Talk:Giorgio de Chirico

Greek nationality
De Chirico was simply born on Greek territory, but he had nothing of Greek. I removed this reference in sall the paintings articles. --Attilios 09:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * According to the book "De Chirico: The Metaphysical Period 1888-1919" by Paolo Baldacci, he was definitely part Greek and lied about it, inventing his own biography, as he was fanatically pro-Italian. Foday 15:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, if he defined himself as Italian, he must be considered an Italian citizen. It's like Robert De Niro who is reported as Italian-American because he considers himself in that way (dispite the fact he's only 1/4 Italian). Anyway Baldacci is one against many others: worldwide De Chirico is an Italian painter. That's all. Which should be his mysterious Greek ancestries?

Zabri - I edited it to italian painter, cant understand why Handel in Wiki is a German-born British musician (and Handel is born from german parents) while dechirico was depicted here in this article, as a Greek-Italian Painter. He considered himself as an Italian, was born from Italian parents and come back in Italy at age of 9.

De Chirico family and their ancestry
I found some Italian websites stating that De Chirico family was originally from Dubrovnik, in Dalmatia (a.k.a Ragusa in Italian, even though the city is in modern Croatia). The family moved to Constantinople in the first half of the 18th century) and De Chirico's father, Evaristo, seems to be born in this city, even though there is no clear eveidence of this last piece of information. Evaristo married Gemma Cervetto, who, according to these sources, was born in İzmir (Smirne in Italian) from an Italian bourgeois family (most likely of Genoese origin). The websites I am quoting are mainly http://www.dechiricoafirenze.it/allegati/cartella_stampa_dechirico_100224053522.pdf, http://www.dechiricoafirenze.it/Sezione.jsp?idSezione=46 and http://www.exibart.com/profilo/eventiV2.asp/idelemento/31086. Now what about these sources....?? I guess someone should add all this info on De Chirico's article here on wikipedia (these websites contains much more info about De Chirico family than the ones I reported..), maybe it would be proper to add a whole paragraph about "De Chirico family and their ancestry". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.54.168.158 (talk) 15:39, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Too many fair use images on this page
There are simply too many fair use images on this page. We need to trim it down to three or so paintings. We can link to articles for the other pieces. Does anyone have any suggestions about which images to keep ? — otherwise I'll use my own judgement. Megapixie 00:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The only picture that has to stay is The Disquieting Muses (1916), which is -I think- the most famous work of this artist. I agree: even now the quantity of pictures are excessive to illustrate the article. If you don't want problems with De chirico's heirs, some of them should be removed.--Joanenglish 21:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC).
 * I took the gallery out, which should resolve the issue, so I removed the flag as well. The best stuff was outside the gallery anyways. --JaGa (talk) 06:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Note that a number of these paintings (those first published before 1923) are not fair use but rather public domain in the United States. Dcoetzee 16:26, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

also known as Népo
by who? i've never seen it before and the only references google shows are this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.110.223 (talk) 21:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

New self-portrait
I've uploaded a new self-portrait of Giorgio de Chirico (right), c.1922, believed to be public domain in the United States. Feel free to use if useful. Dcoetzee 16:27, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

1.Surrealist and 2.Painter
1. Surrealist? De Chirico was never a pre-Surrealist neither a Surrealist painter. I can't see any basis for such a statement. As a founder of Metaphysical painting, he did influence surrealism, but being a predecessor of some current does NOT make you an early exponent of it!

«Although the Metaphysical School was short-lived, its ramifications were felt in subsequent art movements, such as Dada and Surrealism.» «The "early" de Chirico, still a painter of simple and magical dreamlike pictures, as exemplified by "Ariadne," became one of the acknowledged predecessors of the Surrealists»– Source of the quotes: http://www.metmuseum.org/Collections/search-the-collections/210006955

So I believe it's right to state that de Chirico inspired surrealists, but he should be listed as a «metaphysical artist».

2. Artist, not painter. De Chirico was also a sculptor and designer of theatrical costumes and stages. As well as Picasso is credited for works other than painting, I suggest we change "painter" with "artist" and add "sculpture, drawing, costume and stage design" to his art fields.

Note: English is not my mother tongue so I'm sorry in case I used clumsy expressions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.36.115.24 (talk) 12:25, 27 May 2012 (UTC)


 * These are good suggestions and I have made some changes. Ewulp (talk) 07:35, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I allowed myself into completing the art fields. Hope this will be approved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.36.100.206 (talk) 17:15, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Collaboration with Fuschini
The collaboration with Fuschini in the last stage of De Chirico's life is of fundamental importance, correlated with the last artistic activity of De Chirico, with his accepted at the Academie and with the start of his illness. De Chirico's wife Ilsa dedicated two exhibitions ten years after his death, one of which with just work of Fuschini and De Chirico. The Fondazione did not exists in its present form and De Chirico just started to obtain recognition in Italy.

