Talk:Frida Kahlo

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 is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group.
Maintenance An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article, or the current infobox may need to be updated. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information.
LGBT Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
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.
B Class: This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.

Contents

[edit] Close to her father

I changed

"Their marriage was largely unhappy and throughout most of her life, Kahlo was closer to her father than to her mother. Her mother died shortly after she was born, leaving Frida with an unsatiable longing for that maternal connection"

to

"Their marriage was largely unhappy(dua). Throughout most of her life, Kahlo was close to her father. Her mother died shortly after she was born, leaving Frida with an unsatiable longing for that maternal connection."

because, if her mother died shortly after she was born, how could she ever be close to her mother? She was still a baby after all. If her mother died much later, the article should state that. --Gunsfornuns 19:29, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Frida's mother died in 1932. --Val. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.91.164.36 (talk) 07:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Repetitions

The last paragraph in the 'Biography' section is almost identical to the last paragraph in the 'Backgroud' section. This is the paragraph concerning her trolley car accident in 1925. Randomfrenchie 22:01, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Size matters

Could somebody please "translate" the size reference into the metric system? Thanks!

[edit] The eyebrow

Why in her paintings did she make the eyebrow stick out? Please message me back at my user name. --Cyberman 01:29, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Well, i believe that it was taboo her eyebrows - Kahlo in her entierty is a taboo- but her eyebrows really personified that. Beauty is what you percieve, to Kahlo the statement of not conforming to what is traditional was beautiful. And thats a great statement to project in its own right & profoundly as well. BleuArtemis 06:16, 8 September 2005 (UTC)Bleu

As you probably know, Frida had a masculine side....perhaps the "uni-brow" was a way of expressing that side. Of course it became her signature trademark throughout her life.

The website below contains complete information on Frida Kahlo: Bio, paintings, photos, chronology, essay, books and films. Great research material.


Freida Kahlo in life had dark thick eyebrows. As an artist, Freida's main subject was Freida, she rendered herself naked to the world with all her physical and psychological worts starkly revealed. It is her ability to deliver this self truth, beyond objective realizm, that is her work's most enduring quality.


--

I noticed that she also seemed to have either a deeply shaded upper lip or almost a slight mustache. She definitley had a masculine side...though I don't know whether the mustache and eyebrow(s) were intended to be a symbol of that.

Chasingrainbows 16:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)Chasingrainbows, 1-18-07

Having studied numerous high resolution close-up photos of Kahlo, there is a clearly distinct 'shadow' on her upper lip, and she does indeed have what is commonly referred to as a "unibrow." These are natural features, and it is therefore not surprising that they show prominently in her self portraits. In some of the painintgs, it looks like she has perhaps exagerated the features a bit - but I do not have a chronology of her work to be certain. It is common for these features to be more prominent when people are younger. If the self portraits where the features are more distinct were some of her earlier works, that would make sense.

JC 06-04-07

[edit] Insane in the Membrane

"Frida Kahlo is believed to have committed suicide" Umm...hadn't heard anything to suggest this. There is a big difference between saying there were rumors and to have it accepted as true...

I would like 2 know if it is true 2!!!

According to Martha Zamora in her book "The Brush of Anguish", her death may have been caused by an accidental or intentional overdose of sleeping pills. She was suppose to take no more than 7 but took 11 that night. The doctors said that it was a pulmonary effusion....but we'll never know for sure. Mike, Sacramento, CA

Visit www.fridakahlofans.com for more info on the life and art of Frida Kahlo

- I have heard that Frida tried many times to kill herself. She found the pain of her illness too difficult. As for her death, it is unsure if she were successful at suicide or not. I think the mystery of it all makes for a better and melancholy story... but that really sums up Frida's life. --xsarahberries 20:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

In the book written by her niece Isolda Kahlo, it is heavily implied that diego rivera killed her to end her suffering.

[edit] Stalin

The Diego Rivera page mentions that Kahlo (and Rivera) became Anti-Stalinists contradicting what is mentioned here, that Kahlo spoke of supporting Stalin. It is not clear anyhow.

-Her last painting was of Stalin and herself. Frida and Diego became anti-Trotskyists.

-No, Diego became slightly anti-trotskyist when he and trotsky had a falling out. Frida herself was both. Part of her life she was Anti-Stalin, when she was spending her time with trotsky. After he passed away Frida took time to study stalin's ways, and found many of his idea's made sence to her. To say she was one or the other is impossible. She took influences from both sources.

[edit] What the blood clot?

What is this line doing in here? (although in reality she had no mustache and her eyebrows were separate; she simply added embellishments in her self-portraits) First of all, it's badly written, secondly why is it in parenthesis, and third - is it even true? I've never heard that, and I've been a long-time Frida fan. Joey 17:50, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I have now removed it, it was only recently added but I'd thought I'd see if anyone else commented (really I should have just removed it until a source was provided). Arniep 18:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
She may have exaggerated the eyebrows and moustache in her paintings but these links [1] [2] seem to show that she does have joined up eyebrows. Arniep 18:03, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I want to know since when it is okay to be a bisexual and be a Catholic. Blood clot people 'dem, 'dem a hypocrites and sodomites. [reggaegirl1love@yahoo.com]

--In Catholicism it isn't, but we condemn the homosexuality, not the homosexual. People expect God to eventually reach out to homosexuals and bisexuals some time in their lives and "correct them". What does that have to do with blood clots? --cadence

There is nothing wrong with being homosexual. Saying that you condemn the homosexuality but not the homosexual is like saying that you condemn catholicism but not the catholic, or that you condemn women but not any single woman. It's patronising and hypocritical: "I'll accept you if you pretend to be who I want you to be." Plent of homosexuals are raised catholic and want to abide by the Bible's teachings, but it doesn't mean they can't accept themseves as homosexuals. In addition to condemnig male homosexual acts, the Bible also says not to eat pork or wear mixed cloth. And it says nothing about female homosexuals. There are a lot of contradictions in the Bible itself. Anyone who lives by the Bible's teaching has to make a selection based on what the Bible says when applying them to contemporary life. Why trash the homosexuals instead of all the people walking around in poly blends? And what about all of the people in the military who break the commandment that Thou Shalt Not Kill? The most important thing to take from Christianity is that God is love. It doesn't say "God is straight love." But that means real love and understanding. Not hypocrisy.

But since this discussion isn't strictly about the Frida Kahlo page on wikipedia, here's something more relevant:

[edit] Add Link: New Items found at Kahlo's House?

