Talk:Claude Monet/Archive 1

2005
This article needs a lot of work. I deleted something about his best paintings being of his garden because they had a lot of colors in them. Quantity does not equal quality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.232.67.xxx (talk) 18:31, 26 September 2001 (UTC)


 * I gave the article a once-over. More info could be added from the references cited. --sparkit 07:14, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Cataracts

 * It is interesting to note that the paintings done while the cataracts affected his vision have a general reddish tone, which is characteristic of the vision of cataract victims

If he saw everything reddish, he would see his painting reddish, so his painting would seem normal to people without cataracts. If this is a real case, it should be rephrased.

The ultraviolet thing seems slightly plausible though. He'd say UV colors and try to approximate them with his paints, but to healthy eyes, the UV component of the pigment is lost and we only see reddish.

Anonymous comment about 1871
According to the Sotheby's text on the Monet in my family's collection, Monet was in Holland in 1871 and not England. In fact he left France in September 1870, with the painter Daubigny, and arrived in Zaandam, Holland. I have not edited the above because it is not my own knowledge but you may make of it what you will that the painting of which I speak was painted in Zaandam in 1877. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.112.141.17 (talk • contribs) 20 November 2006.

Merge Alice Hoschedé article
Does simply being the spouse of a notable person honestly make you notable?

I think the Alice Hoschedé article should be deleted or merged to the this article at a minimmum.

James084 20:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Unless she was notable in her own right or had such a big impact on his work that she merits her own article, I would vote for merge. -- Etacar11   20:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Alice Hoschedé redirected to Claude Monet. All material was already present in the Monet article. SilkTork 20:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Monet in Asia?
From what I understood he lived in Japan for a while, didnt he?

Antonio Monet (and Manet's) Lover Martin 4 Feb. 2005


 * He didn't live in Japan, but studied some Japanese art. --sparkit 07:14, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * and collected Japanese art too. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ariele (talk • contribs) 02:49, 16 November 2005 UTC.

70.242.157.149 07:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC) Should we include anything about Masashi Kishimoto? He was a fan of Monet.

Grainstacks
The proper term is 'grainstacks' not 'haystacks'. 216.91.240.14 17:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

GA notes
This article is way too short to currently be listed as a good article. The third criteria at What Is a Good Article asks for breadth of coverage, which this article sorely lacks. Combine that with some minor sourcing issues, and it has a ways to go. My suggestion is to expand this quite a bit and get a peer review in. Good luck. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Child prodigy?

 * Monet was born on November 14, 1840 on the fifth floor of 45 rue Laffitte, in the ninth arrondissement of Paris.[3] He was the second son of Claude-Adolphe and Louise-Justine Aubrée Monet, both of them second-generation Parisians. On May 20, 1841, he was baptized in local parish church, Notre-Dame-de-Lorette as Oscar-Claude. [3] During this same year, Monet developed a reputation for his skill in drawing caricatures. 

How could he have developed a reputation for drawing caricatures if he was 1 year old? Munchikinka 11:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism
I've reverted to the last version of the article (from April 11), prior to vandalism which had gone undetected, and which included deletion of headings and content. If in doing so I have deleted valuable content, please restore any such passages. JNW 02:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Vandalism does have a way of "building up", doesn't it :-( ?


 * Atlant 12:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The beginnings of the term "impressionism"
I believe the term "impressionism" was coined pejoratively by a french critic, rather than deriving from "impression, sunrise." I could be mistaken. I'll return soon with the research

It was coined by a French critic who was critizing "Impression Sunrise." Eenyminy 03:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Mother
I reverted an edit by a vandal, the text of which was "His mother died in 1857, when he was only 17." If this can be verified it should be restored. Hu 21:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

No it is right... his mother died when he was 16. See my revision. Source: Monet the Ultimate Impressionist (Sylvie Patin, Abrams Discoveries Series).

I don't know but I believe that the line in the biography that says "On 1 April 1885 Monet entered the Le Havre secondary school." may be wrong? It's the date I'm unsure about because 1885 would be much too late. I don't know the correct date so I can't change it myself.

My error (I think). The date should read: On 1 April 1851, per the Abrams reference above. Sorry about that.


 * No problem, I fixed it. Thanks for the info! --  Etacar11   02:36, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * true he won the sweepstakes?

I concur that he was the BEST ARTIST OF ALL TIME!! RIGHT ON!! Eenyminy 03:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

By the Way...
I think it's worth noting that Monet as a teenager drew charactictures of politicians and sold them. Also, he used his first wife Camille and one of his sons in some of his paintings. Eenyminy 03:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

His youthful caricatures and his paintings of Camille are mentioned in the article. JNW 03:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Typo
I can't edit the page (locked) but I noticed a typo. I believe it should be "water lilies", rather than "waterlilies". 152.4.100.253 00:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * A google search reveals both are in use. The National Gallery and Tate use Water-Lilies. Tyrenius 00:19, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Citation needed
From the article: ''Between 1883 and 1908, Monet traveled to the Mediterranean, where he painted landmarks, landscapes, and seascapes, such as Bordighera. He painted an important series of paintings in Venice, Italy, and in London he painted two important series — views of Parliament and views of Charing Cross Bridge. His wife Alice died in 1911 and his oldest son Jean, who had married Alice's daughter Blanche, Monet's particular favourite, died in 1914.[4] After his wife died, Blanche looked after and cared for him.'' It was during this time that Monet began to develop the first signs of cataracts.


 * What is the reference for the last sentence (bolded above)? - Dragonbite 16:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Reference now furnished. Thanks. JNW 02:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:Claude Monet 035.jpg
The colour in this image is terrible. It needs to be subdued. Tyrenius (talk) 22:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I do like this painting's inclusion because it represents the brief but bleak wintery period of Monet's work when he was in mourning for Camille. Perhaps someone can upload a better version or another work from the period 1879-1880. Modernist (talk) 06:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I've tried a different painting from the same time, a much better image, at least. JNW (talk) 07:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was uploading as you were substituting. I have no preference: I just saw the other one was not up to scratch. Tyrenius (talk) 08:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No harm done. The new image is a vast improvement. JNW (talk) 09:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Well done, thanks - Modernist (talk) 12:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Image size
Policy (often not followed, I know) is at Image_use_policy. Images should be thumb (no need to put "right" as that's the default). Then user's preference settings (if modified) can adjust the size to suit. If size if specified, the preference settings don't work - try it and see. Maybe some discussion is needed here. Tyrenius (talk) 03:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Record posthumous sale
This is his most expensive painting sold: Monet's "Le Pont du chemin de fer a Argenteuil," an 1873 painting of a railway bridge spanning the Seine near Paris was bought by an anonymous telephone bidder for a record $ 41.4 million at Christie's auction in New York on May 6, 2008. The previous record for his painting stood at $ 36.5 million.Afp.google.com,  Monet fetches record price at New York auction --Florentino floro (talk) 06:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Eidetic memory
He is cited as having eidetic memory.