--Jpvandijk (talk) 09:31, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * And just where is all of the WP:RS to back up these assertions?? Qworty (talk) 01:57, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Greek-born
I removed the "Greek-born" unsourced denomination from the lead per WP:OPENPARA, since De Chirico reached notability while in Italy. Moreover, being son of two italian parents, he was Italian citizen and ethnically Italian since his birth. "Greek-born" means born as Greek, not born in Greece. Alex2006 (talk) 06:27, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Scuola metafisica
As far as I know, there is no scuola metafisica, at least not as a recognized art form or period in art history. The Italian term, the only country where it took place, is pittura metafisica, and this is, again as far as I know, the current international designation. Metaphysical art could be a correct translation when more than one art forms are included, such as music, theater or poetry.--Hansung02 (talk) 20:17, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Nationality, Notability - "Greek-born Italian" or just "Italian"
I have reverted a nationality change in the lead that cited De Chirico: The Metaphysical Period 1888-1919 by Paolo Baldacci (no page # specified). The matter has been discussed here before. De Chirico is most commonly defined as Italian; see Britannica, MoMA, National Gallery of Art, and other reliable sources. ULAN confirms Italian as the preferred nationality for this artist; the link there explains that "'preferred' following a nationality indicates that this is the nationality most commonly associated with the artist." No second choice is given, as it typically is when the matter is complicated (e.g., Alfred Sisley, Paul Klee, George Grosz). Ewulp (talk) 05:35, 16 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Britannica also labels El Greco as a "Spanish painter" and I have no doubt that you already know that this connotation in artists does not always refer to their actual ethnicity/nationality. De Chirico was born to a Greek-speaking mother and a father of most likely Greek roots, born, raised, and educated in Greece. Don't you think that calling him, at least, a Greek-born Italian Artist would be more fair? Raikkonen (talk) 19:30, 16 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Per WP:ETHNICITY: "Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless it is relevant to the subject's notability. Similarly, previous nationalities or the place of birth should not be mentioned in the lead unless they are relevant to the subject's notability." Ewulp (talk) 01:14, 17 February 2019 (UTC)


 * You seem to imply that De Chirico's notability was completely unrelated to and unaffected by the fact that he was born and raised in Greece (likely agreeing with earlier editor claims that "he had nothing of Greek"). If I understand this correctly, he could have been born and raised in Siberia and it would have mattered the same to his notability. Can you please define "notability" in this context in order to examine whether your assertion stands? And please, don't link me to WP:N. I would like to know your own interpretation of "notability" in this context before tackling this topic. Raikkonen (talk) 09:00, 17 February 2019 (UTC)


 * When and how did De Chirico actually "become" Italian? I can't see this anywhere in the article. If the lead is going to describe him as "Italian", surely this should be explained, with sources, in the main body? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:16, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I moved the source regarding the nationality of the parents. Disregarding the fact that this article has been written to answer to other studies which follow another thesis, and that says that the origin of the family is unknown, the thesis of the author is that the family of the father was of Italian levantine origin. The Levantines at a certain point of their history spoke Greek, but they cannot be confused with the Greeks. About the Levantines please read "Levantiner: Lebenswelten und Identitäten einer ethnokonfessionellen Gruppe im osmanischen Reich im 'langen 19. Jahrhundert" by Oliver J. Schmitt. About the nationality in the lead, per WP:OPENPARA it should be mentioned only the nationality of the person when he/she became notable, and in case of the Chirico this is the Italian one. Alex2006 (talk) 13:34, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure you have answered my question. Are you saying that, simply because his father was Italian, he was born as an Italian? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:43, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your quick answer! No, the nationality of a person does not descend only from that of his parents, although this is for sure an important part. But he moved relatively soon to Italy (this means that there were for sure links with this country, although he lived also in France and Germany, but this was typical for young artists in this period), applied to serve as volunteer in the Italian army at the outbreak of WWI (this is another strong sign), and at the end settled in Italy. I would define the young de Chirico as a stateless who at the end finds his roots in Italy. Alex2006 (talk) 13:54, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The article currently doesn't even tell us when he first moved to Italy? But it does say that he soon moved again to Germany in 1906 (aged 18)? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:07, 17 February 2019 (UTC)