Should there be a link to the new items (including letters to her doctor) that were recently found at Frida Kahlo's house? It seems to be a lot of material. The link from the Guardian is below. It also talks about her father's influence on her.

http://arts.guardian.co.uk/features/story/0,,1486443,00.html


[edit] Please add the link to this article: Frida Kahlo: "Feeling Like Frida"

A beautiful story about how one elementary school art teacher taught her class about Frida Khalo.

http://www.madisonartshop.com/khalo.html

~~madisonartshop~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Madisonartshop (talk • contribs) 17:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Name Pronunciation

I get the FREE-dah part, but how is "Kahlo" pronounced? --Spesek 20:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Something like "Kaw-low." -- Mik 20:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


It sounds like Car-Low


I don't think it sounds like either of these. There is no "r" sound nor is there a "w" sound. It is simply KAH-LOW. I guess the KAH sound is a bit like CO as in the word CONTENT. Carlitabay 18:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

It's Free-dah kah-loh (the "kah" is pronounced as cactus and "loh" as lofty) ~Michmoiyoume~

[edit] The Life and Art of Frida Kahlo

The website below contains complete information on Frida Kahlo: Bio, paintings, photos, chronology, essay, books and films. Great research material.

Added 9/23/06 by Mike, Sacramento, Ca

[edit] Death

IT DOES NOT SAY A THING ABOUT HER DEATH!!!?!!?!??!?!!?!???!?!!

IT DOESN'T SAY HOW SHE DIED, WHERE, OR ANYTHING!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gplpark92 (talk • contribs) 02:12, 1 October 2006.

Eh? Whats that?... no need to shout.
Anyway, its good that someone has noticed that most of the article was missing. It looks like it was mainly deleted by User:129.49.163.40 on the 9th August. I've now restored it. -- Solipsist 02:47, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

There is conflicting information on this page. In the box up at the top, it lists her date of death as July 14, but then in the "Death" section, it says July 13. Which one is correct?--204.169.104.97 17:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I looked it up, and I found July 14 to be the right one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saintsfan2509 (talk • contribs) 02:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup

I added the tag as its addition seems justifiable by the sloppy punctuation, grammar etc. Philip Cross 13:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Study of Medicine?

Under the subheading of, "Career as a Painter," it states, "After the accident, Kahlo turned her attention away from the study of medicine to begin a full-time painting career." This seems to come out of nowhere. The rest of the article says nothing about her studying medicine. Melissa Dilo 02:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you there. Somebody should probably put more on this. Maybe YOU! --The F50 Man 19:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Relationship with Josephine Baker

I changed that to "her husband tolerated her relationships with women (it is speculated that actress Josephine Baker[citation needed] was among them). " since first of all, no citation is provided, and second of all after reading Josephine Baker's wiki, it said that her relationship with Frida was speculated. Source. (Bjford 15:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC))


[edit] Place of Death

From what I can see this article gives false information on where she died; she didn't die in Mexico City. She died in the Blue House, at home, though the causes are disputed. My source is from www.fridakahlofans.com, and if anyone can find evidence that she did not die at home, then please post in reply! --Ghrey 01:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


She dies in Mexico City. Coyoacan is about 20 minutes form downtown, is just in the south of the city, but still quite far of the exterior part. My source is... l live about two blocks from her house!!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Geape (talk • contribs) 22:59:09, August 19, 2007 (UTC).

It is pretty obvious where she died, but really, "living about two blocks from her house" is not evidence at all because A. Just because you live close to where she lived, does not mean you know a lot about her, and B. Even if you do, that is original research. Sorry to rain on your parade. --The F50 Man 19:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


Ghrey & F50 Man, please do your research before making claims and disclaiming other peoples' statements who in fact live in the area you speak of. Much like Washington DC, Mexico City is a Federal District (it's most commonly called D.F., or Distrito Federal by Mexicans). It's divided into 16 delegations (delegaciones) which can essentially be described as boroughs, one of which is "Coyocan", located directly in the center of Mexico City, close to downtown. Though in Frida's childhood Coyocan was an independent town or suburb, it was incorporated into Mexico City as a delegation in 1950 shortly before Frida's death, and is now in fact one of the more artistic and cosmopolitan areas of "el DF" undoubtedly due in part to Frida's ties to the area. Simply looking up Coyocan in Wikipedia could've put this to rest months ago. Sorry to rain on your parade. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmichutka (talk • contribs) 20:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Portrait caption

Clearly, the caption below Frida's Self-Portrait with Thorn Necklace and Hummingbird (1940) should be amended to remove the phrase "and Unibrow". While her joined eyebrows were a notable physical characteristic, one she included exaggeratedly in her portraits, I've never seen the word "unibrow" appear in any formal titles of Frida Kahlo's works. I deleted those two words yesterday but find that they've been added again. Their presence is superfluous. Natedogg923 18:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that is simple vandalism. It has been removed. I have earlier removed the word "unibrow" from several other parts of the article as well.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 20:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how to reply to this, but the Blue House is in Coyoacan, a neighborhood within Mexico City. (I'm from there.)

== "Frida" vs. "Frieda" ==family

Hayden Herrera wrote in her comprehensive biography of Frida Kahlo that the artist's name appears as "Magdalena Carmen Frida" on her birth certificate, and that the addition of an 'e' to "Frida" ("Frieda") was an affectation she adopted in her youth - one that she dropped in the late 30's after the rise of Nazism in Germany. I've corrected the first biographical paragraph to reflect that fact. I hope everyone is amenable! Natedogg923 00:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC) Frida studied at the German School in Mexico City. She spoke German or at least she studied it for several years. The Deusche Schule "Alexander Von Humboldt" still exists, place where many Mexicans of German descent study. The largest German speaking community in Mexico is in Chihuahua though. They are the Menonites of Ciudad Cuahutemoc, reaching nearly 100,000.

She added this "e" as the article already explains because in german Frieden means freedom; she tried to emphasize this liberty aspect. Actually the pronounciation of Frida and Frieda in german is the same, "ie" is pronounced "i" (I speak german) ~Jemanden~

[edit] Frida's 100 anniversary coming up in a couple of days

Is Wikipedia going to feature this article on the frontpage on that so special day?

[edit] Father possibly Lutheran

Changed parts to include controversy whether or not her father was either Lutheran or Jewish.

Could you provide a cite for one of the sources to which you refer in the text? Thanks.--Evb-wiki 02:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, this controversy doesn't exist in Mexico at all. She always claimed her father was Jewish and there was no reason to lie. Who created, and where does this controversy was created? Was it created by a Lutheran?

