Talk:Rosa Bonheur

Formatting
I added a new picture, could someone format the page? Thanks!-Hairchrm 03:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

WRONG PAINTING
The painting The Plowing in the Nivernais currently shown is by AUGUSTE Bonheur, NOT Rosa Bonheur. Somebody uploaded the wrong painting. Both sisters made paintings of the same name.


 * Auguste was Rosa's sister, not her brother. Her sister's name was Juliette, also a painter. Since the Plowing in the Nivernais painting you cite has been removed, I cannot comment on your accuracy on that account. turning red was one of the movies she painted. she painted the background of a lot of things.

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 08:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

This article is a mess
Over time I will attempt to fix this article, but it must be said that at present it is a total mess. There are so many egregious errors of fact here that it boggles the mind. Paintings are/were miss-named, said to be in the wrong locations, genders of persons described were switched, politicians and religious figures became painting instructors, occurrences are out of order. It is probably the worst article I have stumbled upon on the Wiki. Yikes! Sauda d e 7  18:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Presentation of an artist
More of her pictures would be good. Like, Hafspajen (talk) 16:45, 9 July 2014 (UTC) File:André Adolphe-Eugène Disdéri (French - (Rosa Bonheur) - Google Art Project.jpg file is better than the last picture used of her, I think it would be an improvment ...Hafspajen (talk) 18:17, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

On gender issues
This edit by AyeolaWhitworth2 was reverted because of improper citation formatting, not because sources were unreliable (as stated here). With correct formatting and further verification such an edit may be more appropriate. Coldcreation (talk) 07:06, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Similar stuff (but better referenced) was largely removed a year ago, which may have been a mistake. Global "trousers" please, not Yankee Imperialist "pants"! And that para was far too long etc. Johnbod (talk) 15:54, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Now we have this, by AyeolaWhitworth3], which I've had to tidy, as it was all bold. Johnbod (talk) 01:19, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Image from this article to appear as POTD soon
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Anna Klumpke - Portrait of Rosa Bonheur (1898).jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on 2018-11-08. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2018-11-08. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 17:05, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

source Janson&Janson
When trying to clean up the references, I found a link to Janson&Janson (History of Art). It has an ISBN nr. But this number points to an edition that has no text on Bonheur on p. 674 (at least not according to the Google books version. Which edition is meant? Is it ISBN 0-13-182895-9 (Google Books),, so Rev. 6th ed., 2004 (Upper Saddle River, N.J. Prentice-Hall) and is the page nr. 674 correct for the credits in footnote 4 (end of lead section)? Or is a different edition used? There is another ref to J&J at footnote 25! Please help! --Dick Bos (talk) 07:50, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Easier to find a better source probably. If you mean note 4, that should not be hard, & can probably be done from ones on the page already. Some here.  Johnbod (talk) 16:23, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello, I added a clarification needed about widely considered to be the most famous female painter of the nineteenth century. On my way to the library to check Janson&Janson. If there is nothing on Bonheur, the statement will have to be removed. Cordially, Msbbb (talk) 16:54, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Or another source found - you might check while you're there. Who did you have in mind as runner-up? Johnbod (talk) 19:02, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Cassatt? Morisot? It's the widely and 'most famous'' that I find a bit excessive. Still working on sources.
 * Since I have your attention, I also find the Personal life and legacy section a little overboard: a sense of identity, broadcast her sexuality seem to be a personal interpretation of what is known. I have a quotation (but must find the source) that could be read as RB not wanting to broadcast anything besides her art; could also be interpreted as her way of hiding her sexuality: "But the suit I wear is my work attire, and nothing else. The epithets of imbeciles have never bothered me". I don't know what epithets she is referring to, could venture a guess. --Msbbb (talk) 00:01, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Found the quote: . Chrysler Museum but no solid reference for the quote. However, also quoted by Christie's --Msbbb (talk) 00:19, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not a "quote" but an opinion, or statement of fact. See the google books search at the top of this section. Also see the edit history of the article on lesbianness - I recently got reverted by a sockpuppet over this - I don't support "openly". Cassatt (still mainly a US thing) & Morisot were far less famous at the time, but have been gaining ground in recent decades. Elizabeth Thompson (Lady Butler) was a competitor in the UK, far more famous in her lifetime & long afterwards - if only she'd worn trousers. Johnbod (talk) 12:32, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Not a quote? It's written as a "quote" on the Christie's site. Meanwhile, I got access to more articles about her fame and the fact that she was written about in the US during her lifetime would indicate that she was indeed famous beyond France. Revert: you mean the one by Chiltern, with the "don't be ridiculous" comment? Msbbb (talk) 16:58, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Of course she was "famous beyond France" - have you actually read the article? Johnbod (talk) 17:15, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Have I actually read the article? Maybe not, although I thought I had read it, and also Wikipedia articles in other languages. My impression was that the article in English was a tad overboard, hence my messages on this discussion page. But hey, if it turns out that I was wrong, so be it! 02:26, 19 December 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Msbbb (talk • contribs)

