Talk:Diego Rivera

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mexico Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mexico, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Mexico on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? Class: This article has not been assigned a class according to the assessment scale.

Contents

[edit] Marriage to Frida Kahlo

This can't be right: "They married for the first time in 1929, when he was 42 years old and she was 22; but owing to his infidelity and violent temper they divorced in 1928" Actually, she was 19. They divorced, but because of his incessant infidelity, but because of his affair with her sister. They remarried a year later.

Actually, it is right. Frida was born in 1907, making her 22 in 1929. Because of her passion for the mexican revolution, she attempted to change her date of birth from 1907 to 1910 to coincide with the revolution. Weili 17:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

So we're just not going to mention that he was married to Frida at all? Did someone remove that section for some reason?Saucybetty 02:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alot of men trained to kill had families that needed food

Bonus army

How could there not be a threat of Revolution?


umm personally i think its really weird that she got back with him —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.71.204.253 (talk) 18:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rivera allegedly vs. Trotsky

"it is proven have been highly unlikely"

In case any Rivera or Trotsky experts are reading, I'd like to draw your attention to this ridiculous phrase. I hope someone can fix it to reflect the amount of information that is available. --69.140.16.126 05:16, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Is the statement regarding Rivera's decendent in Austraila true or is it an example of using the wikipedia for malace?


[edit] Cubism?

Diego Rivera is NOT cubism. He is Socialist Realism. Cubism is Picasso.

Huh? Perhaps you should take a look at some of his paintings posted here. linas 05:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 1st marriage?

the article says that his first marriage was to Guadalupe Marín yet when you click on the link and read the Guadalupe Marín article it says she was his second wife.

Guadalupe being his second wife is consistent with what I've always believed but in either case, there's an inconsistency to be cleared up. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.113.83.98 (talk) 00:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Notes?

what happened to them?161.253.40.203 05:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rivera vs. Trotsky

Frida had a brief affair with Trotsky in the summer of 1937, not long after he came to Mexico, but this was most assuredly not the reason for his break with Rivera. This did not come until the winter of 1938-39, while Frida was absent at an exhibition of her work in New York and then Paris. The breach, according to Hayden Herrera, the author of Frida, was caused by a combination of personal and political differences. Rivera had an expansive personality, one that did not harmonise well with that of the didactic and humourless Trotsky. More and more the two men came into open disagreement, over the nature of the Soviet state, over trade union work, and over Rivera's support for Francisco Mujica's bid for the Mexican presidency. But these disagreements in point of detail came down to one big thing: Riviera was simply not the kind of man who could fit easily within the narrow political and personal discipline demanded by people like Trotsky. He was, as he told the old Bolshevik, 'a bit of an anarchist', which is as good an assessment of his politics-and his personality-as any. In Paris Frida reported the breach in a letter to a friend "Diego has now fought with the Fourth International and told piochitas [Trotsky] to go to hell in a very serious manner." And as far as she was concerned he was completely right. Clio the Muse 02:34, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Death

Two sources ([1] and [2]) provide different dates for Diego Rivera's death. Can anyone provide some insight? — The Storm Surfer 10:52, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A La Gauguin

Is that a dish? I've heard of a la king, and a la carte but a la Gauguin or a la Henri Rousseau? Perhaps you mean that Diego Rivera was influenced by the paintings of Paul Gauguin and Henri Rousseau. Modernist 17:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Deletion, because of "I've never heard of it", is in violation of WP:IDONTKNOWIT of Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions!!!-70.18.5.219 15:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
The Collins COBUILD Dictionary of English Language provides for the "á la" entry:
á la -- If you do something á la a particular person, you do it in the same style or in the same way that they would do it, e.g.: ...a crisp, tailored dress á la Audrey Hepburn.
-70.18.5.219 05:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, of course, WP:IDONTKNOWIT is not an official policy: "[t]his is an essay. It is not a policy or guideline." It is also not an issue of deletion; WP:IDONTKNOWIT refers to whole articles, not edits. But that's neither here nor there. I believe Modernist was questioning the appropriateness of the phrase, not the meaning, which I'm sure he knows. I won't speak for Modernist, but "á la" is perhaps a little too flowery for an encyclopedia. Simple and direct is better. Just an opinion, of course. Freshacconci | Talk 15:34, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Modernist clearly questioned the usage of the expression á la with people by expressing it as never heard next to "Gauguin" or "Rousseau" in the question (first sentence) above. In the second sentence Modernist offers a substitute, which is more formal, not because á la is not formal enough, but because - as Modernist said - "I've heard of... but a la Gauguin or a la Henri Rousseau?" meaning that Modernist NEVER "heard of [...] a la Gauguin or a la Henri Rousseau?", which discredits your above statement that "the meaning, which I'm sure he knows.", please. No, Modernist did not know the usage of á la, and had not even bothered to look into a dictionary before starting this wasteful "discussion" as a continuation from Talk:Frida Kahlo#Cultural trivia!. The main problem is not that Modernist makes such mistakes (everybody does, but maybe not such), but that Modernist acts based on such mistakes, e.g. damaging and blanking edits by others, as described below. Sincerely, -70.18.5.219 22:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism?

