relevent part in Filipacchi's life......--Wikioedit (talk) 07:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Help needed to stop wrong information that is being repeatedly posted on this page

message: Please discuss changes here instead of edit warring.  --Kbdank71 17:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected 

message: why not ad this reference to the filipacchi article seems true knowledge with references:
Daniel Filipacchi (born 1928, in Paris, France) is the Chairman Emeritus of Hachette Filipacchi Medias which he built into the largest magazine publishing company in the world under the leadership of Jean-Luc Lagardère, then head at Matra.. http://www.ketupa.net/hachette.htm or http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2001_April_26/ai_73666592
--Wikioedit (talk) 12:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see in those two links any mention of Daniel Filipacchi.  How are they references for the statement you want to add?  --Kbdank71 15:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I know what I read.  Nowhere does it say that "which he built into the largest magazine publishing company in the world under the leadership of Jean-Luc Lagardère".  Find me a reference that has something to do with what you want to add, and I'll add it.  --Kbdank71 16:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia 

message: I would like to remove this episode.  On reading the source one discovers that Filipacchi had nothing to do with this episode other than being the last guy to buy the painting before it was found to be forged.  The article is about Werner Spies.  Filipacchi is a major art collector and buys any number of paintings. Some of them will be forged and then, because he's famous, his name will be mentioned in the article about the forgery.  That's all we have here; a passing mention.  Not important at all to the life and career of Daniel Filipacchi.  I'm going to delete it now per WP:BRD and then we can discuss it here.  For reference, here's the latest version:
In 2006, Filipacchi purchased a painting, putatively by Max Ernst, called "La Forêt (2)" ("The Forest") for US $7 million. The discovery that the painting was a forgery and had been improperly authenticated by expert Werner Spies precipitated a scandal in the art-collecting community.Sven Röbel and Michael Sontheimer. The $7 Million Fake: Forgery Scandal Embarrasses International Art World, Der Spiegel, 13 June 2011. Accessed 18 May 2013.
— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:36, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd get the opinion of editors who know something about art collecting.  I don't know now often 7 or 8 figure forgeries make it into the collection pool, but I bet its not often.  Then again, the article isn't focusing on any aspect of his collection.  Is this interesting enough to leave in?  little green rosetta 15:44, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

text: If anyone is interested, this section might be off use in Werner Spies article, as he is the authenticater of the forgery.  little green rosetta 16:00, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the price of the painting makes the episode notable, and I agree that it belongs in Spies's article.  I just don't think it's about Filipacchi at all per the source, where he is only tangentially mentioned as the buyer.  He had no other role in the controversy.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:03, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: After reading this and the  German article about Spies, its clear that this BLP relied on expert advice about the authenticity of the painting. The inclusion is unnecessary and somewhat negative against the subject.  I agree with the removal.  little green rosetta 16:41, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: How is that copy "somewhat negative against" Daniel Filipacchi? It was meant to Identify him as a victim. Should I have also referenced the (long) Vanity Fair article in which Filipacchi's name is prominently mentioned, along wih Steve Martin, as victims of a forgery racket many have called one of Germany's biggest postwar art world scandals? Why is it OK to have the scandal explained at length on Steve Martin's page but censored from Daniel Filipacchi's page, presumably because the outlay of money by Filipacchi was more significant?  Perhaps you could  propose a more neutral wording? Sandover (talk) 18:53, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it's negative, I just think that as it stood it wasn't relevant to Filipacchi. The first source you used only mentioned Filipacchi tangentially.  The Vanity Fair source is much better with regard to establishing a substantive connection with Filipacchi, and I believe that a relevant sentence or two could be constructed from that.  In this case, the original source you used could be used to cite a fact to to establish the notability of Filipacchi's connection to the affair by showing that it was covered in multiple sources.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:24, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

text: FWIW I think the paragraph in the Steve Martin article is far too long and would argue that it should be removed from there or severely trimmed if I were interested in editing that article.  One big difference is that this article is much shorter so that the danger of giving one incident like this undue weight is much greater.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:57, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

text: Rethinking, I don't think we should add this material, even with the Vanity Fair piece.  That article quotes Filipacchi throughout, but as the victim and as an expert in modern art.  It doesn't have material about Filipacchi.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:51, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Filipacchi would not have commented on the record to Vanity Fair if he were all that embarrassed; he did (after all) call Wolfgang Beltracchi "a genius." I do think this gives new information, the simple fact of the painting having been hung in prominently in his Manhattan apartment.  I think there's a way of including a one-liner without giving it undo weight, footnoting it to both sources. I may propose alternate wording. Sandover (talk) 23:05, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: By no means was I implying you we're making a BLP statement.  After reading the Vanity Fair article, I'm ok with inclusion in some manner.  Be bold and add text as you see fit.  little green rosetta 23:40, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see this as a BLP issue either, and I didn't mean to insinuate that you were implying that Filipacchi was embarrassed or that there's anything embarrassing about it at all.  My only concern is with undue weight and the fact that the VF article quotes him but doesn't discuss him as a subject per se.  I have no strong objections, though.  By all means, write something.  I really do think the VF source is far better than the first.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:53, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Added a line, drawing the reader's attention to the culprit(s) . . Sandover (talk) 19:36, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Forged Max Ernst painting