Not necessarily. He studied the science of the eye and of sight, believing in the persistence of memory. When he was painting his series of the cathedral at Rouen (spelling?), he painted shadows as they appeared in his retina. This isn't necessarily eidetic memory. Interesting comment by Joachim Pissarro in the documentary film Monet's Palate attributed Impressionism by Monet not to his eyesite but how much wine he drank —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.140.213 (talk) 07:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Monet and Turner
In the biography is written that Monet met Joseph Mallord William Turner and John Constable in London. This looks quiet impossible to me, since Turner died in 1851, Constable died in 1837 and Monet went to London in 1870. Lebuin (talk) 16:52, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually the article says: While there, he studied the works of John Constable and Joseph Mallord William Turner, both of whose landscapes would serve to inspire Monet's innovations in the study of color. While in London Monet saw the paintings of both Turner and Constable...:)..Modernist (talk) 17:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

La maison du pêcheur à Varengeville
I took the liberty of changing the title given under the painting
 * Hut of the Douaniers with Varengeville (badly translated from German)

to the original title in French
 * La maison du pêcheur à Varengeville

with its translation in English
 * The Fisherman's house at Varengeville

The French word *douanier* meaning *customs officer* and the word *Hütte* in German meaning *cottage*, I cannot figure out how whoever did the translation from French to German to English arrived at *Hut of the Douaniers with Varengeville*.

Put title either in French or in English, but no bastard translation from German!

Cordialement,  Frania W. (talk) 13:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Japanese influence
We need more about the influence of Katsushika Hokusai and its relation to Monet's work and impressionism in general. Viriditas (talk) 11:53, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Oscar-Claude Monet
Monet's birth name is Oscar-Claude Monet, not Claude-Oscar. His parents called him Oscar, that's well-known and all his first works are signed up O. Monet. He changed for his second name probably because it sounds better for an artist and / or to remember his father, who had also Claude as second name. Nortmannus (talk) 22:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Good job, thanks for adding the reference...Modernist (talk) 02:38, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "Oscar Claude": no hyphen. Oscar was one of the traditional baptismal names in his paternal family, but his father was Claude Adolphe, and used Adolphe.  No one knows why Monet changed from Oscar to Claude. To a French ear, Claude sounds nicer than Oscar. Members of his entourage, such as his second wife, Alice (former Mme Hoschedé) called him & referred to him as "Monet": "Monet" a écrit à Renoir..., "Monet" va poser pour Renoir.., "Monet" a été très attristé de la mort de Cézanne...,  Letters addressed to him are to "Monet": Mon cher Monet..., and he would sign some of his letters to friends & family "Claude", "Monet", "ton vieux Monet"..., and to business acquaintances, "Claude Monet".
 * Inscription on his grave reads: CLAUDE MONET.
 * --Frania W. (talk) 13:47, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you modernist ! Frania, you are right, but don't forget that his parents, teachers, etc. called him Oscar and he signed up with this name O. Monet on his first works. About the hyphen, we can find it regularly in serious books, and I think I read it more times with it, than without it! Sylvie Patin who wrote the biography was the former director of The Orsay Museum and the book is a publication of the French Museums. His brother Léon-Pascal is called simply Léon. Yes, it does, Oscar sounds like the name of a Germanic politician, and Monet who was a kind of nationalist changed for Claude. Claude sounds better for an artist and it is also a female's name, like Camille (Pissaro). It is well-known that his second wife called him Monet and a part of his step-daughters too. Nortmannus (talk) 18:01, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Cultural depictions of Claude Monet
I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information. I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list. Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article. Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this as a model for the editors here. Regards,  Durova  15:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Pardon my pop-culture superficiality, but the classic Simpsons Manet/Monet joke (which I can't recall exactly) should be reproduced here. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 23:58, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Major format changes
The format is both chronological and informative, please add content and discuss proposed changes here, achieving consensus first...Modernist (talk) 01:29, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Possible vandalism
Someone changed "Monet" to "Bonnet" in addition the external links for Monet should go to Fondation Claude Monet not Givery.org which is a business —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gamernotnerd (talk • contribs) 20:22, 18 March 2008 (UTC) somebody included a picture of a nude man in the bottom of the page, check that out and remove it please.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.4.48.130 (talk) 06:22, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

An awkward sentence
The awkward sentence " After her husband (Ernest Hoschedé) became bankrupt, and left in 1878 for Belgium, and after the death of Camille Monet in September 1879, and while Monet continued to live in the house in Vétheuil; Alice Hoschedé helped Monet to raise his two sons, Jean and Michel, by taking them to Paris to live alongside her own six children." should be broken into smaller sentences. I suggest replacing it by the following:

Ernest Hoschedé became bankrupt and left for Belgium in 1878. Camille Monet died in September 1879. Monet continued to live in the the house in Vétheuil. Ernest's wife, Alice Hoschedé, took Monet's sons, Jean and Michael, to live in Paris alongside her own six children.

I see no reason for enumerating Alice's six children in the main body of the article. That can be done in a footnote.

Tashiro (talk) 16:58, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Paris sub-heading
"Monet was in Paris for several years and met other young painters who would become friends and fellow impressionists; among them was Édouard Manet." The text before this has already been noted in need for a citation. Is this reffering to his life in Paris before he joined the war in 1861? From all the other sources I've read through (i have no citation for this), he did not properly meet any of the Impressionst artists till he started at Gleyre's art school, especially Manet whom he did not meet till after Monets work enter the Salon and was mistaken for Manets. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yaire (talk • contribs) 18:11, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

image overdose
Although he's one of the most famous painters, the use of more than 40 images of his work in the article appears to be excessive. I believe these should be pruned to show no more than 5 per gallery (there are currently two), and perhaps 2 more as 'loose images'. Those images selected ought to be highly representative and highly notable pieces. I have therefore cut back on the number of images used. -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 08:54, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The visual arts project has been working on this article for years. The article stands as is. This is one of the most important painters in history and these pd images are important, historical, educational and will stand...Modernist (talk) 11:29, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You stance seems to be clearly Art for art's sake. I note that some artists have a 'works of..' page. I suggest that they are ejected. -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 05:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No, this is an encyclopedia and we are presenting important, relevant and valid visual information that cannot be conveyed any other way, the philosophy of art for arts sake has a particular relevance t