On 29 September 2007 at 01:32, Modernist changed without valid reason(s) given the Diego Rivera opening sentence ([3]) - damaging it - from:

Diego Rivera ([...]) was a world-famous Mexican painter influenced by Cézanne - and also a communist born in Guanajuato City - whose large wall works in fresco co-established the Mexican Mural Renaissance with those by Orozco, Siqueiros, etc. ([4])

to two sentences still opening the article (which is now protected):

Diego Rivera ([...] was a world-famous Mexican painter influenced by Cézanne - and also a communist. Born in Guanajuato City - and whose large wall works in fresco co-established the Mexican Mural Renaissance with those by Orozco, and Siqueiros. ([5])

The errors include: missing parenthesis, incorrect division into two (2) sentences, completely wrong structure of the second sentence, factual error that the Mexican Mural Renaissance was established by works of only 3 mentioned painters (there were more of them). Can such damage to article be considered as vandalism, please? -70.18.5.219 08:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Errors like this are not considered vandalism. Please review what vandalism is on Wikipedia, including what vandalism is not. Unintentional incorrect information, bad grammar, poor spelling, manual of style errors, and other common mistakes are not the same as vandalism. Additionally, editors should assume good faith with regards to edits that are not obvious, intentional, malicious destruction. Instead, just fix the errors, explaining in the edit summary why you're making those specific changes. (i.e. in edit summary box, type "fixing typographical errors, adding closing parentheses, adding info that multiple founders of MMR." etc,) Cheers, Ariel♥Gold 09:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Overprotected?

Ariel, I cannot fix the article, because it has been protected for 9 days - effectively against... myself - as a result of someone's vandalism. B.t.w., how such protection works against vandalism, which acts seem to be singular and unrelated to each other, so one occurrence does not allow to predict the next one? In other words, if acts of vandalism are random and unpredictable, how the length of duration of protection against random occurrences can be calculated? Wouldn't be better just to block the vandals instead of disallowing editing for all anons, please? -70.18.5.219 10:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reliable sources

While addressing some of the issues above (which I have changed to reflect the proper Manual of Style, other issues caught my eye. This article uses non-reliable sources, such as geocities, and answers.com. Neither of these are reliable, third-party sources, and should be moved into the external links section, with proper sources found to replace them. Answers.com is nothing more than a collection of information obtained elsewhere, and that page actually is a copy of this article, so it is not at all a reliable source. Geocities is not a respected fact-checking news service, but a personal webspace host, and thus, not a reliable source. The same goes for the Fred Buch reference, it too should be moved to the external links section, as it is a personal website. Ariel♥Gold 09:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I put them there reluctantly and always wishing too that those sources were better, but - apparently - it is a lot easier said than done. The desire to have "reliable, third-party sources" is a guideline, not a policy, and, as such, it is deemed as advisable, and NOT as "should be" (required).-70.18.5.219 05:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sysops, repeated Blanking as vandalism (corrected)?

Sec. I. From 70.18.5.219: Dear Modernist, your three (3) instances of removing references justified as unnecessary and redundant, but without saying why and to whom seemed to violate the WP:VANDALISM#Types of vandalism "Blanking" in the part described there as Sometimes important verifiable references are deleted with no valid reason(s) given in the summary. On what ground you deprived readers additional sources, please? Those instances were:

