Talk:Patrick Fagerberg

genius
Before his accident, he was a self-described “hotshot defense attorney”, now he has self-diagnosed "savant syndrome". Genius. It would be helpful to see a diagnosis by a qualified professional, in a medical journal for example. Vexations (talk) 12:15, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

https://www.amazon.com/Superhuman-Mind-Free-Genius-Brain/dp/1594633681 https://www.amazon.com/Syndrome-Intellectual-Impairment-Astonishing-Condition/dp/9878683168/ref=sr_1_1?crid=393XRZFZNNEBZ&keywords=the+savant+syndrome&qid=1642817066&s=books&sprefix=the+savant+syndrome%2Cstripbooks%2C99&sr=1-1

Here are two books that validate his case... It's not a self-diagnosis. MafeMercado (talk) 19:19, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Question
What is your connection to the article subject Patrick Fagerberg? Platonk (talk) 22:51, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I find the subject fascinating and think it’s worth being in Wikipedia. I also know the film director who is doing a documentary on Patrick’s life. I believe this is a legitimately interesting project, focused on an almost unbelievable story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MafeMercado (talk • contribs) 22:20, 21 January 2022 (UTC)


 * There appears to be a tendency to describe acquired savants as extraordinary good at what they do. In this case, he's not just someone who now paints a lot, but he's supposedly very, very good at it. I find the evidence for the supposed high quality if his work lacking. There is, of course a financial incentive for those selling his work to sensationalize this "unbelievable" story. Vexations (talk) 23:31, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I understand your concerns and this is not what is happening here. In the case of Patrick, there appears to be substantial evidence that he developed a talent he did not have before. His case is also validated by two books written by two respective scholars and his story was picked up by media companies around the world. There is also the fact he is represented by a prominent gallery. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MafeMercado (talk • contribs) 19:15, 3 February 2022 (UTC)


 * You should read WP:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. Platonk (talk) 19:03, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * That "prominent" gallery, Gremillion & Co is one of the things that makes the whole case so problematic. Look at the roster for
 * Bruce Brainard
 * Christian Renonciat
 * Davey Eldridge
 * Douglas Semivan
 * Elise Wagner
 * Elizabeth Chandler
 * Eric Holzman
 * Eric Peters
 * Fernando Casas
 * Gary Lankford
 * Jack Zajac
 * James Perry
 * Jeffrey Brosk
 * Jerrold Burchman
 * Joan Steinman
 * John Christensen
 * John Pavlicek
 * Kathleen Rabel
 * Kathy Erteman
 * Laura Duerwald
 * Leslie Parke
 * Lionel Kalish
 * Marie Thibeault
 * Miwa Nishimura
 * Muriel Kalish
 * Patrick Duffy
 * Patrick Fagerberg
 * Philip Tarlow
 * Richard Koci
 * Robert Rector
 * Roger Foster
 * Stephen Adams
 * Stephen Daly
 * Thomas Zitzwitz
 * Woodrow Blagg
 * There are some names in that list that link to articles, but mostly the wrong people. My reading is that Gremillion & Co. Art Consulting is not a "prominent" gallery at all, and almost none of the artists they represent are notable by our standards. Also, an art gallery is really the last institution to use as a reliable source for an objective opinion on the artistic merit of an artist's work. It is their business to promote them. Vexations (talk) 12:02, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

COI tag (January 2022)
Per Talk:Patrick Fagerberg Platonk (talk) 19:06, 22 January 2022 (UTC)