Talk:Frida Kahlo/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Does anyone have thoughts on these possible changes?

Accident “They are a kind of exorcism by which she projected her anguish on to another Frida, in order to separate herself from pain and at the same time confirm her hold on reality.” (Grove Art Online Kahlo, Frida) Many pieces reference birth, motherhood, and womanhood. This is significant because she was unable to have children due to the accident. Her current Wikipedia page makes it seem like she only painted out of convenience. This is partially true, but she also used art as a way to cope with what she was feeling.

Paintings Frida Kahlo’s first self-portrait (done right after her accident) shows an Italian Renaissance style mixed with an essence of Van Gogh’s 1889 Starry Night. She uses the long and narrow face and neck style to show herself in an idealized way. Compared to other painting there is a large difference between this representation and others. (Grove Art Online Kahlo, Frida) The painting Henry Ford Hospital shows the cold and industrial feeling she got from being in Detroit. Because of this, she chose to paint on a sheet of metal. This is important because it shows a time where she is experiencing extreme emotions. She is shown haemorrhaging after her miscarriage along with many symbols relating to reproduction.

What I Saw in the Water shows her most Surrealist painting, which is important because of the controversy surrounding what style of painter she should be identified by. It represents her normal reproduction and fertility themes but also includes two women in a sexual relationship, showing her interest in women. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexa36 (talk • contribs) 22:46, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

This article has a lot of pertinent information; however, there seems to be a lot of information throughout the article that needs citations. There appears to be a number of references used, if there is anyway for some citations to be inserted from these sources that would improve the quality of the article. The present information seems well organized. The information you specifically added about her time in the hospital, her coping through painting, and the connection between her injuries and the imagery she used is very interesting and seems to be highly relevant to the article. Cq245809 (talk) 05:44, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Another thing that you could add is more about her marriage to Diego and how it effected her as an artist, as a lot of her work pertained to their turbulent relationship. More paintings of her actual artwork, as opposed to images of herself, could also be referenced throughout the article. I agree that there's more to say about painting due to life events rather than convenience, and I think that detail could be added on any particularly notable paintings of hers. Juliabeatley (talk) 19:24, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

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. She often said she associated with him much more. 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)

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)

This isn't entirely just repition but I didn't want to start a new topic. When you mention Marriage you say "The openly bisexual Kahlo had affairs with both men (including Leon Trotsky)" but under Later Years and Death you say "where they reportedly had an affair". Did they have an affair or not? Fabulous Feminist (talk) 11:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Size matters

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

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.

• The Life and Art of Frida Kahlo

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

Thanks JC. You're a genius —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.47.15.38 (talk) 13:16, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

So... Why doesn't this article make any mention of her unibrow or she-mustache? Not only are they distinguishing (and unsightly) features, her refusal to conform to society's concept of beauty was a key statement in her art. I'm making a serious argument, but I really can't help making fun at the same time. She was ugly as sin and her art, to be frank, sucks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.3.139.40 (talk) 03:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

It probably need not be discussed; "a picture is worth a thousand words". ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 21:26, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

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.

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.

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)

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

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)

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~

I'd like to know which factor determines it's pronunciation. That it's a German name? That Kahlo lived in a Spanish speaking country? That we live in English speaking countries? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.193.200.38 (talk) 22:46, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Try this link (fordo): Pronounce "Frida Kahlo" I don't know if it would be within WP style policy, but perhaps a dictionary-style pronunciation could be included? Or better yet, a speaker-icon link to (above). ~Eric F. 184.76.225.106 (talk) 03:20, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

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.

• Frida Kahlo Fans

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

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)

Cleanup

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

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)

Perhaps an Education subheading under the Childhood and family heading is in order. I found this 2nd-hand info from [here]: In 1922, after completion of her primary education at the Colegio Aleman, Mexico's German school, Frida enrolled at the Escuela National Preparatoria school, where she hoped to become a doctor. -- It would be nice to find an original source. ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 11:47, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

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))

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)

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~

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?

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)

She might have claimed Jewish ancestry because of the implied shame of being German during WWII.

I am not sure why one source is sufficient to make it a controversy. I am not sure a Jpost article gives it enough credence. Here is another article that seems to support her identity: http://www.jewishpress.com/content.cfm?contentid=25265 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.123.57.82 (talk) 14:27, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The current version (as of 30 October 2009) has removed all mention of Jewish ancestry to a footnote. Given that the only source claiming otherwise is one book, published in German and so far neither translated into any other language nor reviewed anywhere but that one mention in the Jerusalem Post that I have been able to find, I think it is reasonable to shift back to an earlier description of her ancestry and add something to the effect that "one book has suggested that her father had German Lutheran, not German-Hungarian Jewish ancestry." Further note: the research in the book was not "covered" in the Jerusalem Post; rather, the book itself received a very short review in that newspaper. The review makes no attempt to evaluate the claims made in the book, and the reviewer simply speculates ("my guess is") that Frida Kahlo might have been embarrassed by her German ancestry. Not exactly a solid source. The book itself may or may not be a solid source, but until we have better evidence and corroboration (one way or the other) I think it is legitimate to refer to this new claim as simply a claim, not a fact. I plan to change the text as soon as I can get to it. --Potosino (talk) 01:51, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Why is it a claim rather than a fact? The Franger/Huhle book traces her father's ancestry, which is the only authoritative way of determining his heritage. Has there been a different source that traced his ancestry as being something else? Or a source - since the time of the book's release - that disputed this research? Kahlo's own claim is probably worth mentioning, but genealogical research is usually pretty definitive. All Hallow's (talk) 21:36, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to make a pointabout her mother's ancestry. The article currently states that her mother's ancestry is primarily indigenous. I'm not very familiar with Matilde Calderón but this photo seems to counter that argument. http://roberr.tripod.com/photo.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.193.200.38 (talk) 22:55, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

This is a claim rather than a fact because Wikipedia doesn't establish facts, it just reports what WP:RSs say. It's also a claim because most sources say she's Jewish and no other WP:RSs have confirmed it.

