Talk:The Thankful Poor

Are lynchings of, or against?
I would have thought that lynchings of might be more idiomatic, but here we have lynchings against. The linked article has plenty of of and no instances of against. I don't want to mess around with an FA and a usage that I don't know, but I just wondered if you had considered the possibility? Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 16:45, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * "Lynchings of" certainly appears more idiomatic. I originally intended to avoid a close repetition of "of"s, but now I think it's more appropriate to use "of" in this case. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 16:56, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I see what you mean about the "of"s but I don't think it reads too badly now. I suppose if it was still felt to be awkward then a further reword might help but ... seems OK to me. Thanks again, DBaK (talk) 09:47, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Art Bridges catalog offline
Recently, Art Bridges has taken down the painting catalog for The Thankful Poor. It was not archived on web archive, so if anyone could find an alternative archive link, it would be greatly appreciated. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 16:24, 30 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Okay I found a Google cache of the page on April 22, which at least contains all the textual information. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 16:29, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay now the google cache has been removed. This is getting out of hand. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 00:23, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, never mind. Apparently I missed three web archives of the site. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 00:53, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

I meant to mention this: which adds a bit more colour on the Cosby purchase, and confirms the sale to Art Bridges.

Glad the painting has reappeared on the Art Bridges website. Looks like it is going on loan to Dallas. Theramin (talk) 00:16, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Comment
I know it's established in the article already with sources and everything, but does anyone else think the way that the article talks about Tanner "possibly" drawing inspiration from white artists is problematic? The way it's written seems to question (to this editor) Tanner's validity. Likeanechointheforest (talk) 18:24, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * "The way it's written seems to question (to this editor) Tanner's validity." How does drawing inspiration from another painting affect an artist's validity? Artists do this all the time. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 18:51, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, the statement is speculative, even if it does have sources. I support removal of that line. —¿philoserf? (talk) 19:15, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

I think you're right the statement is a little speculative. I do not know why. 2600:1700:64B7:4450:51EF:5089:B43:DE02 (talk) 20:00, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay! The statements are incredibly speculative. Given the discussion above, I've gone ahead and removed them! Likeanechointheforest (talk) 19:37, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Hold up, not all of the content that was just removed was "incredibly speculative" in any way. They are all statements corroborated by qualified and expert art sources, and I don't see why it needs to be removed because of that. It offers important artistic context and insight into what experts believe to be Tanner's artistic inspiration. You can't just delete all that from the article without addressing the concern I raised above, and furthermore, the content you removed didn't even correspond with the initial concern you raised (that the sentence "The composition possibly draws inspiration from American artist Elizabeth Nourse's 1891 painting Le Repas en Famille (The Family Meal)..." was troublesome). In fact, that was the only sentence you did not delete in the entire paragraph. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 19:51, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks. Here's where I'm at! How do you respond to the concern that the language suggests that Tanner's work isn't original? How do you respond to the fact that other famous paintings by white painters don't have this level of "this is inspired by these other paintings?" Likeanechointheforest (talk) 13:54, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Uh, for the first question, please see my previous response. To reiterate, there's rarely such a thing as purely "original" art since almost every artist draws influence from another. For the second question, I'm pretty sure you just made that up. I'm not sure what art articles you're reading on Wikipedia, but many of the featured articles I've seen cover the artist's influence to this level, if not more (when relevant of course). For example, there's an entire section devoted style and influence for Hans Memling's Annunciation. Going down the featured article list alphabetically, van der Weyden's Beaune Altarpiece also has an entire section, and so does Altdorfer's The Battle of Alexander at Issus. You can continue going down feature-quality art articles and you will discover a bounty of influence sections for "white painters" to suit your heart's content. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 14:25, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Nonsense edit
Could someone sort this piece of nonsense please? 2A00:23C7:2B89:BE00:EDDD:AA14:AD30:F232 (talk) 13:08, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * done (not by me) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:28, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Ridiculous archiving of Google book links
I have had to revert this rather silly practice twice (although why I was reverted without any rationale is beyond me: maybe next time would like to try and a. read edit summaries and engage brain before reverting, and b. Use an edit summary to explain what exactly you thought you were doing).

The reverting was, as I said in my edit summary, because Google book links do not archive well, and could possibly be a copyright violation if you are copying from an unauthorised source to an unauthorised one. In this instance one of the archived pages came up partly in Indonesian, another partly in Arabic. This is not helpful. I would advise reading Google Books and Wikipedia, particularly point four. 2A00:23C7:2B89:BE00:C545:4960:E74A:2CAB (talk) 18:33, 24 June 2021 (UTC)