Talk:Bords de la Seine à Argenteuil

WHO?

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)

Fixed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:46, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Fake or Fortune

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)

WP:SOFIXIT. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:47, 2 August 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)

Neutrality

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)

Probably for the Wildenstein Institute to stop being so ridiculous, but that's beyond our ability to arrange. nonetheless, their views are made clear, so it's hard to see how the article fails to be neutral. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:15, 2 August 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)

Agree with Killer Moff. Since the quality of the article has not improved since I was here last, I feel stronger measures must be taken - hence the template. The replies only reinforces my belief new eyes are needed - hence the template. As the article stands, it comes across as written by only the anti-Wildenstein camp. First and foremost question: is a rejected painting really notable enough? Featuring it on the Fake or Fortune page I can understand, but its own article? Assuming it passes a notability check, it needs to be rewritten to report the facts, and the fact is that is rejected. After that, we need to judge UNDUE - should the article really devote such a large portion to the "controversy"? I would feel better about it if the discussion about authenticity and its interactions with the Wildenstein institute comprised only a small part of the article. CapnZapp (talk) 22:34, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

CapnZapp, I thought the template meant the opposite, that it was weighted towards the side of forgery (the question mark in the infobox, non-mention of supporting possible authentic information in the lede, etc.) so I added balancing language to the Fake or Fortune television show conclusion. You have now removed the information in the lede that the show's hired experts found the painting to be authentic, and added the hint that the conclusion was rejected by the Wildenstein institute. Why not just say that, language which seems to work and is neutral to the discussion. And what is that edit summary about, I have no horse in this game, no weasel words from me, and was trying to abide by the neutrality tag in editing the lede to balance out the rejection by Wildenstein with stated acceptance by the BBC show. Some editors here use threats ("Please do not abuse Wikipedia as a weapon to forward alternative viewpoints, or the matter will be escalated"), which is an odd way of assuming good faith and working out a consensus. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:13, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Then you ought to browse page history; The template (and lack of good faith) is because previous edits have angled the article towards the viewpoint that the painting is genuine and just not accepted by a pig-headed Institute (my words, not theirs). I share the opinion that Wikipedia can only reflect the established authority's verdict, and so must present the painting as clearly not a Monet. Unfortunately for Mr Joel and the Fake or Fortune team (I love the show, btw) this authority is the Wildenstein Institute. If you can show that other art-related articles have taken another tack, feel free to discuss further. CapnZapp (talk) 17:56, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Will check out the page history. The mention of Fake or Fortune in the lede really should be balanced, and state the program's conclusion along with your point of it not budging the Wildenstein. This is an interesting case all around, and I wish the Institute would hire experts for a full investigation if they haven't done so (the page makes it sound like the decision was based on a black and white photo in an obit, and why would a newspaper use a forgery in the obit?). Anyway, if I were the owner I'd do more public announcements about a full investigation being needed. Good meeting you, I don't think we've crossed paths often here, and thanks for keeping a keen eye on this page. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:36, 2 September 2018 (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)

• The main section have been renamed to reflect the weak notability of the article subject outside of its appearance in the BBC programme
• The article previously contained a lot of statements that came across as trying to persuade the reader the painting is genuine, by listing all the individual experts that said so, all the various investigations etc. Since everybody agrees the Wildenstein Institute is the accepted authority, and they do not agree, all of that is not notable. To preserve Wikipedias NPOV all of that has been condensed into a short neutral "The programme had the picture scanned, the paints analysed, and the brushwork and signature examined by experts."
• Loads of factoids removed that certainly aren't notable and just serves to make Wikipedia a mouthpiece for anyone arguing the painting is genuine. Let us keep only the bits that are uncontroversial, that is, the factoids someone convinced the painting is NOT genuine could agree to. I am no expert, but that Georges Petit sold it or that the Bridgestone Museum exhibited it, seems to be such factoids, for example. That is why I didn't removed the Bridgestone bit even if there was no real source - instead I simply tagged it (I'm sure someone will come along and source it assuming it is correct or remove it otherwise).
• Excessive referencing reduced (Hint: no, tagging each and every sentence does not make your arguments more believable)

CapnZapp (talk) 16:12, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Remember, the painting's authenticity, or to be more precise, Wikipedia's reporting on that, is not up for debate. It is an absolute fact that the accepted authority does not accept the work, and using Wikipedia to argue against that would be (and was!) an abuse of our encyclopedia. Unless you are prepared to argue (and source!) that Wildenstein only gets an "opinion" among many... Regards CapnZapp (talk) 16:17, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

References

Neutrality 2

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)

sources

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). 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)

As for the {{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