As Potosino says, the only source of the claim is one book, published in German and not translated. Furthermore, the link to the Jerusalem Post is now dead. I couldn't find a WP:RS to support that claim. The only sources I could find are anonymous blogs.

I'm going to remove the claim that Kahlo's father was Lutheran until somebody can come up with multiple WP:RSs to support it as WP:RS requires. It would take at least 2 or 3 newspaper stories, or a book with critical reviews from a major publisher to mention it at all. --Nbauman (talk) 20:45, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Her father's Wikipedia article is stating the following:

"One recent book, Fridas Vater: Der Fotograf Guillermo Kahloby Gaby Franger and Rainer Huhle, asserts that "despite the legend propagated by Frida," Guillermo did not have Jewish Hungarian roots, but was born to Protestant parents and "came from families accommodated in Frankfurt and Pforzheim."[3] Nevertheless, more recently, Magdalena Zavala Bonachea, the director of the Studio Museum Diego Rivera and Frida Kahlo at the Institute of Fine Arts in Mexico, claims that the Kahlos were actually a conservative Catholic family.[4]"

You can check the provided sources by yourself.

But if you want keep the Jewish entry, but remove then the German one. You can't be Jewish and German at the same time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.15.34.123 (talk) 21:21, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

What nonsense is that? Don't you know how many German Jews were killed during WW II. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.192.3.228 (talk) 10:17, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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 (July 61907 – 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)]

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.

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)

what does such incredibly petty and sophmoric grammatical pedantry have to do with the substance of the article, the only validity for which is rooted in the lack of an imperfect tense in the English language? nothing. Thus linguistically it is apt and effective: Kahlo lived in the past but her achievements continue in the present.Tom Cod (talk) 19:20, 24 May 2009 (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))

"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 Dissident^Talk 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 Dissident^Talk 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 Dissident^Talk 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)

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)

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)

"influences" of her painting style

In the first paragraph of the article: "She painted using vibrant colors in a style that was influenced by indigenous cultures of Mexico as well as by European influences that include Realism, Symbolism, and Surrealism."

According to quotes attributed to her http://womenshistory.about.com/cs/quotes/a/qu_frida_kahlo.htm

"I never knew I was a surrealist till Andre Breton came to Mexico and told me I was."

"They are so damn 'intellectual' and rotten that I can't stand them anymore....I [would] rather sit on the floor in the market of Toluca and sell tortillas, than have anything to do with those 'artistic' bitches of Paris. [on Andre Breton and the European surrealists]"

It seems that she rejected the notion that the schools of Realism, Symbolism, and Surrealism influenced her work. It stands to reason since while developing her own style she apparently never went to art school or visited Europe.

Perhaps the first paragraph should be edited to reflect this, e.g. her work was "embraced by" or "categorized as" though not "influenced by" those schools.

Atheism

The article belongs to Category:Mexican atheists, but there is no mention of atheism in the article itself. Unless there is a source, I recommend removing the category. Neko85 (talk) 18:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Which links meet our external link guidelines

Many of these links do not meet our gidelines for external links. They have been moved here until consensus can be developed as to which should be added to the article. -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:05, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

General internet resources

• "Frida Kahlo" at ArtCyclopedia
• Frida Kahlo at Olga's Gallery
• Kahlo paintings at Ten Dreams Galleries
• Frida Kahlo fan site with biography, paintings, and photos
• John Weatherwax Papers Relating to Frida Kahlo and Diego Rivera at the Smithsonian's Archives of American Art

Articles and essays

• "Frida Kahlo & contemporary thought"
• "Frida by Kahlo"
• Essay by William Nericcio on Kahlo and Chicano Graphic artist Gilbert Hernandez

Exhibitions and museums

• "The Frida Kahlo Museum", by Gale Randall
• Exhibition guide from Tate Modern
• The Heart of Frida exhibition in San Miguel de Allende, Mexico showcasing recently discovered letters and artwork.

Media portrayals

• Movies featuring actresses portraying Frida Kahlo

Discussion

The exhibitions and museums seem likely to meet our guidelines, but the Articles and essays are clearly personal web pages that do not. Some of the general sites may meet our guidelines, but the fansite is clearly WP:ELNO. -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:05, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

You are deleting valuable information, please be more selective about your deletions. The EL I returned is extremely useful as a resource....Thanks..Modernist (talk) 18:09, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The fansite has a lousy name, admittedly - fan site - the site itself has terrificly useful information and should be kept..IMHO of course.Modernist (talk) 18:16, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Until you show it is not simply your opinion, but a consensus of Wikipedia editors, it does not belong, because you do not own the article either, and your position is in contradition to the policies and consensus of Wikipedia editors. -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:22, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll start a discussion:[20] and send you a link. Modernist (talk) 18:23, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

You are in violation of the WP:3RR rule and you should be blocked....Modernist (talk) 18:43, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I would keep the site, which is clearly very comprehensive and well-researched. Apart from anything else it contains a far wider range of images than WP is allowed to carry, and is justified on this account alone. I've always felt WP:ELNO illogical and too restrictive - there is no requirement for authors of WP:RS in other media to be personally notable - the vast majority are not - so why is it required of web-site authors? In the visual art field, many such sites are very carefully written & accurate, unlike the web-sites of some big museums, much of which are done from larger books by interns or junior people in the marketing department etc who make basic errors. Typically, the guideline does not consider image issues at all; in practice it is rightly widely ignored, and links to relevant images are generally accepted by editors - certainly in the arts field. I would keep all the links except maybe Olga's Gallery, which repeats matter available in the others, with less detail, and is stuffed with ads & pop-ups - but does have lots of pics. Also the Smithsonian site is not of great help to most readers. The movies one is ok I suppose. I notice Artcyclopedia gives the fan-site & the contemporary thought one top billing for general web-sites on FK. Johnbod (talk) 20:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Frida Kahlo is both popular and important and upon reexamining the links I think all should be kept..I can do without the movie one, and yet why not just leave well enough alone..Modernist (talk) 21:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I think some pruning of ELs was in order but I'd keep the fan site and several of the others. I agree with Johnbod that an external link that provides a wealth of images has value, especially for a visual arts article. The Smithsonian site seems expendable, Olga's fails the objectionable amt of advertising test, "Frida by Kahlo" is rather slight. Ewulp (talk) 05:25, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