It is from new research in a book on Frida Kahlo's father- it was covered in the Jerusalem Post here. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 23:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Frida Kahlo's 100 birthday tomorrow July 6th, 2007

URGENT ACTION REQUIRED: If this article is not brought up to standard in 24 hours, it's not going to be featured tomorrow on Wikipedia's main page. They already have another candidate for tomorrow's main article. Is there any Frida Kahlo's fan whose English is top notch, and can bring this article up to standard in just a few hours?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Main_Page

The article is not up to that standard, and tomorrow already has a featured article. --AxG @ ►talk 15:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fix info on show in Mexico City

I made some modifications to the section on "100th birthday celebrations", changed it to past tense (the show is now over), and added a little more info and another reference, but it needs to be reworked. The yahoo news link seems to be dead. The reference I added was only so-so - a better one would be apppreciated. -- Pawl 19:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Henri Rousseau

Please provide evidence that Frida Kahlo was aware of or was influenced by the work of Henri Rousseau. Thank you Modernist 19:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

These two artists are light years distant, not in the most remote regions are they similar. Rousseau - a naive dreamer, an add on to a private fantasy world; and Kahlo - mostly biting sharp, an observer, a participant, a player. Modernist 22:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Nor is his colour all that vibrant in many of his most famous works when seen in the original - I've removed the phrase from the lead. Johnbod 00:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cultural trivia

Placed information about film grosses here, the argument stated is incorrect, Kahlo was well known long before the Hollywood version.Modernist 20:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the most important thing about Kahlo is her career as an artist, not that a movie was made about her, and so while the movie should be discussed, I do not think that it belongs in the opening paragraph. -FisherQueen (Talk) 21:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
I certainly agree with FisherQueen that the article is primarily about Kahlo's career as an artist and the opening should reflect on her work and her life, not on Hollywood grosses. I think the auction information should also be removed from the intro.

For what its worth - The Fridomania section in the article discusses at length the rise to prominence of Frida Kahlo's reputation during the last twenty-five years, and is well worth reading. It was mostly written by a Mexican editor who claimed to be a neighbor, living near the Kahlo Museum, and who wrote at length about her impact in Mexico and beyond. Modernist 22:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

As I think about this -> a la Henri Rousseau <- I have to seriously wonder what that is doing in the intro as well. Please! It should also be removed, it is somewhat patronizing, and disrespectful to say the least. Modernist 22:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Riposte from 70.18.5.219:

The fact that you agree with each other does not mean that you have a faintest clue about art, formal logic, synthesis, demand of encyclopedia readers, priorities. Your lack of logic is reflected by the above sentences: "...the article is primarily about Kahlo's career as an artist and the opening should reflect on her work and her life, not on Hollywood grosses. I think the auction information should also be removed from the intro.", as if the movie and auction record did not reflect on Kahlo's "career as an artist" or recognition. These facts prove her achievements and importance in the ultimate and neutral way, and Wikipedia exists for them. How many painters got a prize record or a movie??? Tell me you two art "experts", please? Without mentioning Henri Rousseau (the similarity is visible at the first glance), how 10 year old girls (and others, like you two) will know, where Kahlo's paintings came from, how they relate to other paintings, and where is the Kahlo's place in the world painting, please? Tell me you two art "experts", please?[[[User:70.18.5.219|70.18.5.219]] 23:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)]

