Talk:Pablo Picasso

Name

Main section says "Crispiniano", infobox says "Cipriano". Anyone know which one is correct? Lexicon (talk) 02:55, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

The name on his baptismal certificate differs slightly from the name on his birth record. On-line Picasso Project. ...Crispiniano was omitted and in its place he was baptized Cipriano (the reason is unknown). It's sometimes written Pablo Diego José Francisco de Paula Juan Nepomuceno María de los Remedios Cipriano de la Santísima Trinidad Martyr Patricio Clito Ruíz y Picasso (See here). Coldcreation (talk) 03:17, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

That name also removes the "Maria" that has been in the name for years in this article. I had changed it to an even longer name as found on Biography.com. But I have no particular faith in it (or any version), so feel free to edit it to whatever you think is correct. Lexicon (talk) 03:53, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I Agree with the non-faith, even on biography.com. María was commonly used as a middle name in men (i.e.: José María) in very religious families, so it wouldn't be strange for him to have it. Second, the name currently displayed sounds like if was some sort of joke. «Clito Ruiz» is phonetic for clitoris, which would be very unlikely given the care the family took naming him.

I'd mark the name as "source unreliable" to warn the viewers until some biographer can sort this out with facts. Schmick (talk) 06:36, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Also, your last link appears to go to something completely unrelated. Lexicon (talk) 03:56, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

• Done. Coldcreation (talk) 07:36, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Do the names really need to be separated by commas as at present?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 15:52, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

That is the way Picasso's full name is written in the catalogue raisonné by Pierre Daix, et al. Coldcreation (talk) 17:29, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Agree, that's the way it's given in the 1988 source. Hard to find anything more reliable? And I know we can't use other language wikis as a guide, but it's curious that the fr.wiki also uses commas, while the es.wiki does not. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:12, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Catalan wiki is also without commas, but their source is a dead link to an English webpage. The Spanish wiki source for the name is an El Mundo article of 2009. The only other reliable source I can think of is the extensive Zervos catalogues. Next time I'm at Centre Pompidou library I see what's written in them. Until then, it looks like the commas should remain. Coldcreation (talk) 18:38, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Infobox image

About eighteen months ago, without notice or discussion, an editor substituted a nonfree image of Picasso in place of the longstanding free image there. When I replaced it today, as routine NFCC/WMF licensing policy enforcement. User:Modernist is, without any discussion, reverting this action, making a groundless accusation of "VANDALISM" [1]. This is as clearcut a case of a replaceable free image as one could ask for. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 16:12, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

• You have vandalized this article, those images that you removed should be used in this article with Fair Use Rationals which they both have. STOP VANDALIZING ARTICLES THAT YOU CLEARLY DO NOT UNDERSTAND...Modernist (talk) 16:26, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Except that the "freeness" of the replacement photo is frankly unlikely to stand much scrutiny, and the Commons file does not contain the "clear evidence" it is supposed to. Johnbod (talk) 16:23, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

File:Portrait de Picasso, 1908.jpg and File:Pablo Picasso with his sister Lola, 1889.jpg are both public domain images that never should have been uploaded as non-free. Problem fixed. Coldcreation (talk) 08:14, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and changed the lead image once again. This public domain photograph of Picasso taken in 1904 shows an expressive artist during an important time of his life, as he made the transition from the Blue Period to the Rose Period. Coldcreation (talk) 02:39, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Moved image of Picasso in 1904 down in the article, and replaced it with former lead image of 1908. Both images showing the artist at successive artistic peaks in his career should remain in the article. As to which should be the lead image is debatable. The quality of the current image (of 1908) is perhaps superior to that of the 1904 image. For this reason, and for the encyclopedic reason that Picasso had just completed one of his most famous paintings the year before (the proto-Cubist Les Demoiselles), I've replaced it. Coldcreation (talk) 11:39, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Personal life

The article's organization strikes me as very unusual. Is there a good reason why there is no section on Personal Life, and all his many marriages, affairs, children, etc. are built into the sections on the stages in his art? MikeR613 (talk) 16:33, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

That is because his wives were inextricably linked to successive stages of his art. Coldcreation (talk) 16:43, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Neutrality

You wouldn't expect this to be an issue for a subject like this, but this reads as if it was written by someone working for the Picasso Family rather than an independent source. Writing as if he was doing nothing but putting great effort in to his work until his death flies in the face of what most art historians would tell you. He reached a point where he rarely produced work of any substance and instead simply produced work for the then ridiculous prices they could command. That is why you see more linocuts and the like. One work becomes 500 and he signs all 500 to make them "originals". This is a man who made even the smallest purchase by check because he knew it would never be cashed. The seller would instead sell the check to a collector.

I'd say this article has serious POV issues.