While I think most of the sites are useful, I have no objection to Olga's removal...Modernist (talk) 10:47, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Following what seems to be consensus above, I removed the external link to the fan site. However there were an unacceptable number of links when The Red Pen of Doom first removed them, and they have since grown. Modernist, it is not sufficient that external links are useful -- what would be most useful to a serious Kahlo scholar is a multi-page, multi-language list -- however that is quite specifically contrary to Wiki policy, and so is the current list of 14 external links. Johnbod, the fact that you disagree with WP:ELNO and find it "illogical and too restrictive" needs to be addressed in ELNO discussion, it's not up to individual editors to overturn policy. Everyone believes that the external link they add is justified, and very many believe that their favorite subjects should be exceptions to Wikiguides. To be pragmatic, I find the link to the Harry Ransom Center to add no content to the Wiki article, but provides the Center an opportunity to promote their exhibition, and to supply considerable details about "Media Contacts". Hence, it is WP:SPAM, and I removed it. Piano non troppo (talk) 04:45, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Widespread hatred

This article makes no mention of the loathing for Kahlo shared by so many Latin communities, painters, and people with aesthetic sensibilities in general. A new section should be added to reflect this, and it should be longer than those about her wretched life and more wretched painting put together. Failing that, I suggest the article body be replaced with various synonyms for feces, both medical and idiomatic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.84.191.116 (talk) 22:53, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

evidence for this absurd contention? she may be in fact disliked by right wing patricians of the variety that sponsored the fascistic military juntas in Latin America on the basis of her political views; beyond that I don't think so. Tom Cod (talk) 19:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Relationship with Trotsky?

Didn't she and Rivera break with Trotsky shortly before his death, lining up with Siqueros after his attack on the compound in Coyacuan? Didn't she later on she became an admirer of Stalin? Tom Cod (talk) 19:11, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources

Hi, I just cleaned up the "external links" section in accordance with our guidelines and there were some reliable sources that didn't belong there, but they could be used to build up the article so I'll list them here if anybody is interested in using them.

• Frida Kahlo: Notas Sobre una Vida (Notes on a Life) online exhibition from the Smithsonian's Archives of American Art
• Exhibition guide from Tate Modern
• Frida Kahlo: Notas Sobre una Vida (Notes on a Life) online exhibition from the Smithsonian's Archives of American Art
• The Heart of Frida exhibition in San Miguel de Allende, Mexico showcasing recently discovered letters and artwork.

ThemFromSpace 02:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Release year of movie wrong?

According to the IMDB the movie "Frida, naturaleza viva" was released in 1986. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.210.120.28 (talk) 09:56, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Stop Deleting!

Ok! I know you are all angry at each other and fighting about whats right and wrong but PLEASE STOP DELETING THINGS! If you think something is wrong why don't we all put a box at the top of the page saying:

"This page contains unapproved sections. The unapproved secions will be underlined."

Something like that! It's really annying finding a whole chunk of info deleted! Someone deleted the whole section of her death! Although SOME parts didn't sound right, you don't delete the WHOLE SECTION.

Please someone help. --Hauntedclaw (talk) 11:02, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I restored the deleted section - good catch, thank you...Modernist (talk) 12:15, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism

In the third paragraph of the Childhood section there is the phrase: "hi hi hi hi hi emma wuz here" inserted into the text. It cannot be edited out by conventional means. Tiktok4321 (talk) 12:07, 6 July 2010 (UTC) ALEX MENDOZAAA —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.90.14.169 (talk) 15:30, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Good for Emma! The people who edit Wikipedia really can't take a joke. Back when I had a profile, I would make grammatical corrections to random pages. A moderator or whoever would systematically delete all changes I made, citing that I didn't had enough credibility to edit content. He did this because of an act of "vandalism" I committed on the "jackalope" page. (I added a section about evidence of the jackalope's existence which was clearly fake to anyone with an IQ above 65.) If you sympathize with that guy, you really need to get outside and enjoy some fresh air, try interacting with the real world, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.3.139.40 (talk) 03:55, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Infobox image

This being a biographical article, I would think the Infobox image should be one of the actual photos of her, and the self-portrait included in the article body as an example of her work. It seems strange to use an artistic painting to be the primary representation of the actual person, self-portrait or not. Ham Pastrami (talk) 07:55, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Casa Azul

This section is awkward and contains much redundancy:

Casa Azul ("Blue House") in Coyoacán, Mexico City is the family home where Frida Kahlo grew up and to which she returned in her final years. Frida's father, Guillermo Kahlo, built the house in 1907 as the Kahlo family home. Leon Trotsky stayed at this house when he first arrived in Mexico in 1937.

The home was donated by Diego Rivera upon his death in 1957, which occurred three years after the death of Frida, and the house is now a museum housing artifacts of her life. Her former home is a popular destination for tourists.

Suggested rewrite; something like the following, but with citations and (perhaps?) clarifications:

Casa Azul ("Blue House") is in the Coyoacán borough of Mexico City. It was built in 1907 as the Kahlo family home by Frida's father, Guillermo. Frida grew up here; returning in her final years. While in exile, Leon Trotsky stayed here from 1937 until May 1939. Survived by Frida's death, Diego Rivera, upon his death in 1957, donated Casa Azul to serve as a museum. Dedicated in 1958, the Frida Kahlo Museum is a popular tourist attraction housing artifacts of her life.

~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 07:33, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Reference [23]

Number 23 in the References regarding her painting "The Suicide of Dorothy Hale" (shown in article) states that the legend was painted over; but the original painting is in the Phoenix Art Museum, with the legend still intact.
http://www.phxart.org/slideshow/index.html#/COL/72157606224219494/5691080309/

Am I missing something? ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 07:47, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Marriage

Under the marriage section it states: ... divorced in November 1939, but remarried in December 1940. (Unattributed) -- But from an article in The NY Times; Wednesday, July 14, 1954 (the day after her death): ... began living apart in 1939, were reunited in 1941.
I don't know how to attribute this; it is from [here] which includes "Copyright 1996 The New York Times". The NY Times is certainly a reliable source, but I can't figure out how to track down the original NYT article, and the source above would be 2nd-hand.
Or, can someone find a source for "divorced..."? ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 10:40, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Posthumous recognition.

