Talk:Paul Gauguin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


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

Before uploading two present images back in December, I made sure to expand the article, so that there would be enough text for these images. Generally, I think we should avoid overloading pages with images, especially on painters. Therefore I removed the Yellow Christ to the Cloisonnism article, which describes the painting in question, while inserting two links from the Gauguin page to that image. The second image recently added, definitely a minor work, was linked from the much more important Ta Matete and from the list of his major works (although the work is not major). I'd like to upload many more essentual artworks, such as the Red Bouquet or Buddha series from the Hermitage Museum, but will not do so, as I understand that Wikipedia is not meant to become an art gallery site. Ghirlandajo 07:35, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I added the two that I did because Yellow Christ is one of his most talked about paintings, and the other is a good example of the sexuality and dark magic of his Tahitian paintings; as such, I believe they are even more representative than the ones that were on the page. I don't think the article is anywhere near being "overloaded" by images. As for Wikipedia not being meant as "art gallery site", I don't know where this comes from, either. I would love to eventually see individual articles for every major work of art, and list articles for every artist that would have pictures of all of their works with a brief description. How is that not encyclopedic? I'm replacing the images. Postdlf 01:59, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)


When was Gauguin born and when did he die?

According to Britannica ( it's June 7, 1848 -- May 8, 1903. 10:08, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Unknown title[edit]

There is a Gauguin image called Image:Gauguin12.jpg available. It was tagged as {{no source}} and may have been removed from this article. However, it must be in the public domain because Gauguin has been dead for more than 70 years. It's worth including in the article but I can't identify it. Perhaps someone else can? This image is called The Day of the Gods (Mehano no Atua), 1894

Gauguin's two wives[edit]

I'm new to this so don't want to mess about with anyone's article but in the bit about his family shouldn't something be mentioned about the two 'wives' he had at different periods in Tahiti. The first was 13 years old when they married (younger than his daughter Aline, i'm not sure?) she had a pregnancy that was terminated, and remained his wife until he returned to France. The second he married on his return when he discovered his first wife had remarried, she bore him two children. 03:12, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

If you're certain of your facts (and especially if you have citations for those facts), there's no reason why you shouldn't be bold and add your information (and citations) to the article.
Atlant 12:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

It is actually pretty dismal that this article doesn't seem to have any information on his extremely sordid personal life. I think that its important to understand the life of an artist to understand their art. Especially a personal life as "colorful" as Gauguin's. I'll look for some sources.--Niro5 11:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I support the original questioners point. I came to this article with the specific intention of finding the facts about the two renowned marriages to the teenagers in Tahiti. I love Gaugin, but respecting the work of an artist does not mean conveniently ignoring anything that may be viewed as unsavoury about their life. Never mind, I guess I'll visit the library! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:38, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Me too i wanted to find out about the tahiti teenage wives and the abortions for an essay i'm writing- i know i shouldn't be using wikipedia for essays but i thought it might be a good place to start to give me an overview before i did some proper research. Anyway, it didn't, i can't believe there is NOTHING here about any of it! (talk) 04:37, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

You are both correct, our image of him was mainly invented by Gauguin himself, and some of the answers to your questions can be found in the book listed in the article: Nancy Mowll Mathews, Paul Gauguin, an erotic life, Yale Univ. Press 2001 and in this review article Amelia Hill, Gauguin's erotic Tahiti idyll exposed as a sham, The Guardian, 7 October 2001 hope that helps. Peter morrell 06:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Split for list of paintings[edit]

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)

Main page[edit]

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


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)

WikiProject class rating[edit]

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)

Date of death[edit]

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)

Calvins and Hobbes strip[edit]

Should there be a reference the the Calvin and Hobbes May 1, 1992 strip by Bill Watterson that specifically refers to Gauguin?

