Talk:Joseph Ducreux/Archive 1

"Personal Philosophies and Quotes" nonsense.
These are obviously not quotes from Ducreux himself, but rather quotes from the memes that are making the rounds. (Notably, they seem to be attempting to put an eighteenth century spin on song quotes.) I'd delete them myself, but the odds are high that somebody will put them back. Host Dunkelheit (talk) 01:27, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

"nonsence" how rude, i saw these on a national geographic documentary and people just happen to put it in a picture and call it a meme.
 * Unless there are reputable sources for these quotes, they should not be included. It might even be necessary to protect the page, as an edit war seems to be going on. Host Dunkelheit (talk) 14:37, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I explained that they were on a national geographic documentary, also maybe they should lock the page seeing how people think they own wikipedia deleting everything that doesnt seem fit to them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.181.240.4 (talk) 17:05, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * If they're from a "documentary" then please cite the source. Otherwise, please stop spamming Wikipedia with internet memes. Ceran (talk) 17:51, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I see the issue has been resolved. Thank you, Caknuck. Host Dunkelheit (talk) 21:21, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

There should be a mention of this being a meme due to the fact that most of the people that visit this page were led here due to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.130.120.173 (talk) 04:43, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Untitled
Wiki Commons includes an image of the portrait Le Discret; it seems reasonable that the article text should link to that image as well. 75.48.25.148 (talk) 23:21, 27 December 2010 (UTC)Michael Kelsey75.48.25.148 (talk) 23:21, 27 December 2010 (UTC) - A lot of this has been edited and trolled by 4chan trolls with memes.

- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.131.104.227 (talk) 17:30, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

It looks like pretty big chunks of this have been cut/pasted from http://www.safran-arts.com/42day/art/art4jun/art0626.html#ducreux —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.212.9.60 (talk) 15:30, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

The article on Ducreux should reference the contemporary meme of [captioning the self portrait]http://blog.sublimedirectory.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/Joseph-Ducreux.jpg. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.196.183.78 (talk) 22:15, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * At noon EST, Doctorfluffy removed the internet meme portion of Joseph Ducreux's article. I have since restored it, but seeing as how Doctorfluffy, as well some others out there (I'm sure) don't seem to agree with the general consensus here on the discussion page, I think it's time we instate a lock on this article, with the meme, in order to prevent constant changing like this. Mcoov (talk) 18:34, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Internet meme

This article should not be in this biography

I added some important quotes and philosophies that we could all learn from. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nueroma (talk • contribs) 13:49, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

some of his quotes seem pretty unusual. maybe some background would be nice to understand them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.75.181.246 (talk) 18:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