This section looks rather messy. Couldn't the various books, plays, movies, etc. be put in list form?

Here is another one (I haven't added it): The Life and Times of Frida Kahlo. (PBS/WNET Documentary; premiered March 23, 2005) ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 11:37, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Info Box

in the info box, next to patrons it says "and friends:" This does not really look right to me, but I don't feel comfortable making a decision about an info box on an article like this. Should Patrons and friends: be stacked, left the way it is, or should and friends: be removed? KatCheez 12:32, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Remove – three of the four people are not even mentioned in the body of the article. This is even worse than the "influenced" and "influences" which have just been removed from Infobox person. --Mirokado (talk) 21:07, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I'll see if any of the people can be moved to the article before I just delet them. Thanks! KatCheez 13:48, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

This is who I deleted just in case anyone wants to add in back in somewhere: Julien Levy Gallery, Renou & Colle Gallery, Paris, Nickolas Muray, Lola Alvarez Bravo, Marcel Duchamp, André Breton KatCheez 14:07, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

US stamp/'Hispanic'

In the USA, the census bureau defines 'hispanic' so broadly that a hispanic could be any race, national origin or ethnicity. She was Mexican. Can we change this to 'Mexican' without controversy? 76.91.14.191 (talk) 08:15, 25 August 2013 (UTC) Raquel Fitleigh

Semi-protected edit request on 7 October 2014

I am doing a project and report on Frida Kahlo and her life, I would just like to suggest editing where it says what she is known for. It says she is known for painting, and this is accurate, but she is also known for writing which not many people know so I would just like to also include that under what she is known for. Thank you for taking this into consideration and I hope you make an edit. Have a great day. Bands.xx (talk) 00:19, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

That sentence lists what she's best known for, which is painting. The body of the article does have mention of her writings. Stickee (talk) 09:04, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Recent deletions of referenced material

I've just reverted a series of unexplained modifications by Marymcbay, pending revision. The first noticeable problem is the lead image: File:Block Kahlo Rivera 1932.jpg. This image was reproduced twice in the article. Everything that had to do with the bisexuality of Kahlo had been removed from the article without explanation. 11 categories were removed, again, without explanation. While there may be valuable encyclopedia additions to the modifications of Marymcbay, before reverting back to them (or adding selected passages), a discussion should take place with this user as to why those changes were made. Coldcreation (talk) 05:45, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

@Coldcreation: Thank you for your recent edits. This article suffers a great deal from vandalism and unencyclopedic alterations. I was considering removing the recent wholesale alterations, but you beat me to it. I support you in your action. LynwoodF (talk) 09:08, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

http://www.loc.gov/pictures/resource/ds.05050/

I intend to restore this photo and add it to the article; I'll do it with all the background, because we can always use {{CSS image crop}} to focus in on her a bit more, but we'll want the full image for the photographer, Toni Frissell's webpage. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 17:25, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Repetition

Section: Career as Painter

Diego Rivera had a great influence on Kahlo's painting style. Kahlo had always admired Rivera and his work. She first approached him in the Public Ministry of Education, where he had been working on a mural in 1927. She showed him four of her paintings, and asked whether he considered her gifted. Rivera was impressed and said, "You have got talent." After that, he became a frequent welcomed guest at Kahlo's house. He gave her many insights about her artwork while still leaving her space to explore herself. The positive and encouraging comments made by Rivera strengthened Kahlo's wish to pursue a career as an artist.[24]

Section: Marriage

As a young artist, Kahlo communicated with the Mexican painter Diego Rivera, whose work she admired, asking him for advice about pursuing art as a career. He recognized her talent[27] and encouraged her artistic development. They began an intimate relationship and were married in 1929, despite the disapproval of Kahlo's mother.

Would it be possible to just start off the marriage section with something like "Rivera's mentorship of Kahlo's artistic career eventually turned into an intimate relationship, the two marrying in 1929, despite the disapproval of Kahlo's mother." to avoid repeating things a few paragraphs apart? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 19:10, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Frida Kahlo's letters to Jose Bartoli – up for auction.

These previously unpublished love letters are held by an heir of Bartoli and will be auctioned on the 15th of April. An essay on the Doyle New York site and the HuffingtonPost article both include online looks at several of them, along with some enclosures she tucked into the envelops.

• "Cache of Unpublished Love Letters Written to Spanish Artist Jose Bartoli Between 1946-1949" – http://www.doylenewyork.com/content/more.asp?id=382

• "An Important Archive of Frida Kahlo Letters: Synopses of the Letters by Hayden Herrera" [well-known Frida Kahlo scholar and biographer] – http://www.doylenewyork.com/pdfs/Herrera-Kahlo.pdf

• "Frida Kahlo's Love Letters Give Glimpse Into The Guarded Artist's Private Life" – http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/02/frida-kahlo-love-letters_n_6989502.html

• "Also, "Review: ‘Diego Rivera and Frida Kahlo in Detroit’" – http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/04/arts/design/review-diego-rivera-and-frida-kahlo-in-detroit.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=photo-spot-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

• NYT Kahlo articles (though none turn up about this auction, maybe soon or at least soon afterwards) – http://query.nytimes.com/search/sitesearch/?action=click&contentCollection=Art%20%26%20Design&region=TopBar&WT.nav=searchWidget&module=SearchSubmit&pgtype=article#/frida%20kahlo%20letters

Enjoy reading the articles, 24.47.173.120 (talk) 03:17, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Sorry – I guess I forgot to sign in, Wordreader (talk) 03:19, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Kahlo's influence today.