Roja behna
Voice concern 2402:8100:2563:41E7:90E6:D053:CB53:EB5 (talk) 01:20, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Incorrect date
Please fix the statement in “Personal life and legacy” that says, ‘Until 2013 women in France were forbidden from wearing trousers…’ 2600:1000:B10A:AEA6:A054:79FD:8B07:55C (talk) 11:10, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Adjusted - amazingly the date is correct, but the law was ignored by then. Johnbod (talk) 17:57, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Gratuitous focus on her sexuality
This article focuses unnecessarily on Bonheur's sexuality, mentioning "lesbian" no less than six times. It also gratuitously brings up lesbian sexual positions, which are completely irrelevant to her art. I can only imaging whomever wrote this threw that in because it's all they can think about whenever they learn a woman is not straight.

Please remove the unnecessary mentions of lesbianism and help make this article more equal to those about male artists and more respectful of Bonheur as a person, not just a lesbian. 2600:1017:B0A0:5F23:E55F:6936:EEB3:9D9D (talk) 13:04, 16 March 2022 (UTC)


 * There's certainly nothing wrong with mentioning that she was a lesbian, or that she had a partner of 40 years, etc. But the bit about lesbian sex being "regarded as animalistic and deranged by most French officials" is pretty irrelevant, unless those French officials had an important, direct role in her sex life.
 * There is a similar problem with "there is no confirmation that her relationships with women were sexual." There isn't confirmation that her relationships with women weren't sexual, either, so the sentence only serves to undermine the legitimacy of her relationships and the legitimacy of queer history in general. DSWalber (talk) 15:05, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed. It's an unnecessary and undue emphasis. She was an artist who happened to be a lesbian, the mention of tribadism is completely nonsequitur and disrespectful. I really doubt we'd get irrelevant details like that in an article about a non lesbian.
 * For what it's worth the | source used said that Bonheur achieved success inspite of contemporary stigma, that should've been mentioned instead. The part that was actually put into this article was from a different paragraph that wasn't even directly talking about her, so that should be removed. But I think we could use the same source to talk about her success despite the time she lived in (though the article already does that a few times), that would make sense at least. 24.44.73.34 (talk) 15:08, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Specifically dug up my wiki login about this line but I am unable to read the source it is citing. Let's just remove the part about how we don't know if they were sexual or not. We don't have confirmations of sex for many heterosexual artists relationships! And let's not forget that asexual lesbians exist. It should be noted that mentioning merely mentioning tribadism isn't necessarily focusing on her personal sexual positions or preferences, tribadism was basically an old way to refer to lesbians/homosexality. So the point about tribadism being considered "animalistic or deranged" is really about reflecting on the fact that Bonheur was openly in a relationship with a woman and that was not ok at the time. Sure this could be written in a different way.
 * Further, in only being able to read the first page of the citation for "no confirmation" (Boime, Albert (December 1981). "The case of Rosa Bonheur: Why should a woman want to be more like a man?". Art History.) you can see a later paragraph practically plagiarizes a sentence from that source. Sentence in wiki article - "Having chosen to never become an adjunct or appendage to a man in terms of painting..." Sentence in Boime source page 1- "She early decided never to become an adjunct or appendage to a man and wished to compete with her male peers on her own terms." Mkatieob (talk) 16:14, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree that the part about her having sex should be removed entirely. However, the current line about tribadism is "At a time when lesbian sex – particularly tribadism – was regarded as animalistic and deranged by most French officials". This makes it clear that it's about sexual positions and thus irrelevant to the topic. The way it's written currently does not give any history on the term and just hovering over it brings up a picture of two people having sex. Most people aren't going to click the article to learn more about the history of the term which means they're going to fairly assume that she was outspoken about the types of sex she preferred. Beeinthebonnet (talk) 19:30, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think that the way it's written focuses too much on specific lesbian sexual practices, which is irrelevant and speculative at best, and prurient at worst. It's particularly problematic that hovering over the word "tribadism" (which could happen inadvertently) brings up an explicit image of a sexual act--not what most people expect to see when reading an article on art history. It takes the focus away from her life and her art. 71.184.198.185 (talk) 00:02, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:REDACTION