There is backround to them, i give the situations hes talking about dont just delete them because you dont know what your reading.--Nueroma (talk) 19:07, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I want to let people concerned about this article to know the vandal from 4chan is deleting the contribs and replacing it with "cancer" i dont know about you fuys but cancer isnt funny dont throw it around like an everyday word--Nueroma (talk) 20:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protection, perchance?
Should we consider semi-protecting this article? I look at the history and see lots of reverts and vandalism by unregistered users. NATO.Caliber (talk) 09:42, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. And the meme merits mention if it's the subject of mention by reliable sources. Otherwise the continued addition here is original research. It's great that people see it and read this biography, but if the meme hasn't received media coverage it doesn't get added. JNW (talk) 02:42, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily it doesn't. Discussing a meme, essentially a fad, in this article would give it undue weight and is an example of the recentism that Wikipedia generally tries to avoid. ChiZeroOne (talk) 02:59, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm with you on recentism and undue weight, but it would be difficult to argue against a NYTimes article. Point is, no such reliable source seems to exist, so I don't see the rationale for inclusion, or even discussion of inclusion, until then. JNW (talk) 03:16, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * And this is what is wrong with Wikipedia. Rigid enforcement of the rules regardless of a popular consensus. See numerous users above in favor of meme inclusion. Is Wikipedia a subsidiary of the NYT? It's hard to tell. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jb 007clone (talk • contribs) 03:28, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, no. The guideline on reliable sources is a cornerstone, and not, so far as I know, negotiable. JNW (talk) 03:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * And that's exactly what I'm referring to. Why isn't it negotiable? Why is the NYT considered a reliable source? The've had scandals and misquotes. Why can't an online meme site be considered reliable and reputable? Who's decides these? In the face of a dispute, why not err on the side of general consensus; the overwhelming consensus in this case being to include a reference to the meme. Jb 007clone (talk) 04:14, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I do not see "overwhelming consensus" for inclusion of this content. VQuakr (talk) 04:16, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Have you read the entire talk page? My bet is 99% of people who view this page do so because of the meme, but because of the rigid enforcement of reliable sources, pertinent information about the subject is being withheld. Encyclopedia's are supposed to give people knowledge, not suppress it.Jb 007clone (talk) 04:20, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Your disagreement, to the extent that you're advocating the inclusion of an improperly sourced entity--that includes 'know your meme' and its addition, with link, in this article-- is based on an unwillingness to acknowledge Wikipedia guidelines, for something that you personally find important. And I agree with your choice of wording above--this would indeed be erring. And comparing an online meme to the Times just isn't going to be a strong talking point. One is a reliable source, one is not. JNW (talk) 04:22, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you work for the NYTimes or something? Why does Wikipedia even exist? Why not just shut down the site and let the NYT editorial staff decide what is worthy of reading? 'Improperly sourced' entity only by Wikipedia's ridiculous standards. Also, it's not me personally. Again, see above users who also want inclusion. NYT is reliable... except for all the misquotes, articles written by Jayson Blair, etc. Jb 007clone (talk) 04:31, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Know Your Meme has been discussed before as a source; the conclusion has been that it is not reliable: . you're welcome to bring it up anew at Reliable sources/Noticeboard. You can also suggest that the New York Times be disallowed as a source. JNW (talk) 04:46, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Really, arguing that what's wrong with Wikipedia is that it has rules isn't an argument that's going to get very far. Dayewalker (talk) 03:56, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm in favour of mentioning the meme, even briefly in the lead, and flexible on OR for now - clearly there is a reason this relatively obscure figure gets 800 hits a day. But brief coverage is all that's needed. People coming to the article probably already know there is a meme, what they don't know is anything about the painter. YouTube can handle the meme charts, unless we get a meme article here. Johnbod (talk) 15:02, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It's fine that people become acquainted with the artist through an internet meme, but a reading of the traffic stats chart that reveals 800 hits a day doesn't justify mention. Doesn't belong in lead, nor is it supported by reliable sources. My guess is that Raphael's received more than a few hits by virtue of having a mutant turtle named for him. Perhaps that lead needs some rethinking....this was very popular too, and drew much interest to the article on Delacroix ; perhaps it's time to reopen the whole pop cultural reference business, and take a fresh look at a lot of introductory passages, not to mention those cultural reference sections. JNW (talk) 17:10, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with the above. This is about an artist not a meme; mentioning in the text (legacy section?) and not in the lede makes sense to me...Modernist (talk) 17:18, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * A legacy or reference section might be appropriate if there were reliable sources that supported the notability of this; the presence of internet phenomena, even if it results in thousands of hits to a Wikipedia article, doesn't merit mention if it hasn't received coverage. Has Wiki policy on this changed? JNW (talk) 17:44, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If there aren't reliable sources it should not be in the article...Modernist (talk) 17:48, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * At the moment he is getting about as many hits as Courbet, Constable & Braque. His hits were in 2 figures per day until the end of 2009. I think a sentence in the lead on the meme, while it remains hot, is justified. The lead is supposed to summarize everything in the article. In a year or two it may not be. Personally I'm not going to try to find WP:RS for an internet phenomenon, but others no doubt will. Johnbod (talk) 17:50, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * This Joseph Ducreux meme gets tons of hits on google; for what its worth an internet section below the gallery might do the trick with a few links...Modernist (talk) 17:55, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's incumbent upon an editor who includes such content to provide the reliable source. A rise in hits to a Wikipedia article, as well as the presumed reason for the spike, is not newsworthy, let alone appropriate for an encyclopedia article, based on our tracking of the toolserver, or the popularity of a meme. This subject comes up frequently on non-arts based articles, and I can't recall an exception to the 'if it's not reliably sourced it doesn't belong' guideline. The heat being generated may or may not be temporary--in this case it surely is--but there's yet no evidence that it's notable heat. I've repeated myself enough. To me this a just a clear violation of original research, taking internet hits as a substitute for reliable sources. JNW (talk) 18:02, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It's funny, the motto of Wikipedia is "The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" but what they forget to mention is that by 'anyone' they actually only mean the NYTimes editorial staff. Just kidding. However, it's somewhat illogical to require a "reliable source" for everything noteworthy, because not everything noteworthy is going to have a "reliable source". Wikipedia needs to be flexible on this and realize that not every case will fit their rigid source requirements. There needs to be room for exceptions. Encyclopedia articles aren't 'widgets' designed in a lab; they're about living, breathing things, events, phenomena. Some widely known, others not so much. References, therefore, should be judged on a case-by-case basis against what exactly it is they're trying to prove and not so much on some generic and debatable determination of their reliability. Let's be honest and realistic with one another, the NYT is never going to report on this, nor any of the other 'big media', but that doesn't mean the information isn't relevant. At the sake of repeating myself, the main reason this page gets as many hits as it does, the main reason this talk page is this long is because of the meme. It deserves to be acknowledged in some capacity. To do otherwise is simply ludicrous. I'm not advocating making the whole article about it; a passing, even temporary mention, until the page hits drop, would suffice. I understand that Knowyourmeme or Holytaco or whatever isn't perfect, but sometimes you need bend the rules a little do what will serve the greater good. I have no plans to further edit this page or revert whatever the final decision is. I've said my piece here and leave it up to the rest of you to figure out what to do. I'm hoping for the right decision. Cheers! Jb 007clone (talk) 17:49, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Your argument is impassioned, but unfortunately isn't compatible with the core standards of Wikipedia. The fact you acknowledge that the meme should only be mentioned until the page hit count drops is an admission that it's not suitable for the inclusion in any circumstance. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 18:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * My suggestion of a temporary mention based on hits was an attempt at a compromise, not really an admission of the meme's possible ephemeral nature. Perhaps Ducreux won't be known for the meme in 50 years, or perhaps that's the only thing he'll be known for; we just don't know. Regardless of that, Wikipedia has had/has many articles on fleeting subjects/events so that point really is moot to begin with. In any event, I understand that Wikipedia's core principles take precedence, no matter how inflexible and impractical they might be. That's why I will not revert whatever decision is reached. Jb 007clone (talk) 19:28, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * In the case of artists we often give a major exhibition more prominence in the article before and while it is on, then drop it to the end of the article. I see no problem with this. Article subjects are supposed to be notable for eternity, or not notable at all, but I know of no policy that says this for bits of the text. Johnbod (talk) 14:16, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh man, I'm offline for a few days and then this whole mess is happening. Normally, I'd remove the mention of the meme immediately because, as someone pointed out earlier, KYM isn't a reliable source, but I'll wait because of this discussion. I only scanned the above exchange, but is the gist of the argument that because the page of an obscure topics gets hits that it must be related to the meme? Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 16:56, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * This case is different than some internet memes because the notability of the actual subject (Ducreux) is not in question. Individual details on a long-deceased subject are not generally held to the same notability standard as the subject itself (ie, every sentence in an article does not need to meet the GNG provided that the content is verifiable. While I agree that KYM is not a reliable source, it is a perfectly good primary source for what KYM says. Therefore, a mention of the meme structured to make it clear that the source is KYM would not violate WP:OR or any other policy of which I am aware, if we can establish consensus that such mention is warranted. To that end, I think the meme merits a sentence in the article body and does not need to be mentioned in the lede. VQuakr (talk) 04:36, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't follow your argument. You acknowledge that KYM isn't a valid source, but still want to include content sourced to it. Can you please explain what I am missing? Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 16:22, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * We have reliable sources for the article; a single sentence in an article for a notable subject does not need to meet the GNG. KYM is an unreliable secondary source, but it is a perfectly reliable primary source for what KYM says about something. Including a verifiable sentence about the meme is not original research. VQuakr (talk) 06:08, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I really don't see how KYM would be a primary source, if there even is such a thing for image macro memes. Also, your assertion is bizarre: KYM is a reliable primary source for what it itself says. That would be true of everything published anywhere, so that's not a compelling argument for the inclusion of its content or even merely mentioning that it contains content related to Ducreux. Unless you can come up with a reliable source that discusses the meme in detail then I'm going to remove it from this article because the claim that a meme exists cannot be verified to Wikipedia's standards. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 21:12, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Would this count as a source? http://www.theawl.com/2010/04/vanishing-point-your-memes-reviewed-the-joseph-ducreux-self-portrait Ninja Joey (talk)
 * This seems fairly reliable source. They have an editorial staff.