This New York Times article speaks of several current exhibits, but is most interesting to me in its discussion of Kahlo's influence on today's culture: "Frida Kahlo Is Having a Moment" – http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/10/style/frida-kahlo-is-having-a-moment.html?_r=0 Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 05:46, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

thanks for sharing. not seeing anything relevant in it to build into the page though.--Wuerzele (talk) 00:24, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Frida Kahlo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090626022250/http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070529/ts_afp/lifestylemexicoart;_ylt=AqZA2wEU4xXMSdvFy41TY44DW7oF to http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070529/ts_afp/lifestylemexicoart;_ylt=AqZA2wEU4xXMSdvFy41TY44DW7oF

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:56, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

getting the article into better shape

Kaldari in this edit you changed the section heading from Childhood, 1907–1924 to "early Life" without an explanation in the edit summary, which keeps people guessing. I reverted saying "unclear why this was undone- keep formatting in line with other sections". plse explain why.--Wuerzele (talk) 05:21, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

@Wuerzele: The section covers Kahlo's bus accident which happened in 1925. Kaldari (talk) 05:33, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Kaldari ok. thanks for using an edit summary in your last edit.

if i recall correctly the bus accident previously was a stand alone section and hence my choice of time intervals, not to overlap. stand alone section makes sense in my view. first, it's of salient importance for Frida's life, second, many if not most people would refrain from calling an 18 year old a child. what do others think, LynwoodF for example ?

looks like we are interested in the same topic. :-) I would love to see this page achieve WP:good article status, but a key problem IMHO are the many unreferenced or poorly referenced (e.g. no page#s for books) claims, one online ref is subscription only I saw. Maybe you can help there ?--Wuerzele (talk) 14:44, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Early life makes more sense, considering the age range discussed. At 18 she was an adult. Coldcreation (talk) 15:01, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Coldcreation, not what my point was, sorry. I meant : a stand alone section of the bus accident, 1925 makes sense in my view. renaming childhood into "early life" is weaselish, and i do not prefer it.--Wuerzele (talk) 17:32, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I find the current section organization to be confusing. For example, "Career as painter" falls in between "Childhood, 1907–1925" and "Marriage, 1929–1954", suggesting that she was only a painter between 1925 and 1929. I would prefer a section organization similar to Pablo Picasso or Jackson Pollock. FWIW, I think this article is a long way from being a Good Article. The section on "Posthumous recognition" is twice as long as the "Career as painter" section, which is backwards. The "Career as painter" section needs to be significantly expanded and should mention some of her important paintings like The Two Fridas and What the Water Gave Me. Kaldari (talk) 16:18, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Kaldari, of course, I didnt mention everything that's horrid with teh article. I thought the same thing as you about the section "career as a painter". It should be moved out of the chronological part of the article and expanded. and the "later years" section, same problem, just hasnt been worked out yet. yes, of course, its a long way...so what? look back at this article's history. its been in dismal shape forever and only more recently has come a bit more together! (please ping me when replying, thanks)--Wuerzele (talk) 17:32, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

@Wuerzele: I agree with you that we should have some consistency in the naming of sections and also that the bus accident should have a stand-alone section – this was a crucial event in her life. "Early life" is fine, but if dates are used for other sections, this should have them too. However, I am not too sure we need dates in section headings. There are plenty of dates in the text. As for improving the article, I am not an expert in this field. This article got on to my watchlist when I happened to look at it for whatever reason and discovered that it had been vandalized. Sadly there seems to be a lot of vandalism on it and this also happens to the only other article on an artist that I follow, the one on Paul Nash, who happened to live were I grew up and is buried a short distance from my parents' grave. LynwoodF (talk) 17:57, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

BTW, the authenticity of the quote "I was born a bitch. I was born a painter." is disputed. Kaldari (talk) 08:06, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Ok, fine by me to take it out then.--Wuerzele (talk) 00:55, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Bringing this article up to GA status?

I've been thinking of bringing this article up to GA-status and would definitely be happy if anyone was interested in collaborating! Using Vincent Van Gogh as an example, I've so far worked on Kahlo's biographical details, and also started a stub-like section on the style and themes of her paintings. Seeing that the article has been pretty stable since at least July 2014, I was bold and added what I'd been working on for the past two weeks in my sandbox, but was reverted because the reference format should be discussed first. So, let's discuss :) I was under the impression that the sfn-format was becoming standard (even perhaps a requirement if an article wishes to reach GA or FA status), hence I adopted its use without starting a discussion, my apologies for that! It's more useful than the older <ref> format though, as the footnotes link directly to the bibliography :) TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 19:57, 29 July 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

@LynwoodF: and @Modernist:, it seems that you've been active on copyediting / maintaining the article recently, what are your thoughts?TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 20:07, 29 July 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

• I'll keep an eye out...Modernist (talk) 20:31, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! :) Do you mind if the sfn is used instead of <ref>? TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 20:34, 29 July 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

I've made little or no contribution to this page that I'm aware of, and applaud any effort to improve it. Nevertheless, I reverted a large-scale overwrite of the existing text because there was an undiscussed change of reference format, something we don't do. My opinion: in general, it's probably better to leave well alone in an important article like this one (the change at Vincent van Gogh was, if remember rightly, a contentious mess). If there are to be numerous different page numbers cited, then either the {{Rp}} or {{r}} templates provide a simple and compatible way of achieving that with a lot less clutter. In the ordinary referencing system, the references are the bibliography – and so are, of course, directly linked. Of more long-term concern: it seemed to me, on a very quick glance at the new text, that there was an undue reliance on one source, the biography by Hayden Herrera. Any thoughts on that, anyone? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:42, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm pretty close to completely rewriting the article, and then all of it would be in the sfn format, so there wouldn't be two formats. Since it doesn't seem that anyone else is actively interested in making major improvements to the article, I don't think anyone would be against it. I've previously brought two articles to FA and have worked extensively on a couple of other ones, and gradually changing the ref format has never been an issue before. While I understand that the referencing format needs to be consistent, I don't understand how the sfn format is a hassle, or how the rp format would be preferable? Has it been used recently in GAs/FAs? My impression is that sfn is the preferred style these days. Also, can you clarify what you mean by "ordinary referencing system"?