 * How can you claim that he moved soon to Italy when it has been attested that he studied in the Athens School of Fine Arts and arrived in Munich with a Greek nationality? How soon is soon? No offense but his sounds more like a personal opinion rather than a fact. From any angle you see it, Giorgio De Chirico was more Greek than Italian. Both of De Chirico's parents were native Greek speakers - born in Greek-speaking cities of the Ottoman Empire (not sure they ever had papers related to Italy). On his father's side he was half Sicilian-Greek and half Greek-born Spanish. On his mother's side he was half Greek from Cephalonia and half Greek-born Genoese. There are no records that his father was born Italian (in 1841??) let alone De Chirico himself being by default an Italian. That said, I'm not against having him labeled as an Italian since this is the most commonly used name, but I'm against hiding the fact that he was partially Greek, by blood and culture, and hugely influenced by ancient, Byzantine and modern Greece in his work. Raikkonen (talk) 14:11, 17 February 2019 (UTC)


 * What you are saying here Raikkonen looks to me wholly reasonable. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:15, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with you too. His origins are complex, and his art can be explained only knowing his origins. Also the article in the DBI underlines his cosmopolitan roots, and this perfectly fits with the alleged Italian levantine origins of his family. Levantines were an ethnic group with multiple roots, in Latin, Greek and ottoman culture. Alex2006 (talk) 14:23, 17 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm glad we all share a common ground of logic (that's rare!). My argument, from the start, was that De Chirico should be mentioned as a "Greek-born Italian painter" rather than just "an Italian painter". Origin issues aside, it is well known that Greece and Greek culture have had a massive impact on his work. Also, the character string '"greek-born", "de chirico"' yields 1,540 results in google Books and 11,100 in google Search. This is clearly linked to his notability so I don't see what the problem is. Raikkonen (talk) 14:39, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I interpret the instruction "place of birth should not be mentioned in the lead unless ... relevant to the subject's notability" to mean that reliable sources concur in emphasizing the importance of the subject's relationship to the place of birth. Absent this, the ethnicity of his parents doesn't matter. The google hits you found add little to the weight of the evidence; any biographical sketch of any person is likely to mention place of birth, regardless of its relevance to the person's notability. What matters is, I think, extensive attention to the matter by the artist's biographers, so I went looking. Investigation using books at hand has turned up repeated references in every case to the importance de Chirico attached to his origins, and its importance in understanding his work, and I think this makes a good case for mentioning his Greek birth in the lead. Ewulp (talk) 00:36, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to get into a discussion about who's right and who's not. I will only keep the substance, which is that we agreed on the impact of De Chirico's Greek origin on his work and notability. Raikkonen (talk) 08:55, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I canceled the comment to the revert just before reverting. Maybe I expressed myself wrong: De Chirico was born in Greece, and this is clear, and his art has been influenced by Greek culture, but Greek-born in English means born as Greek, and de Chirico was never Greek. Moreover, he refused in several interviews his alleged Greek origin. "Riguardo la Grecia, è il paese dove sono nato. E basta." says for example here at page 65 (thanks, IP!). Concluding, I have nothing against something like "Italian painter born in Greece, fact which strongly influenced his art", etc., but not Greek-born, which means something quite different. Thanks, Alex2006 (talk) 16:45, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * What is you source to show, beyond any doubt, that "de Chirico was never Greek"? "Riguardo la Grecia, è il paese dove sono nato. E basta" translates as "About Greece, it's the country where I was born. Stop." That's hardly watertight, more of a personal opinion? Is it forbidden to put: "... was an Italian artist and writer who was born in Greece"? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:53, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * This is not an opinion, it is a fact: it is how he felt about his country of birth and his culture, which he (consciously) refused. And he said much more than that, if you read the excerpts of the books where his interviews are collected.  The second sentence is perfect, i would write something like "... was an Italian artist and writer who was born in Greece, fact which strongly influenced his art " (although he also wrote: "ho dipinto cavalli su sfondo di templi e ruderi dell'antichità classica cosi' per caso: al posto dei ruderi avrei potuto dipingere cavoli, fiori: la Grecia, i miti sono tutte balle dei critici, degli intellettuali") I think that he had a personal problem with Greece, which can be perfectly understood if you read the book about Levantines which I advised to read yesterday. Little addition: if you want to know the life of de Chirico as child, you can usefully read his autobiography "Memorie della mia vita": from this book you can learn - among others - that in Casa de Chirico in Volos the de Chiricos spoke Italian, that he had a German speaking nanny from Trieste and  that the young Giorgio had to fight often against "Thessalian brats", since he was "more beautiful, more intelligent and more erudite" than them. You can find the book on google books. Alex2006 (talk) 17:14, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't count interview quotes as "facts". But I'd have no objection to the wording you propose. You might want to provide a translation of that Italian passage. Maybe something could be added to the article from there? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:42, 18 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm honestly confused and I think we're entering the world of original research here. First of all, De Chirico did have Greek nationality and there is at least one credible source which explicitly states this. He had Greek origin on his mother side, which meant by Greek law being eligible for Greek nationality, which was - at the time - the only way to enter the Athens School of Fine Arts - that he did. On the contrary, I'm not aware of any source stating that he ever gave up his Greek citizenship. Secondly, the term "Greek-born" or "English-born" or "X-born" refers to place of birth and not nationality. Thirdly, your citations on how allegedly De Chirico hated Greece can be countered with more numerous citations where he states how he loved Greece and how influential it had been on his work - still, this all falls under original research. Fourthly, as it was discussed earlier, what goes in the head has to do with notability and not ethnic or cultural origins, and it was well agreed and backed by sources that being "Greek-born" is commonly used and directly related to De Chirico's development as an artist. There seems to be a clear consensus here and frankly I don't understand why someone would make such a big deal out of this. Raikkonen (talk) 22:38, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree. These all seem to be perfectly valid points to me. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:44, 18 February 2019 (UTC) p.s. I see that User:Coldcreation has been a contributor to this article. I wonder if they have any view. Thanks.
 * Sorry, but here there is no consensus at all (see start of thread above). Let's start from the end. Greek-born means born as Greek (ethnicity/nationality), not born in Greece. Look in whatever dictionary, or type on google "born meaning": the second entry says: born- (suffix): "having a specific nationality." So, "Greek-born" cannot be accepted, because I think that here there is at least consensus that his family was not Greek, but Italian. Moreover, per WP:OPENPARA (a WP Guideline for biographies) the nationality cited in the lead must be that owned by the subject when he/she became notable, and in case of de Chirico this was clearly the Italian one. The de Chiricos were Italian citizens: this is explicitly pointed out by de Chirico himself, among others when he tells that during the Greek-Turkish war of 1897, when Volos was occupied by the Ottoman army, they flied the Italian flag on the roof of their house and put themselves under the protection of the Italian ship "Vesuvio" of the Italian navy, whose commander, Antinori, became a good friend of his father. Greek citizenship? Maybe (but I don't think that Italy then allowed double citizenship): we can mention it if it is well sourced, but not in the lead: anyway, this happened much later. Mother: I am sorry for the Greek source that you brought, but all the sources which I know, Italian and not, starting from Enciclopedia Italiana, and finishing with de Chirico himself, says that his mother was not Greek, but Italian, from a Genoese family. Her name was Gemma Cervetto (Greek name?), from noble Genoese family, opera singer (hardly a profession for a Greek woman in nineteenth century) and according to some sources was born not in Greece, but in Smyrna, Ottoman empire: so, per definition she was an Italian levantine. Moreover, she was catholic, and as everyone knows Greek catholic nationals have been heavily persecuted in nineteenth century in Greece, whose state was founded among others on orthodoxy: they were seen as bastard and renegade, and many of them had to escape to Smyrna or Constantinople, where they melted with italo- and french levantines (see the book about Levantines which I cited above). So, had she been really a Greek, she would have had very hard times in Volos, where according to de Chirico during the Turkish occupation the catholic priest was killed by a gang of Greeks disguised as Turks to blame the ottoman army. Relation with Greece: of course de Chirico admired the Greek landscapes (he says this explicitly in his autobiography) and got inspiration from them: but he clearly stated time and again that he had nothing to do with Greece as country and the Greek people: he was a staunch Italian patriot (in 1915 he left Paris for Italy with his brother Alberto Savinio to serve in the Italian army), and from his autobiography radiates a sense of superiority towards the Greeks in Volos. Original research? Using someone's autobiography confirmed among others by academic sources like EI and DBI (and the sources listed in the beginning of this thread) in a biography article is original research? Look, I think that for you the time came to drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass...Bye Alex2006 (talk) 06:15, 19 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Nota bene, for a proud Italian family that hated Greeks and found them inferior [sic], I find it really strange that they chose to dress up their children in the Klepht uniform, the traditional patriotic uniform of modern Greece (see full article here. Raikkonen (talk) 11:05, 19 February 2019 (UTC)