I have agreed in the past that there are no reliable sources for including the meme, but this seems to be one. Put it in? User:Jonwilliamsl(talk|contribs) 23:28, 14 April 2011 (UTC) I'm going for it, as no one seems to have raised any objections. 165.82.78.42 (talk) 02:14, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Just to add my $0.02 to this whole meme business; we experienced similar issues with the whole xkcd Malamanteau issue, as well as Truthiness, and many other internet fads/sensations. Generally speaking the internet fad usually wins. -Deathsythe (talk) 17:47, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Notability/sourcing of Ducreux meme?
Personally, I find it hilarious that the internet meme itself did not make in into the article because it was not notable enough, but discussion on whether or not the meme should make it into the article did make it into the article because is notable enough. Logically, this is completely paradoxical, and not the type of paradox that makes sense when you think about it for a while. 71.175.39.183 (talk) 02:42, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Can a blog on Internet memes considered reliable by news media of record (viz. Know Your Meme) be considered a reliable source, faute de mieux, on the recent Ducreux meme (the general rule discouraging use of blogs as sources notwithstanding)? Is the meme itself notable enough to merit discussion in good faith (as opposed to vandalism) in the article? (See revision 356331122, 06:28, 16 April 2010 for the disputed edit.)MikeyFuccon (talk) 03:35, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe that the numerous edits posted on Memebase.com should be a sufficient enough source to be able to be included in the references part at the bottom, as well as a section devoted to the meme as well. Mcoov (talk) 20:38, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