As for relying so heavily on Herrera — what I've worked on so far is not intended to be the final version of the article. Herrera is the definitive biography on Kahlo, in addition I've so far been able to access Zamora and Kettenmann, which are two other reliable biographies. My intention was to add the biographical data I've so far worked on, as it provides a basic 'skeleton' for the article. Within the coming weeks, as I gain access to more sources and work on the "Style" and "Posthumous legacy" sections, I will be polishing and adding further sources as needed. Furthermore, I was hoping that adding what I've been working on already to the article would stimulate discussion between editors that would lead to further improvements. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 22:09, 29 July 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

Justlettersandnumbers, I had a look at the Van Gogh ref discussion, and it's different from this situation because a.) there are multiple editors currently interested in overhauling the article; b.) the discussion isn't on whether to use sfn or ref, but whether to use p./pp. or loc. So it's very different from this situation. Given that I seem to be the only one overhauling the article, I think it would be fair to let me decide on which format to use. I think it would be very different had this article recently been majorly edited with the ref format, but the article is in bad shape and doesn't appear to have attracted major edits in years (before the sfn format even existed). Hence I don't think it would be controversial for me to change it; there certainly was no issue in Marilyn Monroe. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 07:37, 30 July 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

Hello, TrueHeartSusie3. Thank you for inviting me to comment. I have not used the sfn format, but I have noticed it appearing in some articles I watch. I can see that it has advantages, but I generally prefer to keep things simple. I have spent a lot of time just tidying up messes made by inexperienced editors who think they can juggle with the formatting of templates already installed by competent editors. My contributions to Frida Kahlo have been mainly dealing with vandalism, and so I was pleased to see that you had taken the article in hand. I recall that you did some work on Audrey Hepburn a little while back – that is an article which suffers not so much from vandalism as from inappropriate edits from excessively affectionate fans! Of late most of my WP activity has been on certain historical topics and on articles in the field of linguistics, where one has to tread carefully, especially when dealing with politically sensitive matters. I am not at all an expert on art, so thank you for taking on the task of improving this article. LynwoodF (talk) 22:58, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for commenting, LynwoodF! I understand that the sfn format seems complicated if you haven't used it — that was my reaction when it was first suggested to me by Kierzek that I use it. However, in practice it's no more complicated than the <ref> format, instead of <ref> you just use sfn with parentheses. The advantage of the latter is that the reader can click on the link on the footnote and is taken straight to the listing on the bibliography. Furthermore, given that I'm the first person in at least two years to be overhauling the article, I'm quite reluctant to change all the references back to the <ref> format, especially as it's not IMHO as useful and clear as the sfn format. With the changes I made to the article yesterday, the only sections following the old format would be the lede (which shouldn't have refs anyway, and won't have any when I'm done overhauling the article), and the section on Kahlo's posthumous legacy, which I was thinking of rewriting next, as it's currently little more than a list and doesn't explain why there has been such a rise in interest in her life and art in the recent decades. Given that it seems I'm the only one interested in spending my free time doing the research and rewriting this article, I think it would be fair to let me determine the reference style. I'm pretty baffled that this is even an issue, as I've never ran into it before, and really struggle to see how the ref-style is simpler or causes less issues. It definitely does not cause any in Marilyn Monroe, an article I recently brought to FA and that is the target of fan editors as frequently as Audrey Hepburn. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 07:09, 30 July 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

Don't be baffled; those are the rules. Many editors, including me, won't work on sfn articles; that may include the former main editors. Your comments seem a bit naive frankly. There used to be quite a dislike of sfn at FAC, btw, maybe not so much now. There is absolutely no question of it being a requirement there. Also, please don't run image mark-up straight into text – start a new line (see MOS). Johnbod (talk) 07:31, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

I think I can see why it an issue, but I should not have objected to your using it, especially as it is useful where there are numerous references to a single work. I see its value on Marilyn Monroe. My sensitivity about templates is more general and stems from some experiences with infoboxes and disambig. hatnotes. I seem to recall getting rid of some error messages on this article a while ago, but I have not yet plucked up the courage to sort out a mess on Dalida. Anyway, I vote cautiously in your favour in this case. And it is pleasant to have a sensible discussion on something after so many encounters with politically biased anonymous editors who expect me to believe something is true just because they say it is. LynwoodF (talk) 08:17, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, LynwoodF, I appreciate it! I understand that no system is perfect, but like you said, sfn is more useful when a single work is referenced lots of times. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 17:14, 30 July 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

(edit conflict) As it happens, I agree with Johnbod – I don't work on articles that use this infuriating ref format unless I really have to. I dislike it because it introduces a whole pointless layer ("Footnotes") between the citation number and the actual source; ref tags link directly to the reference. But I don't think that's the main point here, and I certainly wouldn't stand in the way of a change if there's a compelling reason for one, and a general consensus to implement it. The main thing is to have a better article.

Justlettersandnumbers, I'm confused, because if we use the current style of referencing, each footnote referencing a book or a journal article will be like this: "Herrera (2002), p. 6", in other words the reader will have to themselves find the right Herrera from the bibliography, which I think will be pretty extensive. The sfn format instead points the reader to the right source automatically (yes, they'll have to click the link twice, but it's still simpler). Or are you proposing that each footnote has full bibliographical information? Furthermore, if you've not edited this article before and are not planning on doing so in the future, why would it bother you if it uses a format you personally find complicated? TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 17:14, 30 July 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

I suggest that instead of just dumping a new article in the place of the old one, it might be preferable to make incremental changes so that other interested editors can review and evaluate them – as is our usual practice here.