o Romanticism, and other avant-garde art movements but has no relevance to this discussion...Modernist (talk) 05:29, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "Cannot be conveyed any other way" is the key idea. Complaining that there are too many images here is analogous to complaining that Probability theory has too many equations, and that five is plenty. If any reduction in the number of images is needed—and I don't know why it would be; this requires an explanation—the cuts should not be made arbitrarily, and should be discussed first. Ewulp (talk) 06:00, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not an art expert, and I acknowledge that the removals were done in an arbitrary manner. The idea was that this would stimulate discussion as to which images were the most representative, so as to achieve a reduction in number of images. I am not anchored to 8 images, but it seemed to me to be a 'reasonable use of space'. Although I'm not an expert, I do not believe that the image galleries were representative of their respective categories of 'early works' or 'later works'. I would think that we ought to have a variety of subject matter and a number of sub-genres, where they exist, to represent his body of work. -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 06:21, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure there is a difference between Monet et al compared with those on this list; you may consider the artists on that list to be of lesser importance to warrant extensive galleries. If a work is important enough to warrant an article, it can and should have its own article; if they constitute a body of work that is notable, then an article on that body would be appropriate. Yes, the old cliché goes that "a picture paints a thousand words", but the double gallery of more than 40 images just seems to me to be an abuse of the gallery concept. I do not believe we should ever have a gallery of more than two rows – but that's just my opinion. You will note that I did not remove any of the images in the running text. You have not argued how having each one of those gallery images enhances the article, especially as there is a shortage of critical commentary of every one – this commentary would surely belong to a 'works of..' article. It seems that in our excitement to see an article grow in size over the years, we may have forgotten summary style and WP is not a directory. You may recall I severely cut back on many sections of those Leningradartist articles, including hacking back on the image galleries. I believe I may have had your [tacit] blessing when doing so. When there is a commons gallery readers can click on, such an extensive gallery just seems overkill. -- Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 06:10, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * My opinion is that, in the case of really seminal artists, a larger gallery is appropriate. In the case of a lesser artist it may not be (e.g., the mammoth gallery at William-Adolphe Bouguereau seems excessive for a painter whose works vary so little). The text of our article certainly meets the guidelines described at WP:SUMMARY, and the galleries don't complicate navigating the text and finding the information, so this should not be an issue—in fact, it could be argued that a reader seeking summary information about the works themselves will be better served by 20 images with captions than by 20 paragraphs of descriptive text. The images in commons are great for browsing but are organized in a way that obscures their chronology; in the article we can arrange the images to concisely illustrate Monet's stylistic development, subjects, habit of working in series, and so on, which I think adds significantly to the article. Ewulp (talk) 07:31, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm prepared to buy that... would you care to do the honours by culling the xs/lesser works on Bouguereau's gallery, then, please? -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 01:50, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Process initiated! Ewulp (talk) 02:43, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Wildenstein Institute
Just watched a TV programme on the battle to try and get a Monet authenticated by the Wildenstein Institute and came here to find out more but cannot see anything mention of the Wildenstein Institute which seems surprising considering the power they have especially in case like this one where the painting has been attributed to Monet by just about every expert and scientific evidence. jmb (talk) 19:14, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Presumably this episode of a BBC series http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0125bz7/Fake_or_Fortune_Monet/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexanderJBateman (talk • contribs) 09:09, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 81.68.152.132, 3 July 2011
As founder and board member of the foundation "Stichting Monet in Zaandam" I'd appreciate if our website www.monetinzaandam.nl could be added to the article on Wikipedia. Recently our foundation published a book in 4 languages (Dutch, English, French, German) about the 4 months Claude Monet stayed in Zaandam, listing the 25 paintings he made, and with a map of the locations, allowing the reader to visit all locations (walking or per bycicle) where Monet painted.

81.68.152.132 (talk) 21:06, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but the English version of your site appears to be selling books...Modernist (talk) 21:34, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 18 July 2012
Please add the following to the list of External Links Monet Gallery Monet’s biography and paintings

AuctoriCMS (talk) 19:00, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry it looks too commercial...Modernist (talk) 19:09, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Siblings
Monet is the oldest son of his parents.

Please change He was the second son of Claude Adolphe Monet and Louise Justine Aubrée Monet to  He was the Oldest son of Claude Adolphe Monet and Louise Justine Aubrée Monet. This is directly under Early Life heading.

--Bens545 (talk) 15:21, 1 December 2012 (UTC)


 * . I'm not seeing that in the article. Also, we can't source EB for Wikipedia. We need a reliable third-party source. gwickwire  talk edits 19:28, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

cataracts
From the later life section, it reads as though people with cataracts paint things redder? i know that's not the intent, but that entire section could use a little work/clarification. L.cash.m (talk) 22:02, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Image of 'Weeping Willow' 1918-1919
Would it be possible for this painting to be credited under the image with its current location which is the Columbus Museum of Art in Columbus, OH? Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ColumbusMuseum (talk • contribs) 15:46, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Paintings
Monet was one of the greatest painters of the 19th and 20th century. These paintings should be seen...Modernist (talk) 00:27, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of very large galleries
Yesterday I removed many of the pics from the galleries as being superfluous to a biography. User:Coldcreation reverted this with the comment that they had been deleted without explanation. In fact, there were two edit summaries, and two minor adjustments to formatting (unexplained) because a valuable image had been lost in the process.

Galleries are desirable in articles on artists. However, articles are biographies, not catalogues of the artist's work. Wikimedia Commons is the repostory of hundreds of images, mostly carefully arranged in categories and accessible at the hit of a button at the bottom of the artist's Wikipedia article.

The images that are placed into the article serve to show the chronology of an artist's work, there range of subjects and their style, which may change considerably over the decades of their life. It does not take 75 images in order to achieve this. Why not?
 * Because only one of these images is necessary to inform the reader that Monet, in his earlier years, frequently painted people in summer clothes in a garden.


 * I am not suggesting that every one of these selections should be included I am trying to make the point that the creation of galleries is about choice and the conveyance of information. Each of these selections could be included, but they each need a heading or some appropriate text to introduce them.
 * Please don't continue to insult me by telling me that I know nothing about Monet. That is a mistake. Amandajm (talk) 03:44, 13 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Curly Turkey, I agree with what you say about the need for articles on series. I believe that one already exists on the Haystacks/grainstacks by JNW Amandajm (talk) 03:46, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Amandajm, I think some of us have tried to point this out to you before, but the longer and more argumentative your comments, the less likely you are to convince people of your position. Try to be more concise, and try to let perceived insults roll off your back. Curly Turkey (gobble) 03:57, 13 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Monet's picture of his dead wife. This image looses most meaning when shoved into a long gallery. It is pale and relatively insignificant at thumb size. It needs to be one of those that is carefully placed into the text, because its significance is biogrphical in two ways: it's an important life event and it reveals the process of the artist's mind, in context. Amandajm (talk) 03:53, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * We have articles on these series: Charing Cross Bridge (1889–1904), Haystacks (1890–91), Poplar (1891), Houses of Parliament (1900–05), Water Lilies - the article on the Haystacks was initially brought in by Tony the Tiger by the way...Modernist (talk) 03:59, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The Haystacks one is a Good Article even. Certainly a lot of the other gallery images could be moved out—there are a ton of water lily ones, and poplars ... the world is certainly not going to be lacking Monet if the gallery is thinned out in favour of having the images in the individual articles.  Instead we'll have a more focused & navigable article. Curly Turkey (gobble) 05:16, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