 * Wikipedia is NOT censored. read about why at the link. Cassie Schebel, almost a savant. &#60;3 (talk) 03:07, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * There is also a problem with the start of para 2 in the lead: "Bonheur was openly lesbian." This is not what detailed accounts say.  But we have to face the fact that modern interest in Bonheur is 99% about her status as a feminist/lesbian poster girl, and 1% about her as a once-famous painter in a now deeply unfashionable style. The article got 16,000 views yesterday, up from the usual ~250. Why is that?  The many attempts over the years to give a more nuanced and balanced view, sticking to what we actually know, do not last long. Johnbod (talk) 16:31, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree that "Although she was a lesbian, there is no confirmation that her relationships with women were sexual" should be taken out completely. Clarence Patch (talk) 19:38, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I see you have removed it. As I said just above "The many attempts over the years to give a more nuanced and balanced view, sticking to what we actually know, do not last long." Johnbod (talk) 02:37, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Help me!
Please help me with... Rosa Bonheur Hello! The third paragraph of the "Personal life and legacy" section of this article is offensive and insipid. "Her romantic life was that of a lesbian. However, there is no confirmation that her relationships with women were sexual." How would we even have evidence of that? Unless there's a personal journal with her thoughts on sex, we have no reason to even comment on it. Clicking on the source also neither confirms nor denies her sexual life. The idea that queer people must have rumors on their sexual habits included on their own page is so so stupid and useless. This paragraph also includes " At a time when lesbian sex – particularly tribadism – was regarded as animalistic and deranged by most French officials, Bonheur's outspokenness about her personal life was groundbreaking." At no point is tribadism brought up in the citation. This is a salacious and voyeuristic implication for no reason. If the citation cited a French newspaper that condemned her openness with her favorite sexual positions, then fine. But it doesn't. I've never edited a Wikipedia article before so I'm not sure about removing or editing these two lines that add nothing of substance to the article, especially of someone that is in the spotlight today. 136.176.177.106 (talk) 15:22, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * See the section above, and many more before that. Johnbod (talk) 16:24, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Expansion
There has been much discussion on this talk page regarding whether the information on her sexuality is superfluous, but it seems to me that the focus on her sexuality is at the right amount, but more information is required for other sections of the article. Her lesbianism shouldn't be stated as fact, because this is a WP:BIOGRAPHY page, and she never (As I have seen) referred to herself as such. Cassie Schebel, almost a savant. &#60;3 (talk) 20:21, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Source 29
Who is in favor of removing "Although she was a lesbian, there is no confirmation that her relationships with women were sexual"?That statement seems illogical and contradictory. In no way would she have been able to directly claim the sexual nature of her relationships due to the period she lived in. I read the 1981 article that was cited and it seems outdated and borderline homophobic. Clarence Patch (talk) 19:34, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Her supposed lesbianism is not grounded at all. It may or may not correspond to what happened, but nothing support this claim, except the preconceptions of those who wrote about it. It is a recent reinvention about her life to adapt to our current views. As for a lot of things about her life, including feminism. She lived with women for a large part of her life, but it completely mirrors the beliefs of her father who was a Saint-Simonian. For example she did not live only with Micas, but also Micas mother. The Micas family handled the day to day management of the manor.Hervegirod (talk) 12:13, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Lesbianim
There are a lot of completely false claims about the so-called Rosa "lesbianism". She might have been lesbian, or not, but no fact support this claim. And the claim that "she was open about her lesbianism" is absolutely not grounded. Hervegirod (talk) 12:09, 12 February 2023 (UTC)