 * This type of threat is really unnecessary. Rest assured, I never considered taking advantage of WP:3RR to stoop down to rv-warring, although, I do hope you go ahead with your threat and report this incident because you're taking us in circles by officially going against WP:OR and WP:Consensus. I could simply explain to you that De Chirico's grandmother, Margarita Alevisatos, as well as his Chirico/Kyrikos lineage on his father's side, were enough by Greek constitutional Jus sanguinis to grant him Greek citizenship. But I choose to ignore every argument that has to do with WP:OR and I'll just ask you two simple questions:
 * Can you disprove the source claiming that De Chirico arrived in Munich with Greek citizenship? (If not, assuming he had dual citizenship, this should be perhaps mentioned in the infobox).
 * Do you accept that, per WP:ETHNICITY, the ethnonym in the article's head has to do with notability and not actual ethnic origin? (If yes, then you should realise that your argumentation is off topic and "Greek-born" should be added to the head due to its impact on the subject's notability). Raikkonen (talk) 08:52, 19 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't pretend to be an expert on de Chirico, but a great many scholarly sources state that his family was Italian, and we have to follow sources. Are there more than one or two reliable sources (preferably in English) that say de Chirico arrived in Munich with Greek citizenship? Experts can be wrong, and new scholarship may lead to a new consensus, but without additional sources we cannot ascertain that the consensus has changed. In the meantime, it's worth mentioning in the lead that he was born in Greece, but unless we can be fairly certain that his citizenship was ever Greek, it seems better to avoid the term "Greek-born", which may be interpreted more than one way. (For instance, popular media often refer to Keanu Reeves as "Lebanese-born", even though he was never a Lebanese citizen and has no Lebanese lineage. The lead section of his Wikipedia article is carefully worded to prevent confusion.)


 * Some sources checked: Oxford art Online: "His parents came from the Italian diaspora within the Ottoman empire". The Oxford Companion to Western Art: "Born in Greece of Sicilian parents". Magdalena Holzhey, De Chirico, 2005: "The brothers liked to say their parents were of direct Italian origin, but in fact the de Chirico family had lived in the Levant for generations." Cowling and Mundy, On Classic Ground, 1990: "His family was Italian". Bendiner, Kenneth, in Source: Notes in the History of Art, vol. 1, no. 4, 1982: "De Chirico had been born in Greece of Italian parents and had studied in Munich. Yet he called himself a Florentine, and nationalistic pride pervades his autobiography." Barrow, Rosemary, in International Journal of the Classical Tradition, vol. 11, no. 3, 2005: "born in Greece to Italian parents". Ewulp (talk) 06:09, 20 February 2019 (UTC)


 * A personal sidenote on Rosemary Barrow's quote that what you just posted. It is interesting how De Chirico, in his autobiography, has a low opinion of the infamous Academy of Fine Arts, Munich and, when he compares it to the Athens School of Fine Arts, he finds it inferior in terms of the quality of teachers and the skillset of students, yet the author here doesn't even mention that De Chirico studied in Athens. Not really my position to imply anything about the author's neutrality but some practices speak for themselves. Raikkonen (talk) 10:01, 20 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I think nobody here contests that he should be labeled an "Italian", for the reasons that you just mentioned, i.e. whether this is accurate or not, it is the standard practice that we are obliged to follow. The question is on whether or not he should be coined "Greek-born" and I thought you agreed that this should be decided on the basis of (a) notability and (b) whether or not it is common to assign this label to him. I think that everyone agrees that his Greek side was influential to his development as an artist, not just the landscapes and culture but also the teachers he studied with and the university he attended. As a result, his work is directly linked to his Greek-born status in every way - so that covers notability. I also believe that a simple Google search proves that "Greek-born Italian" artist is a common label in books, publications, and online sources (I will start quoting if you should question this). At first you were very clear about following policy, so why are we contesting this now? Raikkonen (talk) 09:40, 20 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Just a further sidenote on Rosemary Barrow: was she a recognised authority on De Chirico? Her article makes no mention of him. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:55, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Not a recognised authority on De Chirico as far as I know, but a notable art historian who I'm sure knew her way around a library as well as any of us. To Raikkonen's point that her article doesn't mention that De Chirico studied in Athens: the article is not primarily about de Chirico's education, and her summary account—that he "spent his childhood and youth in Athens, studied art in Munich ... "—seems reasonable as a shorthand way of saying that he was trained in the Munich style (including his study under Munich-trained artists Georgios Jakobides, Konstantinos Volanakis, and Georgios Roilos while at the Athens School of Fine Arts, where the influence of the Munich school was pervasive).