I suggest you two be very careful, when correcting an advanced writing on complex subjects, please! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.18.5.219 (talk) 23:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't appreciate the personal attack. Violations of WP:NPA, WP:AGF, WP:CIV, but most of all a failure to understand WP:OWN. Modernist 00:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Please don't be a jerk, anon editor. Many, many artists have had movies made and novels written about them, and none are mentioned in the lead para, nor should they be. Johnbod 00:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the anon that the auction price is another detail that would be more useful later in the article, but isn't really necessary in the opening. In fact, I think that the opening isn't really that strong, and includes quite a few things that would work better later in the essay. May I offer an alternative that's a bit more streamlined? -FisherQueen (Talk) 11:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Frida Kahlo[1][2] (July 6, 1907 – July 13, 1954) was a Mexican painter. She painted using a vibrantly colored style which was influenced by the indigenous culture of Mexico as well as European influences which include Realism, Symbolism, and Surrealism. Many of her works are self-portraits symbolically expressing her own pain. Although she has long been recognized as an important painter, public awareness of her work has become more widespread since the 1970's.
That's fine for opening sentences, but if intended to be the whole lead, nb the existing, much longer version is already far too short per WP:LEAD. But all parts of the article that I've seen are badly written, so go ahead. In this case I can live with the auction price in the lead. I thought it was the anon wanting to keep it there, but I may be wrong. Olga's gallery is not really a RS, though useful for pictures. Johnbod 12:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, its anons idea to include the auction info in the lead, he placed it there on the 22nd. I placed it in a section called In popular culture. I am very uneasy about using Olga's gallery as reference, I'm going to eliminate it for now. If someone can improve other sections and the opening please do. Modernist 13:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm also fine with the longer version of the intro, although I do think that the auction should be taken out and that the movie should not be in the intro. Actually, I think a paragraph about the movie would be appropriate, later in the article, but my saying so is pointless since I probably will forget to come back and write one. -FisherQueen (Talk) 15:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Riposte from 70.18.5.219: Johnbod, how cannot I "be a jerk"? I put time and effort to provide intelligent, deep, and referenced info in the lead to many people, and they "corrected" it to (read carefully, please):
Their 3 errors in the sentence "Frida Kahlo [...] was a Mexican painter who is now the best-known artist Latin America has produced.": Quasi redundance: Do we not know, that Mexico is in Latin America??? Subjective (not neutral): Who said that she is the best-known, and - if yes - to whom??? Poor style: People are not produced!!!
Their 4 errors in the sentence "She painted using a vibrantly colored style which was influenced by the indigenous culture of Mexico as well as European influences which include Realism, Symbolism, and Surrealism.": Formal logic: You do not use style, but have style!!! Formal logic: Styles are not colored, because are not material; only things can be colored!!! Logical: Strictly speaking, her style was not influenced by the indigenous culture of Mexico, which did not include oil painting, only her themes (subjects, painting depictions) were influenced, because "style" means way, form, technique, method; her style was influenced by Henri Rousseau's paintings and only "inspired" by the indigenous culture of Mexico (a nuance requiring a sensitivity and expertise). Formal logic: They wrote: "style which was influenced by [...] European influences", but influences do not influence, only the styles or movements do!!!
Their 2 errors in the sentence "Although she has long been recognized as an important painter, public awareness of her work has become more widespread since the 1970's". Subjective (not neutral): Who had recognized her as important? Contradiction: What kind of recognition was it, if the public had not been aware of her?
Do you propose a discussion from a, b, c,... or 2+2=4, please? [[[User:70.18.5.219|70.18.5.219]] 22:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)]
Anon - If you think something can be improved, put something here in simple and coherent and correct english. That attracts an agreed consensus and that reflects a modicum knowledge of art - so far I haven't seen much, except the Hollywood, Sotheby's I read the biography links and the newspaper variety. Also try reading these: WP:OWN, this WP:CIV, and this WP:NPA and then reflect on this WP:AGF For the record - I put time and effort to provide intelligent, deep, and referenced info in the lead - you've got to be kidding, You wouldn't be experiencing all this resistance if that were the case, try some self reflection. - Modernist 02:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
From 70.18.5.219: Dear Modernist! You must be not listening or not understanding! That, what you wrote, does NOT meet nor is even close to the requirements of WP:LEAD. Additionally, it is full of basic errors (and mistakes) listed by myself just above your message I am responding to. Would you be so kind to answer in response to that listed litany of your errors, please? I am not going to simplify my language for you, but, putting it in a simple English - in case you do not understand it (as it is implied by your words: "put something here in simple and coherent and correct english"; b.t.w. it should be "simple, coherent, and correct English") - that, what you wrote is, simply speaking, just... unacceptable and shameful, and you are not responsive. Even, if you do your best and in good faith, it is not enough. You need skills!!! Because of such your clearly visible limitations, I am not going to submit my writing for your approval. I propose that you restore my last lead (intro) version, write here, what you do not like in it, and I will fix it for you... dear. Sincerely, yours [[[User:70.18.5.219|70.18.5.219]] 08:34, 27 September 2007 (UTC)].
Hi, anon! I didn't really like the opening paragraph, either. So I proposed a specific alternative opening paragraph. Other editors didn't really dig my proposal- they thought it was too short, and didn't give enough information. I proposed it without insulting anyone or getting mad that the article wasn't already awesome, and when my idea was politely shot down, I didn't get mad or anything. I may yet propose something different, if I get a few minutes to write something. You can do just what I did- offer an alternative opening paragraph, put it here to see how it works, and talk with others about how to come up with the best version. We do that while the article is protected, and then it gets unprotected when we agree on something that we all can live with. That's how Wiki works, and it works beautifully when everyone is polite and respects one another's ideas. -FisherQueen (Talk) 10:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
From 70.18.5.219: Hi, FisherQueen! This is exactly, what I was doing too. Please, comment on the list of the errors following the above sentence "Johnbod, how cannot I "be a jerk"?"... dear. Sincerely, [[[User:70.18.5.219|70.18.5.219]]]
Right. I thought yours was fine as opening sentences, btw, it's just if it was mean to be the whole lead section then more needs to be added - WP:LEAD says the lead section should summarize the whole article (few do of course). I just rewrote the para quickly based on the discussion here & things I didn't like (plus having seen enough Rousseaus in the original to know their colour is not really very vibrant, unless souped-up in reproduction). I don't think most of anons points are valid, but I am not attached to my version. Johnbod 14:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
From 70.18.5.219: Johnbod, there are many ways to summarize, my intro represented one of the ways, and it was flexible enough for changes and additions for... a skilled writer. She was original, so her colors were different than the Rousseau's (painting is not math and the comparison was not about the colors); there are only style similarities, but his was the closest to hers; intro needs a reference - she did not appear out from nowhere!!!. The problem is that the current intro is just... primitive. Please, comment on the list of the errors following the above sentence "Johnbod, how cannot I "be a jerk"?"... dear. Sincerely, [[[User:70.18.5.219|70.18.5.219]]]
As it is now the lead reads clearly, simply and it is perfectly fine. It isn't overloaded with redundant references to internet sites like Olga's gallery which by the way should not be used more than once, the site is listed in external links and that is enough please keep in mind that phrases like a la Henri Rousseau are a little worse then sophomoric - However if someone can improve the lead, really improve it with clear remarks that reach consensus, ok. Modernist 17:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
From 70.18.5.219: Modernist, it is not true that "As it is now the lead reads clearly, simply and it is perfectly fine." - as you wrote. It is also primitive and full of errors listed above. How anyone can discuss that (and anything else) with you, if you has not seen it. If you has, please, comment on the list of the errors following the above sentence "Johnbod, how cannot I "be a jerk"?". Let's have a meaningful and concrete discussion. If you did not like something, do write it better and not worse, i.e. without errors. If you could not, do leave it alone, and ask someone to do it for you, please. If you write an argument, please, write objective grounds and justification. Where is a simplest ground or justification in, what you wrote (without which an argument does not exist)? All, what you wrote, is me, me, me! Where is your simplest argument starting from ", because...". Please, write, as educated people do, and I will discuss with you... dear. Sincerely, [[[User:70.18.5.219|70.18.5.219]]]

I've been following this discussion, and given the insulting tone and words of 70.18.5.219, the other editors should feel free to no longer respond to him/her. This editor clearly feels that no one else is qualified to edit the article and has continuously violated WP:OWN and WP:CIVIL. As such, he or she does not deserve to be treated with any kind of respect or courtesy. You have all been remarkably patient (more than I would be in your place). Perhaps it's time to keep WP:NOFEEDING in mind and ignore this editor. There's just no getting through to some people. And what's with this "dear" business? Creepy... Freshacconci | Talk 22:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

From 70.18.5.219: Dear Freshacconci! There is no discussion, if people do not provide objective grounds and justification (starting from, e.g. "..., because..."), because you cannot argue with somebody's taste (see the Roman adage: de gustibus non est disputandum"); one person likes blue, another - red, and you cannot argue that. Arguing (discussing) is debating the assumption, and not the proposition (do you remember formal logic from college?). They have not provided it, so how to discuss anything, please? Tell me, please! You also have not done it by saying: "given the insulting tone" (per what standard, please?) "and words" (which words?); "I've been following this discussion" (so what? this is not a justification for anything!); "This editor clearly feels that no one else is qualified to edit the article" (false, it pertains to just a few people at most, and one in particular, because the others have been cooperating!); "and [he] has continuously violated WP:OWN and WP:CIVIL." (examples, please, and false, I was only expanding the article, and not deleting input by others, like Modernist has done); "You have all been remarkably patient (more than I would be in your place)" (who are you, God? ...if not, please, provide objective grounds instead of your private opinion!); "And what's with this "dear" business? Creepy..." (per what standard... dear, please?) I asked all for a justification (to have a meaningful discussion) in a form of a comment on the list of the errors following the above sentence "Johnbod, how cannot I "be a jerk"?", and you - Freshacconci tell them do not do it, because they have a pretext not to do it! How clever is your advice to kill the discussion to help the opressed, who suffer consequences of their mistakes, and got cornered in a discussion thay insisted to have? Feeling creepy, and so you will rather sabotage the article at the expense of thousands of readers to feel better, than to ignore your private creepy feeling for a benefit of others, because it is too much for you to be inconvenient, please? How civil and unselfish is it, please... dear? Sincerely, [[[User:70.18.5.219|70.18.5.219]] 00:14, 28 September 2007 (UTC)]
That's a lot of words, anon, most of them abusive. But there's not really anything there to discuss. Because I don't know what you want the text of the first paragraph to be. And, yes, I find "dear" to be extremely creepy, especially when coupled by the amount of vitriol you've been throwing. -FisherQueen (Talk) 10:48, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
From 70.18.5.219: Harsh and not abusive! The "dear" was sarcastic, when you consider that it sound also like... "deer". WP:CIVIL does not mean to complement each other, not to be sarcastic, or even be polite. I have not offered a new version, but waited for you to correct your own errors (listed above) made by your own consensus. You wanted a discussion, you have got it. Next time you insist on one, make sure, you can handle it. And - even more important - next time you ask for an article protection, make sure that you do not need others to correct your errors. So, please, do correct your errors discussed - on your request - above after the sentence "Johnbod, how cannot I "be a jerk"?" yourself. If you cannot, it means that you used the protection procedure in bad faith (against the principle of WP:AGF) to restrict an editor (myself), because you could not match the growing level of considerations in the article. Shame on you! Yes, I used here many words that could be used to improve the article insted, but I wanted to make a point of proving my initial point that a discussion (in this case) was pointless, what I wrote with the revision at 21:20 on 25 September 2007 in the words: (Discuss what - logic, progression and completeness of writing, please? You need to learn, how to recognize, what is important for a broad spectrum of readers up front, and what not! The movie is it!), which you considered offensive (as insulting), but - in fact - it was just harsh and aggressive, but still civil (at least in NYC). You wanted to have the intro in the style: John lives in a house. The house has walls. He has a dog. His name is Bart. Bart has four legs. Etc. You have got it... with errors, because of the clear difficulty of considering multi-clause sentences. Too bad and... good luck. The whole article is yours. Please, show your capacity, and I will discuss... your errors, as you wished... dear. [[[User:70.18.5.219|70.18.5.219]] 21:34, 28 September 2007 (UTC)]