1. [6] <"18:11, 26 September 2007 Modernist (removing all redundant and unnecessary Olga's gallery references from lead - see external links)">, which was blanking of references without required saying why, and so constituting "no valid reason(s) given" qualified as vandalism under the "Blanking" rule (partially restored: [7] with the comment <"20:46, 26 September 2007 70.18.5.219 (On what ground you deprive readers additional sources, please?)">).
2. [8] <"18:29, 26 September 2007 Modernist (?Later work abroad - removed unnecessary and redundant artchive reference - see external links)">, which was blanking of reference without required saying why, and so constituting "no valid reason(s) given" qualified as vandalism under the "Blanking" rule.
3. [9] <"18:32, 26 September 2007 Modernist (?Career in Mexico - removed redundant unnecessary artchive reference see external links)">, which was blanking of reference without saying why, and so constituting "no valid reason(s) given" qualified as vandalism under the "Blanking" rule.
Would the sysops be so kind and take appropriate steps (like issuing a warning against Modernist) to protect other editors from repeating undue blankings by Modernist, please? -70.18.5.219 20:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Seraphim Whipp says it best here. There is a difference between deletions and editing: Modernist is not an administrator and therefore does not have the actual tools to delete an article. And let me be clear: he is not deleting articles. He is editing. There are no violations of policy or guidelines on Modernist's part. He is editing well-within his rights. 70.18.5.219, please stop harassing other editors. Freshacconci | Talk 16:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

From 70.18.5.219: Dear Freshacconci, the base of my argument above has been corrected, so you may want to modify yours too. My point has been the same that the editors shall NOT blank (delete) others' work (like mine) with "no valid reason(s) given", as it is clearly prohibited by WP:VANDALISM#Types of vandalism "Blanking" especially in regard to references. In general, it seems that Wikipedia protects its expansion by making Blanking (and Deleting at all) difficult through prohibiting it with "no valid reason(s) given", while NOT having such a requirement, when Adding to Wikipedia. So, the issue of violations of that rule seems to be threatening expansion for Wikipedia. -70.18.5.219 09:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Protecting Diego Rivera for 20 days... excessive and abusive???

  • Transferred from bibliomaniac15's talk page by -70.18.5.219 03:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC):

On Nov. 8, you protected Diego Rivera for the whopping 20 days after User:24.8.104.191 had vandalized it six (6) times in one day almost in a row. Why you did not blocked the vandal instead of making access to Diego Rivera impossible for others - innocent editors, please? Don't you think that your action was abusive since Wikipedia:Protection policy#Semi-protection clearly states to use protection ONLY, when Preventing vandalism when blocking users individually is not a feasible option, and blocking just User:24.8.104.191 definitely has been an option, but you chose not to follow it, please? Did other - relative sporadic and typical for that article - instances of vandalism justify the whopping 20 day protection blocking access for others - innocent editors, please?

Sincerely, -70.18.5.219 21:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
This is in fact an article that has been subjected to multiple attempts at vandalism and has been protected previously. I see nothing improper in what Bibliomaniac15 has done here and as it is only for 20 days, it seems to me to be no big deal. Sincerely. --Malcolmxl5 02:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

This article (and Frida Kahlo) has been subject to constant vandalism at a higher rate than other articles, and protecting it does not cure sources of it. I've noticed that in addition to a typical, random (prank) vandalism it is also subject to vandalism provoked by errors and low quality of content, similarly as Frida Kahlo. The problem with improving the content is that both articles are sort of hijacked by a group of registered editors (in violation of WP:OWN), who - on one hand - cannot edit too well, and - on the other - remove edits by others they do not like justifying by personal opinions, e.g. "we (I) don't like it", and not by required valid reason(s), which personal opinions are not. That way they effectively rule the editing process on a low level by: or demanding editing the way they want it, or removing disliked edits without giving valid reason(s) (against WP:VAN). When a conflict arises with a particular editor, they have a majority and advantage of knowing better Wikipedia procedures, and they prevail, because editors do not know, how to prove sneaky vandalism of personal opinion justification - though in violation of WP:VAN, but often not obvious. Then it is necessary to establish, if the removed without valid reason edit was detrimental, which can be subjective, and they - having a majority - outvote anyone else, and inform sysops that the removed without valid reason edit was in fact detrimental even, if it wasn't, but since they have a majority, the sysop has no choice, but to believe them, unless he is an expert, which is not a case. So, often such defeated and frustrated inexperienced editors resort to the unfortunate protest of vandalism, and then you - the sysops - are called to protect both articles. So, protecting them serves the interest of those hijacking editors and not the articles themselves. So, please, end the protection of Diego Rivera ASAP, and do block only User:24.8.104.191 instead.