There is a huge difference between mass-deletions and rearranging images. While the latter seems meaningful, the former shows a complete lack of regard for the power of image over text. Paintings need to be seen, displayed, exhibited in Wikipedia articles, not just stored, classified or catalogued in a repository. Coldcreation (talk) 06:03, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Then there needs to be more thought put into their placement. Seriously, the galleries here are overkill and a half.  You are aware of the Commons galleries, aren't you?  That's where it's appropriate to have massive galleries of images like this.  Overwhelming the reader with reams of tiny out-of-context images is not meaningful.  As you would with any Monet canvas, step back from the article and gain a little perspective. Curly Turkey (gobble) 06:54, 13 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Exactly; the images could be rearranged (rather the removed). That would be meaningful. Yes, I'm aware of Commons!. You write "Overwhelming the reader with reams of tiny out-of-context images". Nonsense. Overwhelming is relative. It's not the size that counts. "Out of context" is funny. The article is about Claude Monet. Coldcreation (talk) 07:13, 13 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Yep, it's about Claude Monet. That is the context. Almost the only context. What the gallery currently says is "Monet did this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this" and that is almost all it says.
 * Reducing the number of images so that the viewer perceives progression and contrast is a far more effective way of including images.
 * The gallery on Commons is more meaningfully arranged than this one. If you want seventy five images, then think about how to use them effectively. Amandajm (talk) 07:35, 13 December 2013 (UTC)


 * "The context is Monet". Jesus Christ.  Seriously, you'd think an art article would have some sense of balance and composition.  You will not find that balance with seventy-five images.  Have you been following the discussion?  Many of these works and series already have their own articles—what rational argument can you have to plaster this page with a mass of water lilies when Water Lilies already has its own page?
 * "Yes, I'm aware of Commons!"—nobody asked you if you were aware of Commons. Read what I wrote, and try to understand it before replying, unless it's your intention to miscommunicate—which is the strong impression you're giving. Curly Turkey (gobble) 08:17, 13 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Curly Turkey (gobble), you have made me feel as if I am really quite polite and tactful. Thank you. Amandajm (talk) 09:35, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I am polite and tactful, when an editor's response is not obtuse horeshit from nose to tail. If whatsisname wants to show he's digested and considered the arguments put forth then I'll have evidence that tact will have any effect. Curly Turkey (gobble) 10:30, 13 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Always be respectful – Rudeness is never appropriate or acceptable. Remember that to earn respect you must first show respect for others. Your impudence or effrontery surpasses the boundaries of tolerable behavior. Coldcreation (talk) 13:28, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * And thus gets you off the hook of having to give any thought to reasoned respones of your fellow editors? How convenient! Curly Turkey (gobble) 20:04, 13 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I was never on the hook. I reverted mass-deletions that were insufficiently justified. I have responded here as to why. I've nothing to add for now. Coldcreation (talk) 20:29, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * "I was never on the hook": That's cute—a catch-all response that means you will never have to pay the least respect to the arguments of those with whom you disagree. "I've nothing to add for now": you never had anything to add—your comments have been nothing but obtuse.  You've had the choice to consider the arguments of others and respond to what they say; instead you've belittled these comments ("Nonsense" & "that's funny" is polite, is it?) while totally disregarding what they say, and then cry "disrespect" when others object to your disruption. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:29, 13 December 2013 (UTC)


 * More nonsense. Coldcreation (talk) 23:00, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

On with the show....
This reads as if it has been lifted from somewhere else.


 * Monet believed that his art was forward-looking and based on a scientific study of nature. Or at least this is what he began by believing and never renounced. The degree of sublimation involved in such a belief is poignantly demonstrated by the story of the painting he made of Camille on her death bed. She died in 1879, aged thirty-two. Many years later, Monet confessed to his friend Clementceau that his need to analyse colours was both the joy and torment of his life. He explained, I one day found myself looking at my beloved wife's dead face and just systematically noting the colours according to an automatic reflex! Without doubt the confession was sincere, yet the evidence of the painting is quite otherwise: A blizzard of white, grey, purplish paint blows across the pillows of the bed, a terrible blizzard of loss which will forever efface her features. In fact there can be very few death-bed paintings which have been so intensely felt or subjectively expressive. And yet to this—the consequence of his own painting—Monet was apparently blind.


 * I think that it has to go. At the point that it occurs, it is the first real analysis of Monet's style. It is both not very clear, and includes blatant POV like "Or at least this is what he began by believing and never renounced".
 * How do we know, in the context of the article, what he believed?

':And yet to this—the consequence of his own painting—Monet was apparently blind. Another really POV statement.
 * The reference is to John Berger. The stuff can be included only if it a a direct quote that cites it as John Berger's opinion. We cannot state as fact that Monet was blind to the effect of the portrait of his dead wife.

Amandajm (talk) 09:35, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I just discovered this article. It could have a long row of pictures that are date-matched to the text.

Amandajm (talk) 13:02, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * That would be an excellent place to put these images. As per WP:Galleries: " Images in a gallery should be carefully selected, avoiding similar or repetitive images, unless a point of contrast or comparison is being made. Just as we seek to ensure that the prose of an article is clear, precise and engaging, galleries should be similarly well-crafted.", "A gallery is not a tool to shoehorn images into an article,", "One rule of thumb to consider: if, due to its content, such a gallery would only lend itself to a title along the lines of "Gallery" or "Images of [insert article title]", as opposed to a more descriptive title, the gallery should either be revamped or moved to the Commons.", etc.  As it stands, the galleries are only disruptive and lack sufficient article context to make them meaningful. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:35, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Nonsense! The gallery sections are exceedingly meaningful. Coldcreation (talk) 23:09, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Coldcreation (talk), are you referring to the galleries as meaningful, before or after the adjustments, groupings and deletions that were intended to make the galleries meaningful?
 * Curly Turkey (gobble), My intention, last night (Sydney time) was to add meaningful captions. But I was too tired. Today I find it all reverted.