[edit] Stop putting your opinions in these articles people. Verify. this means you

Gabriel Orozco, and Rufino Tamayo are better known Mexican artists than Frida Kahlo and I'm not even dealing with that's just Mexico. Brazil, anyone. If you said Frida was "one of the most well known artists", or mentioned that "she entered popular culture when a movie about her was released in the United States", there wouldn't be an issue. Read the discussion page. Someone called "Modernist" made very good points on this same subject on this page. What's wrong with the verifiable fact that she "was a Mexican painter"? Is there something personal at stake here with you that you have to make her THE MOST? Diego Rivera certainly would argue that, with is work at Rockefeller Center, he is "better known" than Frida. Even in the movie, alas, Molina's character had greater impact. She may be the most well known to you and to many others, but you can't speak for the world or even the country, can you? If so, please cite the finding. Wikipedia's policy is to cite sources and references and not make sweeping generalizations that grow from opinions. In addition, as I believe is noted on this page, artists aren't "produced" by anything other than a biological process, circumstance and training. Certainly not "produced by Latin America". That's poor writing. This section is full of hyperbole and opinion and needs verifiable content. I would imagine Kahlo herself would feel better served by the facts and not the flattery. She was a remarkable woman at a remarkable time, but ̛I know that's just my opinion. And that's the point.Bmccarren 06:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I modified the hyperbole. She's very well known at this point. Probably on a par with Rivera, and Tamayo. Modernist 12:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Whatever! I've never knowingly heard of Gabriel Orozco and Rufino Tamayo & the assertion that Diego Rivera is now better known, or more highly regarded, than Kahlo is absurd. Where are their Taschen etc books, or exhibitions at the Tate? I can't be bothered with this page any more. People should devote their energies to improving the article, not bickering on the talk page. Johnbod 17:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, well there is an awful lot of opinion and poor writing (which I have tried to correct when the sentence was even factual) to wade through in this article to get to an "enclyclopedic" version. Some people working on this article are invested in her personally for some odd reason. If you haven't heard of Orozco and Tamayo, both of whom have copious writings by important critics on their work, then maybe you should look them up. You went to the discussion page, threw down a gauntlet. "alternative candidates would be?" and I answered by giving you names. Just because you haven't heard of them and are, therefore probably not involved in current artworld discourse on even the history of Mexican art, doesn't mean you're correct. In his work, Orozco probably influences more young artists in Mexico and the world today than Frida ever did. She was a surrealist beyond it's time, in spite of her claims to the contrary, and she is not noted in many publications as advancing the field of painting. The Tate also featured Anish Kapoor, Bruce Nauman, Olafur Eliasson, and [[Louise Bourgeoise] on a more grand scale, in Turbine Hall. Have you heard of them? Tashcen publishes books and lots of things, not all culturally cutting edge, like books on erotic art for example. A curiosity but little else. Frida was an interesting woman, who lived with/slept with interesting people at an interesting time. The movie was far more about her life than it was about her work, hence, Julie Taymor found her bankable.Bmccarren 03:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Certainly I have heard of the others, although I don't think any of them have had major loan exhibitions at the Tate as Kahlo has - the Turbine Hall thing is different. I don't see your point at all there, I'm afraid. I don't know much about Latin American art, but am certainly aware of Kahlo and Rivera. Taschen books (the series that Kahlo is in) are a good indication of general worldwide popularity and reputation, which was what I was claiming for her - I never said she was "cutting edge". She also has great appeal as a feministic icon, an aspect you seem to ignore. I suppose in fact the next alternative would be Botero, but he's probably not cutting edge enough for you either. Actually I have looked at the other two now, and they don't seem too cutting edge either. I stand by my story, but put what you like in the article. Johnbod 19:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
I am sure that she (and possibly Diego Rivera) is currently by far the best known mexican artists outside of Mexico. However, an encyclopedic article is not supposed to present such evaluations since they rely mostly on personal judgement. I am sure so many wise people if working together can find a sensible way to describe the recent rise in the popularity of Frida Kahlo in Europe and the United States by refering to reliable sources and formulating the phrase in a sensible manner that neither detracts from other artists, downplays her international popularity or relies on personal opinion. Come on guys.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 17:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
And, it doesn't help here to say "I am sure that. . ." when you cannot be and then go on to say sensible things. Rivera worked in NY with the WPA, worked with Noguchi, added to the dialogue and brought Mexican art, until that time thought of as little else than Olmec heads, into contemporary discourse. Frida had noting to do with that. Take a look at the sculpture page.

[edit] Modernist, Johnbod, and FisherQueen, your editing is insufficient!