No, we don't want the Ducreux page cluttered with macros, but someone should clarify what would be a "real" source for the Ducreux meme. The knowyourmeme.com website (for example) doesn't have the encyclopedic tone of Wiki but is probably one of the most comprehensive source on the most popular Internet memes available, which is why I used it as my source. The image macro phenomenon is recent enough that sources about them in publications of record (newspapers, for example) are practically non-existent, the only notable exception being the lolcat meme.

I was tempted to cite the google search info on Ducreux, which has shot up since late 2009, but that is arguably original research.

Unless it's the notability of the meme that's in dispute?

(crossposted to Ducreux talk page) --MikeyFuccon (talk) 16:09, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Read WP:V and WP:RS. The discussion you are trying to start has been settled for years. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 16:25, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Read and understood WP:V and WP:RS. I also read WP:IAR. It's at least possible that the Ducreux meme will lead to a NYT article discussing Ducreux's newfound popularity as a result of the meme, eventually. In the meantime, under the circumstances, surely some flexibility in sourcing is called for. Would citation of the Google data on searches for "joseph ducreux" be acceptable here? The Google data's reliability is not disputed by many people.--MikeyFuccon (talk) 17:03, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * IAR isn't a blanket to do whatever you want all the time; it's intention is to point out that sometimes the bureaucracy here can be overbearing. WP:BRD is a better representation of editing in practice. Your assertion that something may become notable in the future and your question about using trends on google as a source indicate that you don't actually understand V and RS. Again, everything you are saying has been said an uncountable number of times before about topics across the entire project since its inception. V and RS are the long-standing results of those discussions. I don't know what else to tell you, but without significant coverage in reliable sources there is no way that the meme will stay in the article. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 02:26, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia, as it turns out, has an article on Know Your Meme, which (this was news to me too) is cited frequently in news outlets of record (National Public Radio and the Wall Street Journal are just two examples) as a source on Internet memes (see the "Recognition" section of the wiki article). If Know Your Meme is considered reliable enough a source on such matters to satisfy newspapers of record, then to be frank, no, I don't understand what more is expected on Wikipedia. Surely it can't be that a WSJ article citing KYM is a reliable source and KYM itself isn't?--MikeyFuccon (talk) 17:58, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * This site has an article on Wikipedia and Wikipedia is frequently mentioned in the news, yet Wikipedia wouldn't be considered a reliable source. User contributed sites are not reliable, even if the site itself is notable. To answer your question, yes, it is the case that the WSJ is reliable and KYM isn't; a reliable source utilizing an unreliable source doesn't make the latter reliable. See WP:PRIMARY for a discussion of primary, secondary and tertiary sources. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 21:25, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Read and understood. But one works with the sources one has, not the ones one would like to have. I'm still not convinced some flexibility is not permitted in some circumstances---spare a thought for an ancient historian whose only source for the life of a Roman emperor may be a brief article in a medieval encyclopedia. I've taken the liberty of tagging the talk page with a request for comment---this is turning into the dialogue of the deaf, and this page has been a matter of contention for a while now over the meme. If I am off base, I'd like more than one source to that effect. In the meantime I won't try to restore the edit; it would be a waste of my time and yours.--MikeyFuccon (talk) 03:35, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