 * Modernist, you seem to have overlooked the fact that I had done a great deal of work on the text, and that there is more to be done.
 * As it stands, after your reversion:
 * Parts of the biography are out of order, without being group thematically or in some other systematic way.
 * There is a heading Franco-Prussian War, Impressionism, and Argenteuil.   This is frankly ludicrous.  The name of the major art movement of which Monet was a founding member is jammed between the names of two locations at which he lived.
 * The fact of Camille Monet's death in 1879 is repeated in three sections without regard for the fact that it has already been mentioned.
 * There is a highly POV section which appears to be a quote. It is so POV that it cannot possibly be used without a clear statement that it is somebody's "opinion", and even then, it is out of context.


 * In other words, the written content was a ghastly mess, it was worked through and corrected, and now you have returned it to the ghastly mess stage, in order to preserve the extra pictures.
 * I realise that you were the person who added a lot more images to the galleries and that it's not nice to have someone delete them. But the fact is that adding lots of pictures without supporting txt is not encouraged.
 * Can you possibly look at the galleries in their rearranged state, and also look at the way in which the text images relate, and consider that it might possibly be an improvement? Amandajm (talk) 01:20, 14 December 2013 (UTC)


 * NOTE: The reduction of images was from 75 to 42. This does not leave the article short of images. Amandajm (talk) 01:26, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Frankly your additions were a mess. I prefer the current article - you are beyond wrong...Modernist (talk) 01:56, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You added undefined images; out of sync; with laughable text like this - In 1876 Camille Monet became ill in 1876 with tuberculosis. Their second son, Michel, on 17 March 1878. are you kidding? - with basically no new information...Modernist (talk) 02:00, 14 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, I am sure that after rearranging so much text, some editorial work was needed. Are you competent to insert a missing word, or does a missing word, require a revert?
 * Here's a question for you - was her name really Camille Monet?..Modernist (talk) 02:03, 14 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Response. You tell me. I didn't make any alteration to that. I merely transferred the information from here: "On 5 September 1879, Camille Monet died of tuberculosis at the age of thirty-two; Monet painted her on her death bed.[15][16]" This is how it stands in your reversion.  Do you have it correct? Amandajm (talk) 02:57, 14 December 2013 (UTC)


 * All of your image captions were in violation of WP:VAMOS...Modernist (talk) 02:22, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Response: Please tell me how they are in violation of WP:VAMOS Amandajm (talk) 03:01, 14 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Worst of all is your attitude. You are basically making an absurd mess. You do not know what you are doing - but you sure are pushy...Modernist (talk) 02:29, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Why not answer the question? Curly Turkey (gobble) 12:14, 14 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I am altering the text as little as possible, just working with what is there.
 * Read my comments about the problems with the text.
 * Don't expect an overhaul of an article to happen in one hit. It takes time
 * re captions: when galleries are used, the captions need to be meaningful. Additional information may need sourcing and referencing. That takes time.


 * If you find something that is clearly in error, please correct it, rather than simply reverting. I am sure you have the skill.
 * Why don't you work with this process, instead of fighting every single aspect of it? Make some valuable contribution, instead of simply reverting. The removal of those images cannot really be so distressing, when you look at the improved arrangement of the galleries.
 * I have to go and search for info.
 * Amandajm (talk) 02:52, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

The burden of posting correct sourced information is on the user making the addition. If there are mistakes, inaccurate, or unsourced information added (or removed), don't be surprised if other users knowledgeable enough to notice such errors or omissions revert the edit back to a prior version. Sometimes a revert is the best response to a bad edit. Coldcreation (talk) 11:22, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * "The burden of posting correct sourced information&nbsp...": You really aren't even trying to follow the discussion, are you?
 * What Modernist reverted was Amandajm's rearrangements and captioning of the images, not her additions or deletions from the text.
 * As Amandajm has already stated, she didn't add anything, and only deleted duplicated information—Modernist (as I'm sure he'll admit himself) made a mistake with accusing her over the Camille thing.
 * It was a bit of a trick question re this article - Camille Doncieux - she often went by this name...Modernist (talk) 12:32, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Personally, I think this is a huge step in the right direction from this mess, especially the focused context it gives to (e.g.) the series. Curly Turkey (gobble) 12:13, 14 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm inclined to agree; Amandajm's edit was flawed by a few typos and some missing or misaligned captions, but presents the visuals in a way that is likely to be more enlightening to our readers. The previous edit has serious problems, which apparently include several sentences of plagiarism that are given proper in-text attribution and quotation marks in her version. Ewulp (talk) 12:46, 14 December 2013 (UTC)