Modernist, Johnbod, and FisherQueen, you not only do not know arts, but you also cannot write well in English!!! The first sentence in the intro: "Frida Kahlo was a Mexican painter, who has achieved great international popularity." is below acceptance. Such empty sentences are unacceptable above the high school level. More acceptable would be, e.g.: "Frida Kahlo was a famous [or world-famous] Mexican painter, who… [and here you list her achievements, i.e. facts, which support the notion that she was famous, e.g. retrospectives, exhibitions, presence in museum or private collections, auctions, films, etc.]". Got it? This is an encyclopedia, and not a homework. The other errors have been listed above under Cultural trivia, but apparently, listing errors alone was not enough. Maybe, it is time to GO AWAY you three, and to let others to properly edit this article, please? (70.18.5.219 01:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC))

  • WP:NPA cool the personal attacks. Thats enough. Modernist 03:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
plus I wrote that sentence, not those three.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 05:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
From 70.18.5.219: It originated from Modernist's: "...who has become known as one of the best-known artists from Latin America.", and I meant it in that sense, i.e. as a faulty notion to begin with! In general, you have no vision of the intro, as whole, only patching here and there. What about restoring the last version by myself, which was relatively complete and referenced, as a starting point for improvements, since your efforts are not going well, please? (70.18.5.219 07:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC))
What? My writing is insufficient? I have not written a single word of this article. I only stopped in here to try to help you understand why you cannot use personal insults in discussing the writing of an article. You need to cool the insults down immediately. -FisherQueen (Talk) 11:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
From 70.18.5.219: I apologize for an inaccuracy, which has been corrected above by changing "writing" to "editing", etc. Next time, could you list at least one insult, please? B.t.w. How did you FisherQueen try to help me, please? By deleting my changes at 21:23 on 25 September 2007, and - by doing that - taking side without much consideration, and - as result - killing the constructive editing process, or just by sending myself warnings, and - by doing that - taking side without much consideration, and - as result - killing the constructive editing process, please? Got it?

So, next time just pass on by without stopping and taking sides in the place, you cannot contribute to, please. (70.18.5.219 19:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC))

I'm sorry that you're still having trouble with the basic rules of polite conversation. "You cannot contribute," "pass on by," and "got it?" are examples of rude speech. Try, instead of assuming that others have nothing to contribute and are your inferiors, assuming good faith on the part of your fellow editors. Right now, you are spending more time pointing out the failings of other editors than you are on the actual content of the article. Try using this talk page to discuss the article without discussing how inadequate everyone but you is. -FisherQueen (Talk) 22:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
70.18.5.219 (talk · contribs), discuss the content not the contributor, please. And please familiarise yourself with WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. — iridescent (talk to me!) 22:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
From 70.18.5.219 (previously 141.157.253.112 and 151.202.72.24): iridescent, my point have been, how to protect quality against an inevitable mediocrity of the majority, which rules ruthlessly. You mentioned that problem on your page. I have reedited many intros according to WP:LEAD (a lot of info logically and concisely) always by adding more and accommodating the existing with others fixing my spellers and style from time to time. Only once before, there was an opposition of a previous editor, so I applied a harsh language pressure. He refrained, I finished with a help of others, he corrected something then, and we all agreed that the final result was the best. Here, previous editors - who might not understood, grasped the crux of the matter, felt not up to the task, or whatever against WP:LEAD, so in violation of WP:OWN - just deleted my contributions without a reasonable argument or any at all. See the Modernist's argument in Talk:Frida Kahlo#Cultural trivia starting from the words: "As I think about this -> a la Henri Rousseau <-... ". He said that the notion of Kahlo being influenced by Henri Rousseau "is [..] patronizing, and disrespectful to say the least". You can see it at the first glance just after opening their respective Wikipedia pages! Without that comparison you cannot tell, what kind of paintings she did. Obviously, she did not invented painting from scratch! So, her painting derived from someone's!! The featured film (more important than a retrospective at MoMA, because only a few painters had one) info was put at the end of the article together with her auction record for a Latin American work - all against WP:LEAD. My intro references were removed except one, so you have to read everything in order to, e.g. see her paintings, all against WP:LEAD, etc, etc. As result, the present intro is sanitized from any meaningful info against the WP:LEAD. Read the intro to see, how bad is the language or see "*Riposte from 70.18.5.219: Johnbod, how cannot I "be a jerk"?" in Talk:Frida Kahlo#Cultural trivia. So, I used a harsh language to bring attention to that issue. How would you deal otherwise with an inevitable mediocrity of the majority, which rules ruthlessly, please? (70.18.5.219 03:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC))
I'm removing this article from my watchlist. If you will not specifically say what you want the lead to say, then there is no discussion, only pointless trading of insults, and life is too short. I don't even care about Frida Kahlo, and my time can be better spent elsewhere. If the anon crosses the line, editors, just take it to the administrators' incident board for intervention, but I'm done with this one. -FisherQueen (Talk) 10:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
From 70.18.5.219: Thank you! (70.18.5.219 17:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC))

[edit] "Protecting" the article for 2 weeks - too much!!!

From 70.18.5.219 (previously 141.157.253.112 and 151.202.72.24): Dear Anonymous Dissident age 12, protecting the article for entire two (2) weeks, because someone wrote "HELLO" and "he/she is also known as Victor" is way too long, and you effectively blocked the article from editing rather than protected it, because there was nothing to protect it from, but just two short phrases, which - maybe - someone wrote trying to contribute for the first time, and failed, or as a harmless prank, or whatever it was supposed to be. I am not sure that at your age of 12 you have a sufficient perspective to distinguish an unfortunate from wrong or bad - and so children at age 12 are usually not sentenced to jail - because of the well known developmental fact that morality (ability to apply ethics) fully develops in the brain (in the frontal lobe) with its maturity at the age of around 18. So, please, unprotect this article as soon as possible, and do not abuse your power as a sysop by overreacting. Would you, please? (70.18.5.219 04:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC))