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)

I don't think we need this ... Wikipedia discourages trivia sections. Stumps (talk) 08:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

To ear is divine[edit]

Speculation at best, not accepted fact and needs independant corroboration...Modernist (talk) 22:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Gauguin 'cut off Van Gogh's ear'[edit]

Vincent van Gogh did not cut off his own ear but lost it in a fight with fellow artist Paul Gauguin in a row outside a brothel, it has been claimed. It has long been accepted that the mentally ill Dutch painter cut off his own ear with a razor after the row in Arles, southern France, in 1888. But a new book, based on the original police investigation, claims Gauguin swiped Van Gogh's ear with a sword. The authors argue the official version of events contains inconsistencies. The book, titled In Van Gogh's Ear: Paul Gauguin and the Pact of Silence, is the product of 10 years of research by German academics Hans Kaufmann and Rita Wildegans. They looked at witness accounts and letters sent by the two artists, concluding that the row ended with Gauguin - a keen fencer - cutting his friend's ear off. Van Gogh then apparently wrapped it in cloth and handed it to a prostitute, called Rachel. Mr Kaufmann said it was not clear whether it was an accident or a deliberate attempt to injure Van Gogh, but afterwards both men agreed to tell the police the self-harm story to protect Gauguin. He said the traditional version of events is based on contradictory and improbable evidence, and no independent witness statement exists. "Gauguin was not present at the supposed self-mutilation," he told Le Figaro newspaper in France. "As for Van Gogh, he didn't confirm anything. Their behaviour afterwards and various suggestions by the protagonists indicate they were hiding the truth." Gauguin later moved to Tahiti, where he produced some of his most famous works. Van Gogh died in 1890 after shooting himself in the chest. (added by S. Wright)

Paint source[edit]

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)


Large sections of this article are identical with the biography on (licensed under CC but forbids commercial use). Gugganij (talk) 19:24, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I am removing the tag - The last line at - 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)
I did some checking, and our bio predates theirs...Modernist (talk) 19:54, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for clearing that up. Gugganij (talk) 21:47, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Pronunciation Request for last name[edit]

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)

Spelling "Gaugin" in book title[edit]

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)

Fixed, good catch...Modernist (talk) 11:30, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Gauguin had been interested in art since his childhood. In his free time, he began painting...[edit]

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:

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)

Done.[1] 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)

Telegraph article re upcoming Tate exhibition[edit]

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)

Better is : Paul Gauguin and Van Gogh[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 05:54, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

This information needs to be referenced before adding to an article...Modernist (talk) 12:27, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


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

File:Paul Gauguin - Deux Tahitiennes.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:Paul Gauguin - Deux Tahitiennes.jpg, 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 image page (File:Paul Gauguin - Deux Tahitiennes.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 06:10, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

193 Artworks of Paul Gauguin[edit]

There are 193 Artworks of Paul Gauguin on with information about the year, material, dimensions, museums added for each Artwork. Vv.Grecu —Preceding undated comment added 21:12, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Please don't continue adding your spamlinks...Modernist (talk) 21:32, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Oviri, Musée d'Orsay[edit]

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)

Thanks for the input, it's been an uphill battle all the way...Modernist (talk) 10:35, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Template Paul Gauguin (ship)[edit]

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)

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)
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)

Personal life[edit]

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)

Modifications by Nonc01[edit]

Nonc01, without discussion in Talk, revised the Gauguin article, almost entirely base on one source: Cachin (1992) and to a lesser extent on Walther (2012). One of the problems with this string of edits by Nonc01 is that many images of Gauguin's work are no longer present in the article. And entire Gallery section was wiped out, with no justification given. While there may be useful information in Nonc01's version, it would be better to discuss it first here. Coldcreation (talk) 11:57, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Coldcreation, your revert is unscrupulous and based on looking at some of your activity, you are trigger happy with reverts to some constructive edits on pages you are "involved" with, the edits themselves almost seem beside the point. The page was in poor shape, I made significant improvements to content, organization and minor MOS cleanup. The edit is completely sourced and you are reverting to POV because?
  • Your source concerns seem a bit hyperbolic, it's a primary source and nothing more. There have been mid-length FA articles with six sources or more significant use of a primary source. My edit has eleven sources and can certainly be added to. You don't have grounds for revert. Discussion comes first. I don't need permission from your POV to make constructive edits.
  • The concern of images/gallery to the point of revert is absurd. Most of the same images within the body remained and I also made many additions. The same can be said for sections I created, which were in absolute need based on this artist's oeuvre. That content practically didn't exist before. Your concern with the gallery is entirely POV there is nothing MOS about gallery; FA El Greco and GA Van Gogh don't have a gallery. You have no grounds to revert based on that either. I had made a clear heading and link to his more extensive main page: list of paintings by Paul Gauguin, anyway. Gallery is redundant, incomplete and POV, hence the entire list.
Again, the revert was frivolous and obviously about your involvement. Please don't RV constructive, sourced edits. Take it to admin if you think it will hold water. Nonc01 (talk) 15:12, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