 * There is obviously some question over the cause of Camille's death. The article stated (and still states) that she was ill with TB. It seems that she was ill for some years and required care.  However,  suggests other causes including cancer.  I have a large biography of Monet which unfortunately I can't get hold of until tomorrow.  What is needed is a reliable source from which to quote the cause of her death. If anybody else has one, could they please make the appropriate changes to the section?  Amandajm (talk) 13:10, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * All of my books are in storage and I won't have access to them for a while. The death of Camille permanently changed Monet's life. He painted bleak winter landscapes after she died and seemed to fall into a period of solitary depression. After which he seemed utterly determined to never experience poverty or anything like it again. His later work miraculously produced his enormous success...Modernist (talk) 13:18, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * One source confirms uterine cancer; she may have had TB too but we can delete that if no source is found. Ewulp (talk) 13:34, 14 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I thought we were moving in a good direction. Now it looks like we're back to a gallery of sixteen images to demonstrate the concept of "series". Curly Turkey (gobble) 07:05, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * This is an article about Claude Monet and his paintings - not the concept of series. The paintings need to be seen...Modernist (talk) 11:58, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Images are crucial
Over the past day or so several images have been removed from this article, and several have been added to the article. Some images recently added (by Modernist and Coldcreation) had been previously removed without regard for their importance in the history of art, others are new to this article. Images are crucial for the understanding of works of art, and for the complex œuvre of Claude Monet (with its differing series) many images are necessary. Coldcreation (talk) 08:02, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * For the complex œuvre of Monet many images are indeed needed, as are many sub-articles, of which there are already twenty-four on his works and series alone (plus family, etc). The biographical article should provide a birdseye view of that œuvre to help orient the reader, who can then find more detail in the subarticles if they then choose to explore further.  That means key works, and lots of them, judicially chosen.  Since I wrote the above, the number of water lily paintings alone has mushroomed to thirteen, when Water Lilies already has its own article, linked to multiple times in the Monet article.  Monet himself would be horrified at this total disregard for balance. Curly Turkey (gobble) 08:35, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Your claim that "Monet himself would be horrified at this total disregard for balance" is nonsense! Coldcreation (talk) 10:35, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you think anyone but yourself finds your "nonsense" horseshit even in the least bit clever? Just remember, this is all indelibly on the public record if you ever go whimpering to anyone about WP:CIVIL. Curly Turkey (gobble) 10:46, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * More nonsense. Coldcreation (talk) 11:30, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Would you like to explain to the audience why it's so important to you to persistently bait another editor? Curly Turkey (gobble) 12:46, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Edits by Modernist and Coldcreation
Modernist and Coldcreation: as per the WP:RFC instructions, I left a neutral message on the talk pages of WikiProjects this article belongs to. It would be impossible for you to disagree with the neutrality of the wording. It points to the discussion here. Why are you trying to scare contributors off by spamming your own messages to those talk pages, when the appropriate place to discuss it is here? Curly Turkey (gobble) 20:38, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * @Curly Turkey - while you are in violation of WP:Canvassing - I simply made my comments as I have every right to do...Modernist (talk) 22:07, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * By what stretch of the imagination does following the RfC guidelines have anything to do with CANVASSing? Are you suggesting RfCs are themselves CANVASSing?  Please strike out this slander. Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:32, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You pitched your opinion to at least 4 separate and somewhat unrelated projects - who do you think you're kidding?..Modernist (talk) 00:39, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Scroll up, Modernist. This article is listed as a part of every project I posted at—as recommended at Requests for comment.  CANVASSing is cherrypicking specifically those editors or projects you know will take your side, and not informing other interested parties that you know won't take your side.  I've clearly done no such thing.  Ready to strike your slander? Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:53, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Let's be clear - you are in violation of WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, WP:CANVASSING among other violations...Modernist (talk) 01:15, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Bottom line - you have made 1 edit to this article period - and that was about an hour ago - your so-called request for comment - is pure and simply canvassing - ...Modernist (talk) 01:23, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Bottom line, you have not read WP:CANVASSING and have provided zero evidence that I have stepped anywhere even close to CANVASSing. I have not personally attacked you, and you still haven't provided any evidence of that, even when asked pointblank to do so. Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:27, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Bottom line - look at the heading of this thread...Modernist (talk) 01:32, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Answered below. Still not a shred of evidence of either CANVASSing or personal attacks, and of course none is forthcoming. Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:41, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The point remains the same, the Claude Monet article is very elegant the way it is at the present time. The use of gallery sections are appropriate in this Wikipedia article (in view of the importance of this artist in an art historical context), since the collection of images illustrates aspects of the subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images. The images in the gallery sections collectively have encyclopedic value and add to the reader's understanding of the subject. Images in a gallery are suitably captioned, for the most part, and explain their relevance both to the article subject and to the theme of the gallery sections. In addition, the gallery sections are, for the most part, appropriately titled: All of the above per Image use policy. Though to some extent, more work needs to be done on these last points (captions and gallery titles). By the way Curly Turkey, your spam claim is ridiculous. Coldcreation (talk) 22:24, 15 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Coldcreation, your statement that "the Claude Monet article is very elegant the way it is at the present time" is nonsense.
 * Anybody who looks at this and compares it to this  will not agree with you.
 * I am intending on expanding the text of the article. I suggest that you stand aside for a bit, allow it to happen and then take a look.
 * You need to take on the fact that a number of Wikipedians who are major contributors to art articles have criticised the layout and the overload of galleries.
 * I was also extremely critical of the text, to the extent that I worked through it and reorganised it. Basically, what you were fighting so hard to protect was something that really need improving. Now that the text has ben improved, you are fighting to preserve a very poor visual layout.
 * Amandajm (talk) 23:24, 15 December 2013 (UTC)


 * My intervention in this article has nothing to do with the text. It was your initial mass-deletion of images that I disagreed with and reverted. Just as I disagreed with your mass-deletion of images from the Pablo Picasso article (which I also reverted). I look at images. Rewrite the text if you like, but rest assured, I will be checking to see your progress. The fact is that a number of Wikipedians who are major contributors to art articles have voiced their opinions to keep the galleries and their respective images. Coldcreation (talk) 23:33, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * @Amandajam that's your opinion - read this WP:OWN before you decide what is good and what is not good none of us own these articles - you're just one more editor here - as I am - we've been working on this article for years - you have added a few edits in the last week or so; lots of work has been put in here - cool the rhetoric...Modernist (talk) 23:36, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Frankly it would be helpful if we all began to work together - the article is beginning to improve even with less than 75 images...Modernist (talk) 23:51, 15 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Coldcreation (talk), you say you look at images. Maybe you do. But there are ways of seeing. Context is important.  The manner in which images are placed together is important. The image need to be arranged to display them at their best. In the context of an article, more is not always better.
 * Modernist (talk), it is clear to everyone here who is attempting to "own" the article. You two are the people who added the overwhelming number of images to those already there, and are now fighting to keep them. Amandajm (talk) 00:03, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Who is everyone here? You and Curly Turkey? I have made something like 350 edits to this article...Modernist (talk) 00:08, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * And yes it is beginning to improve, but with very little thanks to either of you, with your reversions and obstructive behaviour. Amandajm (talk) 00:03, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The way you left the article was awful; it has improved now...Modernist (talk) 00:10, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * By the way - here's the edit count here so far - try searching Claude Monet - ...Modernist (talk) 00:43, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you have any idea what it looks like when you accuse Amandajm of OWNership, and then boast about your edit count, and try to intimidate her with "we've been working on this article for years - you have added a few edits in the last week or so"? You do realize that that is the very definition of OWNership, don't you? Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:58, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * And you - with your endless personal attacks - I am getting a little sick and tired of your violations of WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL and most of all - your violation of WP:UCS...Modernist (talk) 01:02, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * As I said above none of us own articles here...Modernist (talk) 01:06, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Show me one diff where I have personally attacked you. Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:13, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Who are you kidding - look at the heading of this thread...Modernist (talk) 01:30, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You two spammed—you went from project talk page to project talk page to influence the discussion before the editors even got here. That is of serious concern, which is why this subsection was started.  Again, show me even a single diff where I have attacked you. Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:39, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:SPAM? - you're totally wrong...Modernist (talk) 02:02, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Then choose a better word for your undeniably inappropriate actions and I will change the header myself. Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:43, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * That's all you've done here so far Curly Turkey. You used the word horseshit in personal attacks at least twice above. And on top of all that you've contributed absolutely nothing to the Claude Monet article. Coldcreation (talk) 01:29, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I commented on the nature of your deliberately and persistently disruptive comments. Was your repeated "nonsense" meant to be constructive—or, indeed anything but a deliberate personal attack?  "That's all you've done here" is both a lie and a personal attack, and "you've contributed absolutely nothing to the Claude Monet article" is strictly WP:OWN.  Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:39, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Bottom line: Diffs, or you're lying. Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:42, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Bottom line - you have contributed nothing but blah blah blah...Modernist (talk) 02:05, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You are a liar, and your response is, in fact, a flat-out personal attack, as is your accusation of CANVASSing. Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:43, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * That nonsense is pathetic; you've made 1 edit to this article; what a joke; and all you do is keep calling people names - gotta wonder...Modernist (talk) 03:07, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * "calling people names": another lie, personal attack, and bald display of OWNership. Still no diffs. You know, there's no shame in apologizing. I promise not to rub it in. Curly Turkey (gobble) 03:36, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Whatta joke...Modernist (talk) 04:13, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You're a liar, and your lies are on display for the world to see. That doesn't bother you in the least? Curly Turkey (gobble) 04:18, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Drop the stick WP:STICK...Modernist (talk) 11:04, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Stop lying, attacking, and linking ironically. Curly Turkey (gobble) 11:18, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You are absurdly over the top and look like an hysterical fool...Modernist (talk) 11:20, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yet another personal attack. Stop trying to cover things up by changing the header. This is edit warring, and it is a blockable offence. You will be reported the next time you change it. Curly Turkey (gobble) 11:29, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

