![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
|
![]() | The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include
conflict of interest,
autobiography, and
neutral point of view.
|
Let's see - everyone is named fully except for Mohamed Mahmoud Khalil who gets his name in much farther down in the article. RULE: FIRST mention of an individual, place, or company s/b full and complete! 184.144.74.184 ( talk) 21:49, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
This is basically the sum up of first episode of Fake of Fortune series. Every single piece of data that we get here is from that episode. No other sources. It is just silly to take it from granted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.142.89.53 ( talk) 19:16, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
Someone has their wires very badly crossed. I've just watched the Fake or Fortune episode - the whole thing is available on You Tube - and the painting illustrated in the article is NOT the one of the program. The program picture features a person in a small recreational sailing vessel and it is entirely different. I'm not weighing in on the 'real or fake?' point of the program which obviously presented only one point of view and we are not privy to the reasons for its rejection by the Wildenstein Institute, but this Wikipedia article starts entirely on the wrong foot. Cross Reference ( talk) 02:22, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
The article seems predisposed towards the painting being genuine, and at times seems to attack any other opinion. What's the best way to resolve this? Killer Moff ( talk) 11:45, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
At the very least the article should mention the judgement of the French court of 30th April 2014 which was subsequent to the BBC programme. In it the French court agrees with the Wildenstein institute and declined to condemn it for the refusal to include it in the catalogue raisonne. The experts before the court had argued the painting was by Louis Latouche a supplier of painting materials to Claude Monet. http://next.liberation.fr/culture/2014/05/06/un-faux-claude-monet-moins-monnayable_1011963 — Preceding unsigned comment added by TrustyJules ( talk • contribs) 21:09, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
The unbalanced tag has remained unresolved for years. It is time for us to do the Wikipedia thing and say what our sources say, not what we might want them to say. The authenticity is not up for discussion. Editing to finally get rid of this unbalanced editorializing. CapnZapp ( talk) 15:38, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
CapnZapp ( talk) 16:12, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
References
Again, an editor has restructured the article to basically become a damning refutation of Wildenstein's supposedly inexplicable decision. Presenting "evidence" is not Wikipedia's job. Questioning the validity of Wildenstein's sources is original research - you will not find this in reputable art sources. The art world simply respects their decision, full stop. The case is already settled.
The article is therefore blatantly not neutral (complete with a list of "evidence") and I simply reverted it all.
It's possible there were genuinely useful additions, but it is completely unacceptable to violate Wikipedia's core policies, so I will have to ask for those additions to be added back individually.
Regards CapnZapp ( talk) 08:58, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
For this article, using literature written by Joel David, the owner of the painting with a clear interest in giving the painting a provenance as good as possible, is not appropriate. I have therefore removed the Exhibitions section. Feel free to readd back if you can find independent sources.
As for the specific claim that the painting was included in the Japanese 1994 exhibition, I do believe that. However, I cannot find any online copy of the exhibition catalogue (see the newly supplied reference [1]). If anyone with access to the National Gallery of Art library, who claims to have a copy available, can verify its inclusion in the catalog, and perhaps supply its lot number, that'd be great, thanks! CapnZapp ( talk) 13:02, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
{{
Citation by contributor}}
template I removed it from this talk. It appears to no longer be used by the article.
CapnZapp (
talk)
02:50, 15 March 2023 (UTC)References
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
|
![]() | The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include
conflict of interest,
autobiography, and
neutral point of view.
|
Let's see - everyone is named fully except for Mohamed Mahmoud Khalil who gets his name in much farther down in the article. RULE: FIRST mention of an individual, place, or company s/b full and complete! 184.144.74.184 ( talk) 21:49, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
This is basically the sum up of first episode of Fake of Fortune series. Every single piece of data that we get here is from that episode. No other sources. It is just silly to take it from granted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.142.89.53 ( talk) 19:16, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
Someone has their wires very badly crossed. I've just watched the Fake or Fortune episode - the whole thing is available on You Tube - and the painting illustrated in the article is NOT the one of the program. The program picture features a person in a small recreational sailing vessel and it is entirely different. I'm not weighing in on the 'real or fake?' point of the program which obviously presented only one point of view and we are not privy to the reasons for its rejection by the Wildenstein Institute, but this Wikipedia article starts entirely on the wrong foot. Cross Reference ( talk) 02:22, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
The article seems predisposed towards the painting being genuine, and at times seems to attack any other opinion. What's the best way to resolve this? Killer Moff ( talk) 11:45, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
At the very least the article should mention the judgement of the French court of 30th April 2014 which was subsequent to the BBC programme. In it the French court agrees with the Wildenstein institute and declined to condemn it for the refusal to include it in the catalogue raisonne. The experts before the court had argued the painting was by Louis Latouche a supplier of painting materials to Claude Monet. http://next.liberation.fr/culture/2014/05/06/un-faux-claude-monet-moins-monnayable_1011963 — Preceding unsigned comment added by TrustyJules ( talk • contribs) 21:09, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
The unbalanced tag has remained unresolved for years. It is time for us to do the Wikipedia thing and say what our sources say, not what we might want them to say. The authenticity is not up for discussion. Editing to finally get rid of this unbalanced editorializing. CapnZapp ( talk) 15:38, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
CapnZapp ( talk) 16:12, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
References
Again, an editor has restructured the article to basically become a damning refutation of Wildenstein's supposedly inexplicable decision. Presenting "evidence" is not Wikipedia's job. Questioning the validity of Wildenstein's sources is original research - you will not find this in reputable art sources. The art world simply respects their decision, full stop. The case is already settled.
The article is therefore blatantly not neutral (complete with a list of "evidence") and I simply reverted it all.
It's possible there were genuinely useful additions, but it is completely unacceptable to violate Wikipedia's core policies, so I will have to ask for those additions to be added back individually.
Regards CapnZapp ( talk) 08:58, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
For this article, using literature written by Joel David, the owner of the painting with a clear interest in giving the painting a provenance as good as possible, is not appropriate. I have therefore removed the Exhibitions section. Feel free to readd back if you can find independent sources.
As for the specific claim that the painting was included in the Japanese 1994 exhibition, I do believe that. However, I cannot find any online copy of the exhibition catalogue (see the newly supplied reference [1]). If anyone with access to the National Gallery of Art library, who claims to have a copy available, can verify its inclusion in the catalog, and perhaps supply its lot number, that'd be great, thanks! CapnZapp ( talk) 13:02, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
{{
Citation by contributor}}
template I removed it from this talk. It appears to no longer be used by the article.
CapnZapp (
talk)
02:50, 15 March 2023 (UTC)References