It was vandalised multiple time. Its also only semi protected, so users with accounts over 4 days old can edit it freely. AntiVMan 04:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
From 70.18.5.219: ...but the rest of people cannot edit, don't they, please? And, why..., because of a few phrases, please? Is it enough? Maybe under a repressive regime... . Is Wikipedia a repressive regime, please? I do not think so! It is about a free collaboration (so the opposite to a restriction), isn't it, please? And, are 12 year old children qualified to make such a judgment, please? (70.18.5.219 04:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC))
What the hell are you talking about? The article was semi-protected because of some recent vandalism. That's all. It will be unprotected in two weeks. Hopefully by then the attempts at vandalism will have died down. This is a common procedure at Wikipedia. Vandals get bored and move on. Is the oddball hyperbole really necessary: "[i]s Wikipedia a repressive regime?"; "are 12 year old children qualified to make such a judgment?" and nonsense about morality and crime. This is all a bit over-the-top. Let's get some perspective here. It's just an encyclopedia article. Try to go outside and get some sunshine. You focus too much on what goes on here. It can't be healthy. You sound young: I'm guessing in your mid-teens by the way you write. Go get some friends, maybe a girlfriend. In two weeks everything will still be here. Freshacconci | Talk 10:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
From 70.18.5.219: Dear Freshacconci, your lack of argument cannot be substituted by the guessing, which, b.t.w., has been incorrect and only to support your subsequent violation of WP:NPA. My point has been - and I am repeating it for you - that the alleged vandalism did not justified applying the measure of the two (2) week protection in this case, and it was NOT about the measure itself, i.e. when it is used somewhere else. And, the second point has been that the 12 year old sysop, who applied the 2 wk protection, might not have ability to make a correct judgment, because such ability is attributed only to at least 18 year olds, when the brain ends its development in humans. So, instead of protecting the article against irrelevant, very sporadic, and minor pranks (nuisance), the applied 2 wk (over)protection actually (and sadly) stifles the editing and free cooperation Wikipedia exists for. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THOSE NUANCES (e.g. small differences of meaning), please? (70.18.5.219 18:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC))
Apparently, I am qualified to make such a judgement. I have made over 100 protections, and less than 3 of those have ever been called to the side, this one included. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 05:33, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Everyone: WP:DNFT.
Seraphim Whipp 18:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Seraphim Whipp: you're right. I recommended as much earlier on this talk page, and there I go ignoring my own advice! Couldn't help it: when confronted by such nonsense, my instincts take over and I need to say something. But I will move on and won't feed it any longer. Everyone here should just keep on editing and improving the article. Freshacconci | Talk 18:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Don't worry, there'll always be someone looking for a reaction. It's human nature to want to respond, but we don't need to. They'll be looking at this from the other side of a block if they carry on, and since they appear to be on a static IP address, that won't be very fun...
Seraphim Whipp 00:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
From 70.18.5.219: ...reasonable people do not respond to nonsense, so the response indicated a voluntary recognition of substance! (70.18.5.219 19:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC))
Enough. This article was semi-protected for 2 days from the 26th to the 28th because of vandalism. It simply spurred up again, with 5 or more accounts of vandalism in that many days. It was not someone merely saying "HELLO" and someone adding vandalism, it was more than half a dozen accounts of IP vandalism. No, I will not be unprotecting, or even lowering the time of protection. Please read WP:PROT and make sure you fully comprehend policy before making such harsh, and most likely uniformed, claims. Oh, and your skepticism and discrimination in regards to my age does not bother me in the slightest, but it shows that you are largely uniformed of the general age of the sysop on Wikipedia. I am merely on the lower end of that spectrum. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 05:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
From 70.18.5.219: ...not true!!!: The article was protected on the 26th due to "disagreement w/o discussion (IP violating 3RR" (my refusal to discuss and numerous edits on the 25th, as FisherQueen stated in his 1st warning on my page User talk:70.18.5.219), and NOT as a result of the preceding vandalism, which happened 3 times on the 25th, which did not bother much anyone. Between the 28th and 3rd there were only two (2) instances of very minor vandalism or rater little pranks (someone wrote "HELLO" and "he/she is also known as Victor") not deserving any attention, but FisherQueen posted another threat on my page User talk:70.18.5.219. So, the 2 wk "protection" seems to keep me out of editing rather then to prevent alleged (imaginary) vandalism, which DID NOT HAPPENED!!! In other words, Anonymous Dissident, you had no grounds to protect the article for 2 wks, and your above statement is just... false. In particular, it is not true, what you wrote, that: "This article was semi-protected for 2 days from the 26th to the 28th because of vandalism [it was 3RR]. It simply spurred up again, with 5 or more accounts of vandalism in that many days [only 2]." It proves my point about your limited moral judgment at the age 12!!! What were you thinking (or rather NOT) about my ability to check, count, or think, please? Do you reckon that I am stupid, and cannot put 2+2 together or verify your every word, please? And, you have the power to make such important decisions (affecting many editors and subsequently - readers) at the age of 12 used without due consideration (you possibly cannot make at 12), or rather it was a crude attempt to prevent me from editing for 2 wks under the pretext of alleged vandalism, which did not happened (and did not bothered anyone before, when it was more numerous), and you simply could not recognize at the age of 12, how shamefully crude the attempt was, please? But then, you lied twice to justify your action, and that is inexcusable, please!!!(70.18.5.219 18:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC))
As an outside, uninvolved administrator, I endorse the protection level set by AnonymousDissident. Further, I regret anon 70.18.5.219's tone in dealing with AnonymousDissident. There is no excuse for the tone, and it will not be tolerated. Wikipedia places a very high premium on civility, and if you can not operate in a civil way, you will not last long here. If you want to edit this article, the answer is simple: set up an account. In a few days, the anonymous protection will not affect you. - Philippe | Talk 19:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Philippe: if you read the entries above, you will see this isn't an isolated incident with this anon. editor (it's the lowest he's gone with his insults, but hardly unique). At this point, the rest of us are trying our best to just ignore him and get on with why we're actually here. Thanks for your input (although it will probably do little good I'm afraid). Freshacconci | Talk 19:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
From 70.18.5.219: Dear Philippe, I do not wish to set up an account again (I had had one, but on 04/17/07 I was notified that it will expire AFTER it had been cancelled, so I could not have met the stated requirement to prevent cancellation, because the warning notification came already too late), and I do not wish to be discriminated against as anon too by "an inevitable mediocrity of the majority", as I stated in Talk:Frida Kahlo#Modernist, Johnbod, and FisherQueen, your editing is insufficient!! The Wikipedia's rules are to be followed equally, and not streached, misused, or abused regardless, how many editors are against someone even pesky; aren't they, please? (70.18.5.219 21:17, 4 October 2007 (UTC))
Look, this is simple... MULTIPLE administrators have reviewed this. I'm uninvolved and I stumbled across it, and *I* reviewed it too. No admin acted improperly, and the protection was correctly applied. You are now verging on disrupting the work on this article, and are walking a very dangerous line. The fact that you choose not to create an account is not something the rest of us can do anything about. You know the options, and you choose not to take the option available to you. I strongly caution you to maintain a civil tone, and to cease from your attacks upon other users. - Philippe | Talk 22:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your explaination (first one in-depth I received) exhausting the topic. (70.18.5.219 23:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC))
For further discussion details, see User talk:Anonymous Dissident/October#You misrepresented facts to justify your undue action. -70.18.5.219 02:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I have reduced protection to end on the 12th of October after due consideration. If this does not prove long enough, it takes only seconds to re-introuduce protection. I can be easily contacted if that be the case. Regards, -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 03:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
From 70.18.5.219: Dear Modernist, why you deleted at 03:04 on 5 October 2007 my last message above, while commenting it: "enough of your crap", please? -70.18.5.219 03:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Because it occurs to me that this whole thing is a game you play, and I am tired of your game, and your violations of WP:NPA. Modernist 03:49, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

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

From 70.18.5.219 (continuing from the above): Dear Modernist,

Sec. I. Your aforementioned deletion ([3]) seems to be "Discussion page vandalism" described as such in Wp:vandalism#Types of vandalism by the words "Blanking the posts of other users from talk pages [...] is generally considered vandalism." The Philippe sysop mentioned it at Concerning Anon, but did nothing. Does such a violation deserve a warning instead of the Philippe's "I'am sorry", please? Is there a double standard: one for anons, and another for friendly violators, please? Philippe, maybe you will be so kind to provide an explanation of not carrying out your warning, please?