More on the subject of inappropriate edits
You cannot create an encyclopedia by simply lifting factual statements from another source, even if you reference the source. What I have removed here is not an appropriate inclusion:


 * As part of his extensive gardening plans at Giverny, Monet had a pond dug and planted with lilies in 1893. He painted the subject in 1899, and thereafter it dominated his art. He worked continuously for more than twenty years on a large-scale decorative series, attempting to capture every observation, impression, and reflection of the flowers and water. By the mid-1910s, Monet had achieved a completely new, fluid, and somewhat audacious style of painting in which the water-lily pond became the point of departure for an almost abstract art. (The Metropolitan Museum of Art)[45]

You have no reason or justification for using the exact words of the source in order to say that Monet had ponds dug and planted a garden of waterlilies. And you do not need a direct quote to say that he painted them. The only part of this that should be quoted directly is the description of what he achieved, because this is opinion, (not a simply statement of fact which you should put into your own encyclopedic language), a "somewhat audacious style of painting in which the water-lily pond became the point of departure for an almost abstract art."

Actually "somewhat audacious" sounds somewhat inadequate. Never mind! Just plain "audacious" would be enough. Amandajm (talk) 11:43, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * You are mistaken. The only thing inappropriate is your deleting edits made by other editors without discussing it in Talk first. There is nothing inappropriate with the usage of Block quotation (also known as a long quotation or extract) that is set off from the main text as a paragraph, or block of text, and distinguished visually using indentation. Quotations are a fundamental attribute of Wikipedia. Quotations Coldcreation (talk) 13:09, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * It is inappropriate to lift text that is simply factual from another source. None of the following requires that you should quote it directly:
 * As part of his extensive gardening plans at Giverny, Monet had a pond dug and planted with lilies in 1893. He painted the subject in 1899, and thereafter it dominated his art. He worked continuously for more than twenty years on a large-scale decorative series,...
 * All this information can be conveyed in your own words.
 * If you are going to justify lifting from another writer, just because you have se it aside as a quote, where do you draw the line?
 * Why not simply copy and paste swathes of books and essays?


 * If you are going to quote, then what you quote needs to be in some way notable and quotable. It needs to be an opinion, a criticism, a theory or some such, not just a series of simply statements that:


 * 1) Monet had extensive gardening plans at Giverny
 * 2) Monet had a pond dug
 * 3) Monet planted lilies
 * 4) Monet painted the lilies
 * 5) Monet worked on painting lilies for twenty years
 * What does this say, that you cannot state in your own words?
 * Keep quotations for when quotations are necessary and useful.
 * Coldcreation, I have to ask, is this how you usually put articles together?
 * The factual material is now incorporated into the article.
 * Amandajm (talk) 13:41, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Coldcreation, what on earth are you doing now? You have taken it out of its quotation marks, barely rephrased it, and stuck it back, into the wrong section:
 * You cannot use this information in this form. It is plagiarism.
 * The beginning needs incorporating into the article (as I had done), and the more descriptive part needs direct quotation.
 * But do not quote the simple statements that he planted a garden and grew waterlilies, because it isn't quotatble.
 * cite the source for the "attempt to capture every possible observation, impression, and reflection of trees, flowers and sky off the surface of the pond. Monet had achieved a completely new, fluid, and audacious style of painting by the mid-1910s in which the water lily pond became the starting point for an essentially abstract form of art."
 * That is the quotable part. The rest isn't quotable.
 * You need to state who said it. Find out, if you can, who actual describes this a s "new, fluid....essentially abstract".
 * This material is a valuable quote, but you have to use it appropriately. Don't bundle it together with quoting "He had ponds dug...". That doesn't require quotation.


 * Plagiarism: "In 1883 at Giverny Monet had a pond dug and filled with water lilies as part of a vast landscaping project. He painted the subject on many occasions throughout 1899. Thereafter this scenery, with its alternating light and mirror-like reflections, became an integral part of his work. Continuously for the next twenty years he worked on a large-scale decorative series, in an attempt to capture every possible observation, impression, and reflection of trees, flowers and sky off the surface of the pond. Monet had achieved a completely new, fluid, and audacious style of painting by the mid-1910s in which the water lily pond became the starting point for an essentially abstract form of art.[48]"


 * Amandajm (talk) 14:01, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Ridiculous. Reasonable and appropriate credit to and/or acknowledgment of the author or source was given, i.e., due credit was given: The Metropolitan Museum of Art. Stop wasting time. Coldcreation (talk) 14:14, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Be aware that plagiarism is a serious issue on WP. HEre is the quote from the MOMA: "As part of his extensive gardening plans at Giverny, Monet had a pond dug and planted with lilies in 1893. From 1899 on, he repeatedly turned to the subject, attempting to capture every observation, impression, and reflection of the flowers and water. By the time he began this work in the late teens, Monet had achieved a completely new, fluid, and somewhat audacious style of painting in which the water-lily pond became the point of departure for an almost abstract art." . Your restatement (as quoted by Amandajm) is a obvious plagarism of the MOMA statement. You can avoid it by rewriting the factual claims, for example: Monet has a lily pond dug at Giverny in 1883, which became a common part of many of his paintings from 1899 and over the next twenty years. These paintings captured the reflection of the landscape on the pond, and stated by MOMA to have "achieved a completely new, fluid, and somewhat audacious style of painting in which the water-lily pond became the point of departure for an almost abstract art". --M ASEM  (t) 21:12, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Re most recent change: Coldcreation (talk), I have been patient up to this point in time, but I am now truly pissed off with  your ignorance over plagiarism, your inability to take in the information that you have been given about plagiarism, and your bloody-minded insistence on doing the wrong thing.
 * Monet had achieved, according to Gary Tinterow (Museum of Fine Arts, Houston), a completely new, fluid, and audacious style of painting by the mid-1910s in which the water lily pond became the starting point for an essentially abstract form of art.[28][29]
 * The section in bold is a direct quote, (repeat) DIRECT QUOTE.    You must treat it as a direct quote.  You have used Gary Tinterow's exact words and you have not put them in quote marks.
 * You have already been told how to employ a direct quote. By me, in the sentences above.
 * It is alright to say something like According to Gary Tinterow, the ponds took two years to build (or some such fact which Gary Tinterow has investigated.) This is statement, not quote. It doesn't need quote marks.
 * The moment that you use: "completely fluid", "somewhat audacious" and "almost abstract"   you are quoting directly.   Are you truly incapable of understanding the difference?
 * Amandajm (talk) 23:04, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

By the mid-1910s, Monet had achieved a completely new, fluid, and somewhat audacious style of painting in which the water-lily pond became the point of departure for an almost abstract art. (This is from The Metropolitan Museum website) This would need to be in quotes since it is the exact text from the website.