IT'S A FUCKING MEME PEOPLE!!!! PROBABLY ONE OF THE TOP TEN OF 2010. PUT THAT SHIT IN THE ARTICLE
 * I have to agree with whoever this is. Wether people like it or not, Joseph Ducreux has become quite a famous meme, to the point that he's more known for the meme than for this paintings. --Scratzin (talk) 15:05, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The meme should be mentioned. Face reality; most people who search for this page are doing so because of the meme. Isn't the point of this encyclopedia to help people find information?? Jb 007clone (talk) 01:27, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with the above statements. The article needs a section on the meme. Use Know Your Meme as a reference if nothing better crops up. Jaimeastorga2000 (talk) 07:30, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

And once again the Wikipedia Asperger's Brigade prevents useful current information from being added to articles. 10 Oct 2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.193.234.233 (talk) 03:37, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * nonsense. People looking for "Joseph Ducreux" are not looking for the meme. If they know that the man in the painting is Joseph Ducreux, they are obviously already familiar with it. People looking for the meme would search for something like "funny rap quotes grinning guy in old painting". Such search terms would never take them to the Joseph Ducreux article unless we give in to your demands to turn this article into a discussion of funny rap quotes paired with a grinning guy in an old painting.
 * People looking for the meme would actually wind up on the list of internet phenomena article, and nobody is preventing you from mentioning Ducreux there. --dab (𒁳) 16:08, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * "People looking for "Joseph Ducreux" are not looking for the meme." That's flatly not true.I googled "Joseph Ducreux" solely because I wanted to read the Wikipedia article about the guy that the meme is based around. Why make false declarations like that just to prevent relevant information from going into the article? 65.96.114.192 (talk) 17:09, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "People looking for 'Joseph Ducreux' are not looking for the meme." FALSE. I first surfed to this article because of the meme. Read the long list of people above who have done the same. "give in to your demands"? A bit dramatic, aren't we? I don't think anybody's arguing that we make the entire article about the meme. A single line under the painting saying 'See Ducreux Meme' or something would probably suffice. I don't understand the hesitation? Why not link two pieces of relevant information together instead of making searching harder?Jb 007clone (talk) 16:30, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Why can't people just admit that this is a meme? NickPlaya (talk) 02:34, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I, too am here because of the meme. 203.33.248.42 (talk) 00:35, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I, as well, am here because of the meme. This is most definitely notable and whoever says otherwise is completely delusional. Few people would've visited the article had he not become a meme. Avindra talk / contribs 04:41, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Verily I also agree with the gentlemen proposing the inclusion of material related to the meme 91.216.236.52 (talk) 03:30, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I think 99% of the people here are here because of the meme, it's plain stupid to not include it and constantly revert the article back to not-mentioning the meme (hi doctorfluffy). By taking the piece of valuable information that relates this article to the modern use of Ducreux's self portraits away you're completely undermining the point of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.167.17.76 (talk) 21:09, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Here because of meme again. Have to voice my support for a section on it. --Ktoth04 (talk) 13:06, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I navigated to this page because I was looking up information on the internet meme based on Joseph Ducreux also. I think when saying that nobody who is coming to this page is looking for information on the image macro, you are insulting the intelligence of the internet. Users like dab and Doctorfluffy are ruining Wikipedia, and have been for a long time. Fighting inclusion of relevant information because they have a bone to pick with popular Internet culture for whatever reason. Shameful. --Zaiger (talk) 00:51, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Pretty much the same story for me as well. The only reason I know who the name of this man is because I was looking for information on the meme. It's because of his meme status I was able to locate this wiki entry. 68.116.80.17 (talk) 08:35, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I too am here because of the meme. I am here because Meme generator lists it as Joseph Ducreux, not "funny old guy with rap caption". I wanted to find out if this was a recent painting done in the old style, or just simply a rather eclectic old painting done by someone trying to do something a bit different. Logically, no matter how silly an internet meme is, it's presence is notable within the internet community by definition. Is it notable in a Wikipedian sense? I'm not savvy on the rules, however the fact that a self portrait done by a man 200+ years ago has come to become a source of amusement simply for the way it breaks the norm in 18th century art, via a communication medium created 200 years after the artists death should be taken into account if you want to use common sense. 60.234.236.221 (talk) 12:49, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * See what was particularly wrong with this revision? I was properly sourced to a website that has been given the vote of approval by many mainstream media outlets, and probably just needed a touch up language wise. I don't know if common sense is one of the pillars of the WP rulebook, however, does this not seem important given that it has added new longevity to a relatively unknown (in a mainstream sense) artist? There'll be people who know of Joseph Ducreux only because of the meme. Unless whoever it is that has a fundamental issue with internet memes and culture ruining his page about Jopseph Ducreux provides a reason as to why a page like Know Your Meme which has been utilised by mainstream media sources as a place to get information on internet culture isn't a reliable enough source, then I think I'll be spending some time reverting back to that old version. 60.234.236.221 (talk) 12:57, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I also point to this notice the sudden, year long boom in Google searches for Ducreux. Is that worth noting? Without of course pointing to the obvious fact that it is ENTIRELY due to the meme? 60.234.236.221 (talk) 06:59, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Picture added so that readers can know what exactly the meme entails. Mcoov (talk) 07:33, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