Sec. II. There were also the following six (6) instances of Blanking of parts of this article meeting the criteria of vandalism described at Wp:vandalism#Types of vandalism:

1. [4] <"20:03, 25 September 2007 Modernist (moving information about film, to more appropriate place)"> was blanking (moving is blanking and pasting, but "moving" out of article - like in this case - is just blanking) of reference with no valid reason(s) given , but deemed by Modernist as NOT in an "appropriate place" without saying why (so as a personal, arbitrary opinion), and so qualifying as vandalism under the "Blanking" rule, when "no valid reason(s) given".
2. [5] <"20:26, 25 September 2007 Modernist (rv)"> was blanking of reference with "no valid reason(s) given" qualifying as vandalism under the "Blanking" rule. Valid reason was ALSO due in response to my prior argument given against that blanking in [6] <"20:23, 25 September 2007 70.18.5.219 (The movie fact in the intro is important to support her recognition gain stated ahead.)">. Note 1: In the 20:06 argument for blanking ([7]) - as the first one in Talk:Frida Kahlo#Cultural trivia - Modernist mistakenly asserted incorrectness of the reference (to be blanked) - about the movie's $56 M gross - because - as Modernist alleged - it was given to explain all Kahlo's popularity gain since the 1970s. In fact, that reference was given correctly in support of the opposite, namely that, since the 1970s, her popularity gained so much that it resulted in the movie grossing $56 M. Since, Modernist alleged the opposite of, what I had actually written, so I repeated my argument against blanking at 20:23. In other words, Modernist (falsely) argued against the opposite of, what I actually wrote. Modernist falsely alleged that I incorrectly denied Kahlo being popular before the movie was released in 2002, when my reference meant the opposite, namely that the movie actually resulted from her recognition gain before 2002. Even more simply speaking, I wrote in the intro that Kahlo gained popularity since the 1970s, and in 2002 she got a movie [implying that as result of that gain, though not mentioning it], but in the 20:06 response ([8]) Modernist falsely alleged that my reference incorrectly meant, that her popularity was due to the movie [I had never said that, but the opposite], and blanked it, so I repeated my argument against blanking at 20:23.
3. [9] <"20:34, 25 September 2007 Modernist (Discuss this on the Talk Page please)"> was blanking of reference with "no valid reason(s) given in the summary", and so qualifying as vandalism under the "Blanking" rule. Valid reason was ALSO due in response to the prior argument given AGAIN against that blanking in [10] <"20:31, 25 September 2007 70.18.5.219 (The movie is a very important fact in the intro!!!)">. Note 2: There was no new argument raised for blanking; the Modernist's 20:06 argument ([11]) was completely unreasonable, because it argued against the opposite of, what I had actually written (see Note 1 above).
4. [12] <"21:23, 25 September 2007 FisherQueen (checked talk page; don't see any discussion of this change. Reverting for now until consensus is reached.)"> was blanking of reference with "no valid reason(s) given" qualifying as vandalism under the "Blanking" rule . Valid reason was ALSO due in response to the prior argument given AGAIN against that blanking in [13] <"21:20, 25 September 2007 70.18.5.219 (Discuss [...] what is important for a broad spectrum of readers up front, and what not! The movie is it!)">. Note 3: At 21:26, immediately after that blanking (it should be before, not after), FisherQueen made the personal preference argument for blanking: "I do not think that..." as the second one in Talk:Frida Kahlo#Cultural trivia ([14]). Since that private opinion contained "no valid reason(s) given", as required by the "Blanking" rule, so it was left without response, as not supporting the blanking at 21.23, because you cannot argue against (somebody's) taste.
5. [15] <"00:31, 26 September 2007 Johnbod (revert terrible, unencyclopedic and ungrammatical version of lead sentences)"> was similar and completely unsupported blanking of reference with "no valid reason(s) given" qualifying as vandalism under the "Blanking" rule. Valid reason was ALSO due in response to my prior argument given against that blanking in [16] <"22:40, 25 September 2007 70.18.5.219 ([...] many Wikipedia users read only intro, which should have everything concisely incl'g movies important nowadays, [...])">. Note 4: At 00:49, after that blanking (it should be before, not after), Johnbod made the false and private opinions argument for blanking: "...many artists have had movies made [...] about them, and [1] none are mentioned in the lead para, [2] nor should they be" ([17]) - the last at [18] in Talk:Frida Kahlo#Cultural trivia. Since that first opinion was false (Diego Rivera had two movies in his lead paragraphs), and the second one ("nor should they be") was a personal preference you cannot argue against, so that FisherQueen's argument contained "no valid reason(s) given", as required by the "Blanking" rule, so it was left without response, as not supporting the blanking at 00:31.
6. [19] <"13:14, 26 September 2007 Modernist (eliminated Olga's gallery as biographical reference)" was blanking of reference with "no valid reason(s) given" (NOT EVEN A SINGLE WORD!!!)> qualifying as (super)vandalism under the "Blanking" rule REQUIRING NOT ONLY A REASON, BUT VALID ONE EVERY TIME!!!

Sec. III. Would the sysops act to protect editors from repeating violations by the guilty ones listed above, e.g. by issuing warnings, please? -70.18.5.219 09:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand policy/guidelines. None of these policies/guidelines are applicable to the edits you have written about. Your editing is disruptive. Please stop harassing the editors of this article.
Seraphim Whipp 15:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
From 70.18.5.219: Dear :Seraphim Whipp, I have corrected the base of my argument above, so you may want to modify yours too. B.t.w., the fact that I mixed up Blanking with WP:AADD does not make the argued issue of "Blanking" invalid, and your above statement is also with "no valid reason(s) given", so it seems to be more a private opinion, then an argument.
My point has remained 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 Blanking (WP:VANDALISM#Types of vandalism) 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 09:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
To be polite, I am informing you now, that I am not going to respond to this or any other dialogue you intiate.
Seraphim Whipp 11:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Portrait

Would it be better to have an actual photograph of Frida as her "main" picture, rather than the portrait? The portrait should definitely be in the article somewhere, her self-portraits being what she was most famous for. It's just that seeing her photo for the first time surprised my in the way that she looked much more feminine than she did in paintings.

Forgive my being sort of a noob here if this has been decided long ago or that it just came across as incompetent.--Clockwrist (talk) 04:28, 19 January 2008 (UTC)