That's what I was attempting to do, although you are correct in that the change was definitely more extensive than usually. Given that the current version is structured the way it is, had I moved one section at a time from the version I've been working on to the article, we would've ended up with a lot of confusing repetition. I realize now though that the article isn't quite as 'abandoned' as I thought based on the talk page and the article history, and that I should've first started a discussion on my plans. I will open a discussion below about other aspects than the ref format. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 17:14, 30 July 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

On sources, I imagine that the most valuable will be the articles published in peer-reviewed academic journals. This might be a starting-point; the bibliography here is short (as is the article), but may be of use. There shouldn't be excessive reliance on a single source, even if the film was based on it. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:26, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

You are absolutely right about journal articles, which will be very useful for the sections on Kahlo's art and her posthumous legacy. I don't currently have access to online journals on my home computer, but once some kind of consensus is reached on the ref matter and it's ok for me to continue working, I will be heading to my local uni library to gather information. However, journals are usually not as good for establishing basic biographical facts, biographies are much better for that. I've so far only worked on establishing the key facts of Kahlo's life, using three key biographies. Hopefully, I will gain access to further bios (or if anyone is interested in collaborating, someone else will). And as I've said, what I added was not intended to be the final version, but an improvement that provides a 'skeleton' to which we can add 'meat'.

As for relying on Herrera so much — it's not a definitive bio because its current edition features Salma Hayek's face but because Herrera was the first art historian to research and write a bio of Kahlo, in fact that bio is one of the key reasons why Kahlo has had such a renaissance in the last 30 years. Herrera is an academic specializing on Latin American art, and has taught for example at the New York University. She's also written a book on Kahlo's paintings and the Grove Art entry on her. My intention is to add more sources as I go along, but the article will rely heavily on Herrera because any academic writing about the basic facts of Kahlo's life does. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 17:14, 30 July 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

• The article looks just fine to me. Coldcreation (talk) 09:31, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Just checking you realize the last edit was a 32K byte revert. Johnbod (talk) 13:00, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

I came over here since my name was mentioned above. The fact is that there is no "rule" as to which reference format to use, but with that said, sfn and harv citing is used all the time in GA and FA articles and frankly is an improvement for reader's of articles. See: Help:Shortened footnotes and a good essay by User:Diannaa/Citation templates. All the GA articles I have done and worked on have been converted to sfn. It is an easier, more modern and a more simple format. Frankly, the comments towards TrueHeartSusie3 are unwarranted. Since she has GA and FA experience I would suggest working with her, since she is willing to take the time to improve this article. I would think that the additions and rewriting of the article to bring it up to GA status would be more important to discuss for consensus herein, but that is up to all of you. Kierzek (talk) 15:19, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Could we please come into some consensus over the ref format, so I could start editing the article and get this project moving? Again, to reiterate, there was never any discussion over which format to use when the bulk of the current article was written, and based on MOS and the Van Gogh article, it seems that it should be up for the users who are thinking of doing the majority of the editing to decide on which of the two formats to use. Since this discussion has not attracted any other editors to come up and volunteer to pitch in on the research & writing, I suggest that we go with the format I've so far used in my sandbox (which would be a pain to convert to the ref format). I understand that you have a strong personal dislike of the sfn format, Justlettersandnumbers and Johnbod, but if neither of you are planning on developing this article, I would be grateful if you could allow me to go with it. I'd be willing to use my free time and resources to get this article up to GA stage. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 20:01, 31 August 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

Indeed, I don't plan on working on the article, & wouldn't edit it (except to tidy) if it used sfn. Unless any editors who are wanting to edit turn up to object, I'm neutral on the format, but please don't try the various tricks here again. If you want to change a referencing format, ask the talk page at the start, don't write a big draft and complain how much trouble it would be to change it, nor claim sfn is expected at FAC. I'll be watching. Johnbod (talk) 22:49, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for replying, but I do feel a little bit offended by your attitude throughout this discussion, as I think your tone is really not warranted. I'm sorry if it appears to you that I was "trying the various tricks" – it honestly never occurred to me that changing the ref format needed to be discussed in an article that is essentially a stub (considering Kahlo's importance to 20th century art history) and has not attracted attention from editors (other than combatting vandalism) for several years. I've been here for several years, granted usually focusing on a single project for months, and have not been aware that there is such strong resistance to the sfn format. So please don't think I was doing the edit to force my preferences on others or to disrupt, I was simply ignorant and thought that I was improving the article. Again, thank you for replying, and please do pitch in to tidy every now and then, it will definitely be needed! But please assume good faith, as clearly this has been a misunderstanding. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 08:05, 1 September 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

This article is not a stub; if you have improvements fine; I keep an eye on this article...Modernist (talk) 12:32, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

The reference format should not be changed unless there is (a) a good reason to change it and (b) talk-page consensus for the change. I don't see any indication of either here. That said, I'm not actually going to revert the changes again; but I don't like them, and don't like the way they were done. Unwatching this page now. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:58, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Again, there was never a discussion that the current format should be used, and usually it's up for those doing the majority of editing to decide on which format to use. It's a bit curious that you're calling for discussion and consensus before I edit the main article, yet have declined to respond to my questions from July, and chose not take part in the discussion I started a week ago, despite being tagged. As for consensus, LynwoodF is "cautiously in my favor" and Johnbod is neutral, as he doesn't plan on majorly editing the article. You're currently the only person who thinks the sfn format should not be used. At this point, the question is, which is more important, for the article to retain the same ref format as before, or to be improved to GA status (hopefully). TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 18:31, 6 September 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

Discussion on other aspects than the ref format

Let's keep the ref format discussion above and discuss other aspects here. I now realize that I should've started this discussion prior to adding the material I've been working on to the article, my apologies for that! I invite all editors interested in the article to take a look at my sandbox and give your opinions on the structure of the article. I've so far relied on three key biographies, but as I've explained above, I will be adding more in the future. As for the structure, I don't think the current one is very good, as Kahlo's life, art and her marriage to Rivera are so intertwined. This is the structure I'm proposing:

1. Life

1.1 Childhood

1.2 Bus accident, beginnings as a painter, and marriage to Rivera (the bus accident was a watershed moment in Kahlo's life that led to her pursuing a career as a painter; during these early years of her career, she also married Rivera)

1.3. Years in the U.S (time that she spent mostly abroad, and developed a strong personal style as an artist)

1.4. Return to Mexico and international recognition

1.5. Move to La Casa Azul, continued success as an artist, and other ventures

1.6. Declining health and recognition in Mexico

1.7. Last year and death

2. Style and themes

3. Posthumous legacy

Thoughts? TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 17:14, 30 July 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