This is not women's football. Such changes as you've undertaken need to be discussed prior to editing, not after the fact. Your Sandbox might be a good place to start. Coldcreation (talk) 17:59, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Enough already Nonc01; I tried to work with you; but it's not possible This is a collaborative project; consensus is required...Modernist (talk) 18:03, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
But it is still Wikipedia, where you cannot revert constructive, sourced edits which you have have provided no NPOV, MOS or content reason to do so. The edit contains essentially the same info, with a great deal of new material.
Coldcreation, you reverted based on the presumption (!) that it sounds too unified. Perhaps the flow is a reflection of the effort and seriousness I put into the research and writing, as well as to avoid plagiarism. Or would you prefer disjointed plagiarism? Modernism, you also appear to be "involved" and taking my edits personally, if you actually took the time to look at what you're doing, and what I've done, you would have seen that I moved Rewald's info into the timeline. The rest of your legacy additions I did not touch, I believe that is being collaborative.
While this may need more input, your RV is more out of line than anything I have done, where you have reverted an entirely sourced edit to your preferred edit which is mostly OR. OR that both of you have regularly contributed to. Nonc01 (talk) 00:32, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry but this is wikipedia and you must achieve some consensus before making such outrageous removals. You don't seem to understand the significance of this paragraph which you have repeatedly removed: John Rewald, an art historian focused on the birth of Modern art, wrote a series of books about the Post-Impressionist period, including Post-Impressionism: From Van Gogh to Gauguin (1956) and an essay, Paul Gauguin: Letters to Ambroise Vollard and André Fontainas (included in Rewald's Studies in Post-Impressionism, 1986), discusses Gauguin's years in Tahiti, and the struggles of his survival as seen through correspondence with the art dealer Vollard and others. Rewald's essay Letters to Ambroise Vollard and André Fontainas is crucial to understanding the last years of Gauguin's life. You also removed every single word related to Gauguin's children. Your additions are simply inadequate...Modernist (talk) 02:04, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Does the author really require such an elaborate introduction? It sounds like an advertisement. However, I think the last paragraph on Gauguin's children should stay, indeed. The rest which wasn't redundant I had put in the timeline. How are my additions of the rest of his medium oeuvre, for instance--which were practically ignored in your OR work--inadequete? Nonc01 (talk) 02:38, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

The lead[edit]

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)

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)
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)


Prior to the intervention of Nonc01 the Biography section of this article consisted of:
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:
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)

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)


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)

I can live with that. Hopefully Coldcreation (talk · contribs) will weigh in also...Modernist (talk) 11:52, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

There might be something to work with but we're not there yet; far from it. In that proposed version there are 231 citations; far too many. You don't need a citation after every sentence. For example, Walther (2012), 55 is listed 6 times instead of once at the end of a paragraph. Walther (2012), 57 is listed 8 times instead of once at the end of a paragraph. The name "Cachin" is reproduced 96 times in the article. Walther's name figures 106 times in the article. Figura, Childs, Foster & Mosier figures 86 times in the article.

Furthermore, the Gallery section is still missing. This Gallery section (by no means overly extensive) is essential, as it permits the viewer to contemplate the work of Gauguin without leaving the page. These points, in addition the the layout mentioned above, need to be addressed. Coldcreation (talk) 12:21, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Agree, good points...Modernist (talk) 12:22, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Here's the edit in my sandbox [2]
  • 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)
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)
Citation section is now in three columns. Otherwise it's is still too long. Coldcreation (talk) 15:35, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
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)

I've made a few more changes to the article directly in your Sandbox proposal. I'd like to here what Modernist thinks. Coldcreation (talk) 12:46, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

I've never seen written the words Impressionism, Post-Impressionism, Neo-Impressionism, or Fauvism in lower case. To be consistent, I usually write all movements with a cap., including after the dash (not Post-impressionism). Coldcreation (talk) 14:57, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

I've replace some citations removed earlier. The Selected correspondence section appears quite long (too long). I'm sure the text would benefit by removing some of the non-essential writings. Coldcreation (talk) 10:00, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