At noon EST, Doctorfluffy removed the internet meme portion of Joseph Ducreux's article. I have since restored it, but seeing as how Doctorfluffy, as well some others out there (I'm sure) don't seem to agree with the general consensus here on the discussion page, I think it's time we instate a lock on this article, with the meme, in order to prevent constant changing like this. Mcoov (talk) 18:30, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to touch the article, but it's worth pointing out that knowyourmeme is not an appropriate source for a historical figure, its authority is limited to subjects that are primarily memes, not this one which actually happens to be a person who deserves an article even if there was no meme. EditorInTheRye (talk) 13:15, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I ran into this article from that meme. It's become very popular, and certainly notable. It should absolutely be in the article, the numerous mentions and search results on the subject are evidence of it's notability. Skrelk (talk) 17:30, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

It is worth noting that if you google search "Pimp Painting" that this article is the first entry. I figured I should point that out in case some people are still claiming that no one comes to this page because of the meme (which is ridiculous). Cyberpontiff (talk) 10:14, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Readded Ducreux Meme with link to verifiable source, should end this edit warring nonsense
As per Ninja Joey's statements above, an article about this meme has appeared on online pop culture publication The Awl at http://www.theawl.com/2010/04/vanishing-point-your-memes-reviewed-the-joseph-ducreux-self-portrait. The Awl is an online publication with an editorial staff, and hence would meet the standards for verifiability. A search of the edit history for this article shows that after the discovery of the above article, the only attempted insertions of the meme into the article's content were either uncited or sourced to the knowyourmeme.com article, which was previously deemed unacceptable. These edits were reverted, presumably because they violate the verifiability policy that has caused all such reverts of this material so far. I have taken the time to add information about the meme, along with supporting citations from the article, as well as citations about the editorial staffing policy of the publication itself. Hence if this edit is reverted under the same non-verifiability logic as previous edits on this subject, the underlying reasoning behind the revert will be flawed, and it will be un-reverted. Battaglia01 (talk) 10:41, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Redundancy
I deleted a bit of a redundancy referring to the internet meme thing. 71.84.222.118 (talk) 09:03, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Is this 'moqueur' really the version that's in the Louvre?
I have my doubts on whether the most famous version of 'moqueur' is the same as the one currently in the Louvre. I know that different reproductions can have varying quality of colour and tone, but I've noticed too many minor differences between the version in the Louvre's database and the version commonly used for the meme. To illustrate my point, refer to the painting's file history. The file that Aavindraa posted in December 2010 closely resembles the version in the Louvre database, but it stands apart from all the other file versions. The shirt ruffles, the red on the lapel, look radically different from the more famous version. The face also looks slightly more studied, as if Ducreux was slavishly copying an earlier version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by El greco nuevo (talk • contribs) 05:33, 16 May 2013 (UTC)