 * If someone disagrees with that last statement, that would be Giorgio De Chirico in his autobiography. My personal opinion on scholars like Rosemary Barrow is that they're credible but not always neutral (anyway that's off topic). To be fair, in that specific case Rosemary Barrow is probably right not to mention De Chirico's studies in Athens because he never graduated from there (I think). Raikkonen (talk) 08:33, 21 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Tonight, after further research on de Chirico confirmed yet more strongly the consensus among his biographers that he was Italian, I tried another angle, which I should have tried in the first place: searching in dictionaries and usage guides to investigate whether "[name of a country]-born" has more than one meaning. I'm not finding much support for this. According to OED, it means "place of birth or origin, as cloud-, country-, Danish-", and there's no alternative definition connoting nationality, and several other sources agree—although Oxford Living Dictionaries defines it as "Having a specific nationality" and says nothing related to place of birth. Forums like this one give evidence that confusion about this is not uncommon. As far as I know it is not a regional or Engvar issue. I still prefer to call him an Italian artist and subsequently mention that he was born and raised in Greece—it says the same thing with no chance of misunderstanding—but let's see what the consensus is. Ewulp (talk) 06:45, 21 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Many thanks for clarifying. I think we've already all agreed he was Italian. I did also suggest wording like that because of the issues with "Greek-born". Martinevans123 (talk) 08:07, 21 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks I found also this meaning for "-born" as suffix as the only one accepted. And this makes sense, otherwise there would be a semantic ambiguity.  read again what I wrote: I proposed to write that he was born and raised in Greece: but, as Ewulp confirms, "Greek-born" in English means "born as Greek", that's why we cannot use this expression. Thanks to all for the interesting discussion about an artist who is above all a son of Mediterranean.  Alex2006 (talk) 08:23, 21 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Please, don't act as if this is closed, there are unanswered questions. If you don't wish to participate, nobody will force you. As I said earlier, this has to be done the right way, otherwise it will come up again as an issue in the future. Raikkonen (talk) 09:11, 21 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Ewulp, first of all, thank you for taking the time to do this the right way. Like Martinevans123 said, no-one ever contested that the subject should be called an Italian, I hope that is clear to everyone. The debate is made regarding the label "Greek-born" and whether or not it is linked to the subject's notability or nationality. Alex2006, I wouldn't mind choosing an alternate wording to "Greek-born", but it would have to be done for the right reasons and not because someone's ego has to be satisfied (this is a general philosophy which also applies to myself). So I still have two unanswered questions here, the first one has to do with De Chirico's nationality. Why are you taking for granted that De Chirico never got a Greek nationality? There is at least one credible Greek journal, which states that he arrived in Munich with Greek citizenship (it's a Greek source, but Greeks generally do not claim De Chirico). Without getting into original research, is there a source to suggest the opposite? Raikkonen (talk) 09:07, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I did not take for granted this: forgetting for one moment that kathimerini is a daily newspaper, which not always can be considered a RS, and accepting what is written there, remain the fact that - being born from an Italian father - he had for sure automatically the Italian nationality at his birth per ius sanguinis (articoli 4-15 of the 1865 Codice Civile): if he later got the Greek passport it can be, or cannot be: it is a trivia. Falling into RS, I can tell you also that with a Greek passport he would have gone into trouble, because for the same law he would have automatically lost the Italian citizenship. And it would have been difficult as Greek citizen to enroll as volunteer in the Italian army at the beginning of WWI, as he did. Moreover, I really have a hard time figuring out de Chirico with a Greek pass in his pocket discussing in 1940 about art with Galeazzo Ciano (his protector at that time) while the son-in-law of Mussolini was going to bomb Athens... ;-) Talking about ego, I used to spend a lot of time (now much less) fighting non Italian POV-Warriors trying to give their own nationality to famous Italians, and a lot of time fighting Italian POV-Warriors trying to assign the Italian nationality to people born in Italy who reached notability abroad (many Nobel Prizes born in Italy fall in this category). As you can see, it is not about ego, but rather about rules: of course in one case I am considered a POV-Warrior, in the other "un traditore della patria" ;-) Kalispera!  Alex2006 (talk) 17:43, 21 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Alex2006 first I need to clear up that my comment on editor egos was not specifically directed to you. Secondly, after doing some research of my own (for the sake of neutrality) I can suggest that it would have been next to impossible for De Chirico to have possessed a dual citizenship prior to the events of 1923. It was never disputed that he possessed the Italian nationality at birth, though de Chirico was never a volunteer to the army, he was called drafted to military service (and that was something he described as the worst experience of his life). I will agree to drop this source and move onto my second argument. Raikkonen (talk) 08:27, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