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)
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)
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)
Check:WP:VAMOS re caps...Modernist (talk) 16:57, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
The section makes no claims; champions dictionaries and Wikipedia MOS as well. Nonc01 (talk) 17:51, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Well - let's see what the Metropolitan Museum of Art does: [3]; [4]...Modernist (talk) 19:46, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
And MoMA: [5]...Modernist (talk) 19:59, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
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)
  • If you cannot understand the fact that those 2 museums both capitalize art movements - then you have drawn a line in the sand. This so-called collaboration has just ended...Modernist (talk) 21:13, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
  • Bye!..Modernist (talk) 22:14, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Nonc01, you write "MY sandbox" as if you own it. Anyone can edit a sandbox, especially when the goal was to replace an existing article. I for one tried to help improve the article by correcting your usage of lowercase to words such as Impressionism. This type of error clearly shows your lack of experience dealing with not only Wikipedia:WikiProject Visual arts articles, but with art related literature in general. Coldcreation (talk) 07:34, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Capitalization and art movements[edit]

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 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)
  • This collaboration is over...Modernist (talk) 21:15, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Bottom line IMO those MoS pages are guidelines - open to interpretation - I find your article as you have concocted it to be poorly written and it reeks of copyright violations...Modernist (talk) 21:25, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

Further reading section[edit]

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)

Thank you! Nonc01 (talk) 15:12, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Redux 2.0[edit]

Third time is a charm? I have put our last draft back in my sandbox and have capitalized movements throughout. We covered a lot of ground between my initial text and this version, I believe the last major things we intended to do was condense the correspondence section, make way for any additional text Modernist finds key from their books, and polish syntax. I think the section that would most benefit from additional text is ‘Martinique and Brittany’, but it could go anywhere. Nonc01 (talk) 16:43, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Dear Nonc01, in looking at your sandbox version of the article, I must say that this one (the current Paul Gauguin article) appears much better. Please do not make a switch from your sandbox to the main space without gaining consensus at this talk page first. Your list of references, for example, repeats the same three sources over and over again. We've been through this before. Coldcreation (talk) 03:49, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
There are four sources with over 15 citations, but I recognize your concern with the significant amount of Cachin, which I am prepared to fix unless you are not willing to make changes/improve C-class article Paul Gauguin. Aside from this, help me understand your criteria and why you believe the article is much better than the working draft.
The article
  • Widely unsourced and contains at least one factual error.
  • Biographically incomplete on a significant level.
  • Contains only six book citations from four sources.
  • Formatting problems
  • C-class
The draft
  • Over half of the article's sourced content has been included.
  • Completely sourced.
  • Biographically complete.
  • Contains over a hundred book citations from ten sources (expandable).
  • Can easily improve even more, especially with assistance from you and Modernist.
And while it may not be perfectly written, I have just written GA Toronto FC so it would seem unlikely that the content quality of the draft is C-class. Nonc01 (talk) 12:05, 27 November 2014 (UTC) not a reliable source?[edit]

New to me, and also the dozens of other editors who cite it in numerous edits.

However Modernist is sure enough of his grounds to revert me twice for this citation <ref name="Saatchi">{{cite web|title=The unlawful legacy of Paul Gauguin|url=||publisher=[[Saatchi Gallery]]|archiveurl=|archivedate=8 February 2015|deadurl= no}}</ref> 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 Face-smile.svg. 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)

The whole world and their cats know that one of Paul's Tahiti tat paintings recently got sold for an all time record price for any work of art, reputedly $300 million? Did an American or European art institution purchase it? It's thought not, and I suggest that's not just because they don't have the money. It's a brave gallery indeed who should put that kind of money in the way of a painter so tainted they may not in the future be allowed to exhibit some of his painting on the grounds of taste. C1cada (talk) 17:31, 8 February 2015 (UTC)


Here is the link cited: It's a blog - a conglomerate of varied opinions some sourced, some not...Modernist (talk) 00:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Well yes. It calls itself 'blog' in its URL cataloguing. I dare say many sites do this. But it's nevertheless commentary (impeccably sourced by the way at the end, check it out) from a very notable art institution. I call that reliable.
But you can have this Modernist as a very small token of my appreciation. Of course one is very gratified to be noticed like this by a pillar of Wikipedia. C1cada (talk) 08:11, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:34, 6 December 2017 (UTC)