Monet had achieved, according to Gary Tinterow (Museum of Fine Arts, Houston), a completely new, fluid, and audacious style of painting by the mid-1910s in which the water lily pond became the starting point for an essentially abstract form of art. (This is in the Monet article, attributed to the author of the text with an inline citation and the original source linked: Gary Tinterow, Modern Europe, Metropolitan Museum of Art (New York, N.Y.), Jan 1, 1987). You claim of plagiarism is laughable. But if you would like to put some text in quote go ahead (just make sure it's his exact text).Coldcreation (talk) 23:29, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * We require direct quotes to be quoted with quote marks, or otherwise clearly offset from the text in something like a quote box. You can't just say that without the quotes, otherwise it makes it looks like it is text generated by a Wikipedia editor. That's the plagiarism problem. --M ASEM  (t) 23:33, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I had the Met text originally in block quotations. That was removed by Amandajm. I will find it now and post a link to it here. Coldcreation (talk) 23:38, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Here is where Amandajm removed the text from a blockquote. Note her Edit summary. Coldcreation (talk) 23:41, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, from the quoting side that is okay, but from a fair use side, that's far too much given that's most of the text on the page; even quoting with citation, that's a likely copyvio. The key point of the passage that is opinion and the point to strive to is the last line about being abstract art, and there's no way we can state that without citing it, so the quote to the MOMA site for that last sentence is right. But the rest of the paragraph can be paraphrased (and not closely paraphrased as you were doing before); he had a water lily pond built and over twenty years painted that pond with the landscape reflections - that's all "fact" and thus can be restarted tersely to avoid the copyvio. The quote on the last statement is needed to avoid the original research associated with the MOMA's opinion of this being new abstract act. --M ASEM (t) 00:51, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * M ASEM (t), Are you finding it necessary to state this all over again?


 * Comment: Coldcreation, is this the third or the fourth time you have had this explained to you?
 * I previously encouraged you, as M ASEM has just done, to extract that part of the statement which is opinion rather than simply facts, and to quote the opinion, appropriately as a quotation, and I suggested that you found out who actually wrote it. You did that, but you seemed to have missed the point that it needed to be quoted as a direct quotation i.e. inside quotation marks.


 * Let me explain one more time
 * Facts require rephrasing and acknowledgement of source. "Monet had ponds built and grew waterlilies in them."    These are simple facts that anybody could have said. Do not block quote them.  Do paraphrase them.  Do reference your source of information.
 * Opinions and descriptions should be quoted directly. Do use appropriate punctuation. Do give the name of the individual who expressed the opinion or made the flowery description (as well as the source) if possible. For the umpteenth time:
 * By the mid-1910s, Monet had achieved a completely new, fluid, and somewhat audacious style of painting in which the water-lily pond became the point of departure for an almost abstract art. requires direct quotation and full acknowledgement.
 * This doesn't seem conceptually hard to me. Amandajm (talk) 06:20, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Camille Monet in the green striped dress
Preferred placement 1.
 * In the text, next to the relevant biographical material, as per this arrangement
 * Reasons:
 * It is significant from a biographical point of view
 * It is discussed in the adjacent text
 * It is very dark and cannot be seen well at low resolution in the gallery
 * It is vertical. Its shape and darkness do not sit well alongside the paintings of brighter colour
 * It fits the space in the text well, can be viewed at upright size because it is strongly vertical.
 * It fits the left side of the text conveniently because it faces inwards when positioned there

Placement 2. Reasons: (please state them)
 * In the gallery, as per this arrangement

Impression Sunrise
Preferred placement 1.
 * In the text, to the right side, in the section about the Impressionists, and how they came to be so named, as per this
 * Reasons:
 * It is historically significant and therefore benefits from larger size and greater exposure in the context
 * There is room for it at that point
 * It is entirely relevant to the text

Placement 2
 * At the head of the gallery of images adjacent to the relevant text
 * Reasons:
 * It is bold enough to hold its own in a gallery

Placement 3.
 * As the first painted image, to the left, in the section about Monet's birth
 * Reasons: (please state them)

Monet's Dejeuner sur l'herbe
Do we need two images?
 * 1) Musee D'Orsay's section is a reasonably good repro, and shows a number of important characters.
 * 2) Pushkin's museum's study for the work is a very poor reproduction with misleading colouration. It is not the finished work, and the current caption is misleading.

Options
 * Delete one.
 * Reasons:
 * One is a very poor quality image
 * It doesn't sit well in the gallery
 * It is superfluous.

NOTE: In an article on Monet's "dejeuner sur l'herbe", both would have relevance.

Cataract paintings
How many images do we need that are of dark red/green/brown coloration? Similarly how many intensely green willow paintings do we need.

Options
 * Cut that gallery to five.
 * Reasons:
 * Five is enough to demonstrate Monet's style at that time


 * Keep eight paintings.
 * Reasons: (please state them)

Series
Does every series need to be represented in the context of Monet's biography, or will some representative examples of several series surfice?

Options
 * One in-text image of Rouen Cathedral- (it fits the vertical space well) plus 8 other paintings divide either as four examples of two series, or two examples of four series.
 * Reasons:
 * The series have their own articles. several paintings are enough to demonstrate the process that Monet was employing.


 * Show some examples of every series
 * Reasons: (please state them)

Large waterlilies
Does the article require six examples in order to demonstrate what Monet was doing? 

Options:
 * Cut to three
 * Reasons:
 * Three is enough to demonstrate the process
 * Three fits the space well


 * Cut to one panorama
 * Reasons:
 * Demonstrate the large scale of the late paintings
 * It would be an impressive finale to the article


 * Keep six
 * Reasons: (please state them)

Amandajm (talk) 01:31, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

That quotation
It still hasn't been put into quotation marks. Amandajm (talk) 09:47, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 20:25, 3 May 2016 (UTC)