Sincerely, -70.18.5.219 19:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
From User talk:70.18.5.219#Diego Riviera by -70.18.5.219 22:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC):
May I ask if you can provide any diffs for your statement of ownership? If you would like to edit the article, I suggest you get an account. If you'd like to request unprotection at WP:RPP, go ahead, but I feel that in this case, protection was justified. Again, I can lower the protection time if you'd like. bibliomaniac15 A straw poll on straw polls 21:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I do would like you to lower the protection, please. It looks fair without requested diffs, so I do not like to use WP:RPP, and I think that you act in good faith, but I do not want to get an account until the issue of sneaky vandalism by registered users is addressed at least somehow. Such vandalism is described with requested diffs at:
Sincerely, -70.18.5.219 22:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
From User talk:70.18.5.219#Diego Riviera by -70.18.5.219 03:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC):

From what I've seen, Modernist was not being malicious or a vandal. I really don't see how WP:OWN is playing into all of this. Granted, maybe the removal of the citations was a bit iffy, but I have not seen any thing that is "a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." You are misunderstanding the concept of malicious blanking and vandalism. And really, your past conduct on Talk:Frida Kahlo was unacceptable. bibliomaniac15 A straw poll on straw polls 01:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I have never denied PAST mistakes on Talk:Frida Kahlo. They were caused by frustration of not knowing Wikipedia procedures to fend off blanking of my edits - a possible cause of some Wikipedia vandalism at large by inexperienced editors, whose some contributions may be invaluable as the best in the field, and who just do not want to register. But, my past mistakes do not excuse vandalism by others, and - so - are irrelevant to the raised issue. How "the removal of the citations" without valid reason(s) can be just "iffy" and not "a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia", please? Integrity means soundness, hence more citations (references) means more soundness. So, how fewer citations does not mean less soundness, which means exactly compromise of soundness, which means compromise of integrity, please? Then WP:VANDALISM is half-fake, and there is almost no protection of edits! Thanks for your time and attention. Sincerely, -70.18.5.219 03:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
From User talk:70.18.5.219#Diego Riviera by -70.18.5.219 07:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC):
I would like to have a third opinion about this issue, since I perceive that we are having differing views about WP:OWNership of the articles and it would be a waste of time to try to argue each other's positions out. I believe you asked User:Newyorkbrad about this issue. See if he has any comments to make. bibliomaniac15 A straw poll on straw polls 05:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I agree, it is pointless, though your position seems to be typical and to the best of your understanding of the policies, but - I think - not very strict partially due to the present definition of vandalism, which - as I argued in Wikipedia_talk:Vandalism#Make it less vague, define "deliberate" & "good-faith effort" - seems to be incomplete allowing for vandalism with impunity, or - as you call it - "iffy" edits. My objective is that sneaky vandalism is better recognized and the vandals are blocked, instead of (over)protecting articles for 3 weeks, so User:Newyorkbrad is not needed to be bothered, when I intend improve Diego Rivera's lead, and added references by myself will not be "iffily" blanked with impunity, like the last time. I am outnumbered, and explaining every phrase and sentence to everyone can be very tedious especially to those having high school graduation ahead, but I have learnt my lesson, and I do not intend to repeat my past mistakes from Talk:Frida Kahlo. Sincerely, -70.18.5.219 07:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
PS.: Or - maybe - explaining every phrase and sentence to everyone asking is the desired way to go. -70.18.5.219 18:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
From User talk:70.18.5.219#Diego Riviera by -70.18.5.219 03:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC):

I've lessened the protection to expire on the 20th of November. Personally, I think the vandalism policy is already clear enough in its present version, but I'd like to get back to research and not argue about policy interpretations. bibliomaniac15 A straw poll on straw polls 21:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, and I agree 100 %; the vandalism policy - if problematic for some - is way over our heads, but I made a contribution to its discussion in case there is room for improvement. Thanks a lot again. Sincerely, -70.18.5.219 03:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Above transferred from bibliomaniac15's talk page by -70.18.5.219 03:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Rivera-the-arsenal.jpg

Image:Rivera-the-arsenal.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Was Diego Rivera Jewish?

He is described in the article as a converso, and categorized at the bottom as a Mexican Jew. My understanding is that conversos had converted and no longer practiced Judaism. Is there any evidence he considered himself Jewish? If so, why is he a converso and not a marrano? ~ 72.222.181.186 (talk) 00:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC) ~