After a brief search in Google Books it turns out that referring to De Chirico as a "Greek-born Italian artist" is extremely commonplace, to the point of being mainstream or common practice. Let's take a look at the first page of results as they are ranked by Google's algorithm (not hand-picking anything here): So my question is this: why go against WP:NPOV and WP:NOR by ignoring what seems to be already well established? Raikkonen (talk) 09:08, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * "The Greek-born Italian painter Giorgio de Chirico (1888-1978) was a master of metaphysical painting", De Chirico and the Mediterranean (1998) by Jole De Sanna (who is, to quote Amazon, "one of the most authoritative experts on the work of de Chirico").
 * "...Greek-born Italian painter Giorgio de Chirico (1888-1978) was a major influence in Europe's interwar avant-garde", Ba de Chirico (2017) by Magdalena Holzhey.
 * "Giorgio de Chirico (Greek-born Italian, 1888–1978)", Mathematics and Art: A Cultural History (2015) by Lynn Gamwell.
 * "In addition to these affinities, we must mention de Chirico's profound familiarity (as a Greek- born Italian) with Greek myth;", Getty Research Journal (2011), Thomas W. Gaehtgens, ‎Katja Zelljadt.
 * "Giorgio de Chirico, the Greek-born painter of Italian origin and a contemporary of Picasso", Imagining the City: The art of urban living (2006), Christian Emden, ‎Catherine Keen, ‎David R. Midgley.
 * "The Greek-born Italian artist Giorgio de Chirico, a key precursor of Surrealism, focused on what he described as the ...", Celebrating the Marvellous: Surrealism in Architecture (2018), Neil Spiller.
 * "Masterworks of Early de Chirico," a one- man show featuring the art of the Greek-born Italian artist.", Mistress of Modernism: The Life of Peggy Guggenheim (2004), Mary V. Dearborn.
 * "Greek-born Italian painter regarded as an important forerunner of SURREALISM", Academic American Encyclopedia (1989).
 * "An even more independent figure was the Greek-born Italian Giorgio de Chirico (1888-1978), of cardinal importance to the Surrealists", Art: a history of painting, sculpture, architecture (1985), Frederick Hartt.
 * ...[this can go on and on]...
 * That does seem quite convincing. But are there an equal or greater number of results, or equally good quality results, for just "Italian"? (not that we should ever base a decision just on the number of Google search results) Martinevans123 (talk) 09:31, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * FWIW some of the Google results you've provided show the term used in a promotional blurb but not necessarily in the book itself. It looks like that may be the case with De Chirico and the Mediterranean, and it's certainly the case with Magdalena Holzhey's book, which I have. The first page of Holzhey's text calls de Chirico "this Italian master"; it is not until the third page of text that we learn of "his birth in Greece". Plainly, some reliable sources use the term "Greek-born", but some whole books are written without using it.
 * I favor "Italian born in Greece" because it says the same thing without the potential for confusion as already stated. As far as I can tell, the majority of English dictionaries define "x-born" such that "Greek-born" means "born in Greece" and nothing more. But one dictionary I've linked to earlier in this discussion defines it the other way... Is there any compelling reason to prefer the hyphenated term for de Chirico? Wikipedia's MOS advises us to strive for clarity. To give just one example, MOS:CENTURY advises: "When using forms such as the 1900s, ensure that there is no ambiguity as to whether the century or just its first decade is meant". Even though it is easy to find many reliable sources that use "the 1700s" to refer to the 18th century, Wikipedia editors are asked to be more careful than those sources. Ewulp (talk) 04:44, 26 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Ewulp, if you perform the search correctly (with quotes) you'll see that you get 6 results for "Greek-born" inside De Sanna's book, though, frankly, whether something is found within the book or in the editor's notes should serve exactly the same purpose for us. I'm anyway getting the impression that, no matter what evidence is brought out, you will always come up with something new (and often completely irrelevant) just to complicate things. Let's look at the facts, once again: "Italian born in Greece" gets 126 results. "Greek-born Italian" gets 1650 results (it's not possible to verify a search for just "Italian"). You admit that "X-born" means "born in place X" and nothing more. So in what universe of neutrality and logic should the former wording be preferred over the latter as far as Books are concerned? Raikkonen (talk) 08:42, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It's explained in my previous comment. And I remind you that a minority of English dictionaries define the term another way.
 * (As a side note: the Google snippet results you're citing don't verify that the term appears in De Sanna's book, much less that it refers to de Chirico. The results only indicate that words matching—or closely related to—the search terms appear in some proximity. I'm finding no evidence that the term "Greek born" appears in the book at all. As an entertaining demonstration of what I mean, search De Sanna's book for "De Chirico was born in 212 B.C.", with quotes. There is 1 page match. "De Chirico had no ideas" has 27 page matches. "De Chirico trained a vaguely German clattering brass band" has 1 match.) Ewulp (talk) 03:03, 27 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Point taken, so how about using the Advanced Search? No caveats there as far as I'm concerned, and "Greek-born" "De Chirico" yields 1600 results (a handful of which I pasted earlier). The exact quote can be previewed in least 22 of these books. So why would these citations count less than editors' personal views? Unless you claim that these results are still the editor/publisher's note (which for some mysterious reason would make them invalid), I'm curious to hear the next argument in line. You have varied your argumentation and changed your views so many times since this debate has started, I'm sure there's still plenty of inspiration in there. Raikkonen (talk) 09:13, 27 February 2019 (UTC)