You should consider treating the artistic style, or at least its mature and most characteristic phases, by itself rather than mixed up with the somewhat complicated biography. I don't know enough to say what's best, and won't be doing significant edits myself, but an artist biography that just goes straight through the biograph chronologically is rarely the best idea. People will surely expect a section dedicated to the self-portraits at least? Johnbod (talk) 01:19, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely, hence there's a section about her art after the biographical section, "2. Style and themes" (the title isn't final).TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 07:06, 31 July 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

As for it not being a good idea for an artist article to just start with a long biography — the problem here is that I'm not sure what an alternative would be. Kahlo's art isn't very easy to divide into periods, with perhaps the exception of the last couple of years when she mostly painted still lives. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 20:01, 31 August 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

Linking nationality

It's done correctly all the time in the visual arts...Modernist (talk) 23:46, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

See WP:Manual of Style/Linking#What generally should not be linked, which says that we should avoid excessive linking. It further states that major geographic locations as well as occupations tend not to be linked. There is no good reason to ignore that advice here. Being in a certain profession doesn't make pages exempt except perhaps if it was a really rarely used term. "Painter" certainly isn't a rare term. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:21, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

I can see not linking Mexico although the link to Mexican art should stand IMO...Modernist (talk) 02:09, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Galley of works?

It's strange to me that in an article about a painter, many of whose works are in commons, and who is known for her self-portraits, there are almost none of her paintings on the page... Maybe a small gallery could be added to the section on her work? Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 13:42, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure her works are not yet public domain. At Commons there are no paintings by her, only some items made 'after' Kahlo that are public domain. Coldcreation (talk) 13:49, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Images?

I'm under the impression that the majority of Kahlo's paintings are still under copyright, however I think it would be weird to have an article about an artist without featuring images of key works. Has anyone got any ideas on how to solve this issue? TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 14:20, 3 January 2017 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Frida Kahlo. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110717182928/http://www.usps.com/news/2001/philatelic/sr01_048.htm to http://www.usps.com/news/2001/philatelic/sr01_048.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100923004604/http://www.banxico.org.mx/billetes-y-monedas/informacion-general/billetes-y-monedas-de-fabricacion-actual/billete-de-500-pesos/material-educativo/%7B601FEB0F-63F6-A3AF-C803-A064AC6BEE74%7D.pdf to http://www.banxico.org.mx/billetes-y-monedas/informacion-general/billetes-y-monedas-de-fabricacion-actual/billete-de-500-pesos/material-educativo/%7B601FEB0F-63F6-A3AF-C803-A064AC6BEE74%7D.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130502002124/http://www.fennicagehrman.fi/fileadmin/tiedostot/highlights/Highlights_4-2012_koko_lehti.pdf to http://www.fennicagehrman.fi/fileadmin/tiedostot/highlights/Highlights_4-2012_koko_lehti.pdf

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After 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 these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 14:38, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Sara Zenil

Regarding section 1.1: [Kahlo's] parents took her out of the school when she embarked on an affair with one of her teachers, Sara Zenil.

To my eye this is a jarring sentence that needs to be improved and maybe expanded, but not sure how. Clearly, if she was 13, she shouldn't be described as 'embarking on an affair' with her teacher, and there is no further discussion in the article. Do we know if she was sexually abused? Is this considered a possibly formative event, important to her future relationships and art? Grenschlep (talk) 13:15, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I was the one to add it during the overhaul I made to the article, but agree with you completely, I don't know how I overlooked this! Unfortunately her biographers don't seem to consider it sexual abuse (which it definitely was), the sentence simply reflects the way this incident is treated by them. How should we change the sentence? TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 14:14, 26 June 2017 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

Might deserve more expansion, as a quick look around suggests that sexual abuse is regarded as important to her biography and a theme in her art. But, to address this for now, is this accurate regarding the Ankori biography being referenced? "After being expelled for disobedience, she briefly attended a vocational teachers school. Now 13 years old, she was soon removed from the school after her parents discovered she was being sexually abused by her gym teacher Sara Zenil, an event Kahlo later described as her first sexual experience."

BTW, kudos on the rewrite, and especially for pushing past the naysayers who tried to throw cold water on your project. Grenschlep (talk) 17:36, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Wow, that is a pretty bad mistake on my part! :D I was skimreading a lot with that book and making shorthand notes, so I probably just registered the last part of the sentence and didn't think. I've corrected it now, and removed the teacher's name as it is probably not important enough to include in a WP bio. And thank you for the kind words on the overhaul! I'd love to get more feedback & help on it, esp. regarding the prose :) TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 13:48, 30 June 2017 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Frida Kahlo. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140804210151/http://www.sfwomenartists.org/SFWAArchives2014.pdf to http://www.sfwomenartists.org/SFWAArchives2014.pdf

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After 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 these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 09:47, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Question for Wiki-People

Hey, I was just reading that Frida Kahlo received an education not only from an art tutor, but also a more "formal" education at a school...Should this be changed in the article as it says that she was self-taught? I'm not familiar with editing wiki articles. ;)

https://www.biography.com/people/frida-kahlo-9359496

24.166.2.105 (talk) 21:12, 24 October 2017 (UTC)CrazyHomeschoolKid

How many self portraits

This source says "Of her 143 paintings, 55 are self-portraits." Isn't that official, then? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:22, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Upload an image request

Hi. I've left this note in a couple of places, but was wondering if someone can grab an image of Kahlo's painting Memory, the Heart for placement on its page. I've never uploaded here, so am asking others for a handout. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:29, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Another push for GA

I've condensed the lead into 4 paragraphs of reasonable length, copyedited the rest of the article, and tried to break down the paintings section into style/influences à la Vincent van Gogh's page. Here's the criteria; I've crossed out the ones that should be easier that I think the article already fulfills:

1. Well written: the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct; and it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research: it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline; all in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines; it contains no original research; and it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage: it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

I'm not familiar enough with the sources to cross out 2, 4, or 6, but 1 is easily addressed by making a request to WP:GOCE. Please feel free to cross out anything that seems to be fulfilled! originalmess^{how u doin that busta rhyme?} 07:38, 5 July 2018 (UTC)