 * It took me all of two days (Feb 16–Feb 18) to agree that we should mention his birth in Greece in the lead section. Since then, I have posted five comments (on Feb 20, Feb 21, Feb 26, Feb 27, and now again) in which I have consistently explained that the reason I favor "Italian born in Greece" is because it says the same thing without the potential for confusion. I was afraid I was becoming monotonous, and am cheered to hear that you believe this is not the case. Ewulp (talk) 01:58, 28 February 2019 (UTC)


 * There isn't really any potential for confusion in "Greek-born Italian", this is why it's so commonly used. Since this has been getting us in circles, I'm going to propose a temporary compromise: "Greece-born Italian", instead of "Greek-born Italian". Would that also be susceptible to confusion? Raikkonen (talk) 13:11, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * While "Greek-born" may be ambiguous, "Greece-born" actually sounds wrong. I think we'd have to put "Italian born in Greece". But we might want to take advice on this at WP:MoS? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:20, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * "Greece-born" is unidiomatic. It seems as though we already have a solution and are now in search of a problem. What baffles me is why a person who believes that there is no difference whatsoever between the meanings conveyed by "Greek-born" and "born in Greece" would be so adamant in rejecting the latter option. Sources use both terms nearly equally, according to Advanced Search, so those results can't decide it for us. There is certainly potential for confusion, as authorities do not agree on the definition. Pocket Oxford American Dictionary, 2nd ed. (2008) defines "born" three ways: "born 1. existing as a result of birth. 2. (-born) having a particular nationality: a German-born philosopher. 3. having a natural ability to do a particular job". Pocket Oxford English Dictionary, 11th ed. (2013) has the same three definitions, suggesting that the "nationality" definition is common in both US and UK English. Ewulp (talk) 04:26, 4 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm adamant in rejecting any opinion that defies logic and WP:NPOV. You started this conversation by saying "per WP:ETHNICITY: "Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless it is relevant to the subject's notability." [sic], and after it was proven beyond doubt that the subject's notability is closely linked to "Greek-born", you started a whole new agenda on how this could allegedly be misinterpreted in the English language. No point to elaborate further, I value my time and it was obvious from the start that your mind was made up. You will eventually discover that issues not settled in a proper way in Wikipedia are not settled at all. I would also advise you to watch this video to see the reflection of your views in the journalist's questions. Raikkonen (talk) 23:14, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * All this over a mild suggestion as to word choice. As three of the four participants in this discussion are satisfied with "born in Greece", let's edit the article according to the consensus. Ewulp (talk) 02:52, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

de Chirico's criticism of modern art
"After 1919, he became a critic of modern art, studied traditional painting techniques, and worked in a neoclassical or neo-Baroque style" this is an interesting discovery about de Chirico, for me anyway as I'm no de Chirico expert, but is there a reference to that statement? I'm guessing yes, but should it not appear in the first time it gets mentioned in the article? I can outvin the reference if needed.MAureliusAugustus (talk) 16:32, 4 April 2024 (UTC)


 * The claims are mentioned and sourced lower in the article. But he did not adopt the neo-Baroque style until 1939, so I have added the word "later" into that sentence. The lead section doesn't need references as per WP:LEADCITE. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:54, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Marriage Dates
I was at a major exhibit of de Chirico's works in Tokyo today, and in a timeline of his life it mentioned that he met his first wife (Raissa Calza) in 1924 but didn't marry her until 1930, the year he met his second wife. I don't have access to the book cited in this article, but I found the same dates at these sites:


 * https://www.palazzoesposizioniroma.it/mostra/en-us-cronologia
 * https://www.peramuseum.org/blog/giorgio-de-chirico/1544

I was surprised to see the article here differ from the exhibit - it currently states he married his first wife shortly after meeting her. It might be worth checking another source. (Calza's article here gives the same date, but cites the same source.) Polm23 (talk) 12:44, 28 June 2024 (UTC)