Talk:Wanda Gág

Accurate name: Wanda Gág
That's her correct and official name, as appears on her book covers. -- Hús  ö  nd  20:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That is not how it's spelled here in Minnesota, where she lived. See the website for her home, for example, an historic site. Jonathunder 20:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Husond, even if that true on some book cover, it isn't determinative of the issue.


 * Furthermore, was there any evidence whatsoever of what any book cover says when I reverted the undiscussed, unreferenced move by User:Tevildo? A:  No, there was not.


 * Is there any evidence now in the article as to how her name is spelled on book covers? A:  No, there was is not.


 * Is there any citation to any reliable source here on the talk page to back up Husond's claims that this is how it appears on book covers? A:  No, there was is not.


 * Q.E.D. Gene Nygaard 01:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC) Corrected tense with strikeouts 04:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * OTOH, there is, and was, clear evidence of how the Wanda Gag House spells its name. Gene Nygaard 01:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

It is a distinct possibility that people doing websites do not know how to produce diacritic marks correctly. The US National Gallery of Art and the Library of Congress  both show the diacritic, as do most images of book covers, as previously mentioned. As well, the Wikipedia article on her father uses the diacritic throughout and there seems to be no controversy there. Just further sources to ponder. Ryanjunk 00:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I currently don't have the means to scan the book cover, but I have it here in my hands and there is definitely a diacritic: Wanda Gág. Furthermore, this is how I have always seen the name spelled in literature referencing this author. I agree with Ryanjunk, some people may drop the diacritic because they don't know how to mark it correctly, but on Wikipedia the article should bear the diacritic (providing there are redirects in place at Wanda Gag, and there are). --woggly 10:25, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The name issue has resurfaced: Wanda added the ´ over the a in Gág after she went to New York. Neither of her parents ever used the accent mark, all of her biographies are consistent on this. I understand the desire to be consistent, but the corrections by Gobonobo are in error. Further complicating matters, the Wanda Gág House now uses the diacritic mark, albeit inconsistently. I recommend checking any of the reference titles concerning Anton Gag before reverting.Dktrfz (talk) 17:54, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Question???
When you write GAG in the Wikepedia search engine and don't use the accent mark - will the page still come up? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.80.168.143 (talk • contribs).
 * Yes. Doing that will redirect your result to this page.-- Hús  ö  nd  02:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Copyright violation
I've added a copyvio tag because several paragraphs seem to have been lifted directly from this website. The material was added during this edit by Sfphotocraft in November 2006. As best I can tell, that material was already on that website by November 2006. See the Internet Archive logs for the site here. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 14:50, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Why don't we just delete the copyviolations and start over with a smaller article, starting here ?. We can add material later...Modernist (talk) 15:24, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Done...Modernist (talk) 22:43, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Removed some content...
While adding and footnoting info I had to remove this "She considered herself a feminist and advocate of free love in the 1920s." because I didn't find a citation for it in any of my books. Feel free to add it back if you have one.Tlqk56 (talk) 05:00, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

The Cech source appears to be inaccurate on several accounts, most notably date of her marriage. It is an older reference, possibly "sanitized" for children? The Winnan book was written after her adult diaries were made available, it contains entries in Gág's own writing. Numerous references to feminism are made by Gág in Growing Pains, her adult diaries also contain numerous references to open sexual relationships. Much of the newest material needs citations, it reads like opinion.Dktrfz (talk) 03:13, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Cech may be wrong, but it was published in 1983, as the reference says, long after her death, and is for adults. I don't question the feminism facts, or any others. I simply don't have citations for them. Feel free to put them in and cite them, as I said above. I cited every fact in the article that I added, except for the one I missed when I split the paragraph differently. Thanks for noting that. Since WP doesn't allow writings by the person themselves as support for facts, her diaries don't help there. But I'm not interested in fighting over anything, only improving the article, and I've used all my current sources so I'm finished unless I find something new. (The citation for "There was a movement among educators at the time against fairy tales." follows it. So I removed that tag. It is: Cech, pg. 187.)Tlqk56 (talk) 05:12, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

It's definitely getting better but the phrase "Some people felt" is just a bunch of weasel words. Which people? Which movement? I still have many doubts about the Gale material. It is not from a dedicated biographer. I will be checking other "facts" derived from those references. The wedding date mistake was more than egregious, it was positively disingenuous. The current article has very little on her artistic achievements. It may be time to create separate sections on the different parts of Wanda's interesting and complex life - early years, art school, New York scene, printmaking, children's books, legacy, etc, which would allow a more balanced picture. If you haven't already, read Wanda's Growing Pains, Karen Nelson Hoyle's bio and the Winnan book. Dktrfz (talk) 02:07, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

New Sections
Starting to add new sections, to give a more balanced overview of Wanda's life and work. Feel free to fill in, PLEASE NOTE: some older material has factual errors, try to source material based on newer research which had access to her archives after 1993. Try to avoid sources which are just rehashes of other rehashes. New sections may be sparse until they are filled in. Dktrfz (talk) 01:09, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I just noticed that you are including a lot of pages from the same book. Would you consider using just one reference for the book and then using Rp?  In addition, things like "Cech, John (editor), Dictionary of Literary Biographies: American Writers for Children, 1900-1960, Gale Research, 1983, volume 22, pp. 183;" aren't entirely necessary since there already exists a reference that says "Cech, John (editor), Dictionary of Literary Biographies: American Writers for Children, 1900-1960, Gale Research, 1983, volume 22, pp. 179-191;"  Ryan Vesey  Review me!  15:19, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea, I'd have to study the procedure in depth before attempting it. There are more sources I'm looking at, but these existing references will be the main ones. I'm trying to eliminate the Cech references, they have been in error in several instances, there are better sources, which have had access to primary materials which had been restricted before 1993. Dktrfz (talk) 18:20, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

2015 update: Still filling in school and work sections. May try to include her various lovers under family and personal life if I get the nerve. Books for Children section still seems awkward, anyone?Dktrfz (talk) 22:52, 21 January 2015 (UTC) How much personal information is too much information? Gág repeatedly wrote of the importance of her lovers (plural) in her work. TMI or relevant? Dktrfz (talk) 17:46, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Honor Awards
Re: Edits by 32.218.47.31. Please check the Caldecott and Newbery sites for a complete description of the differences between Medals and Honors: "Beside the Caldecott Medal, the committee awards a variable number of citations to worthy runners-up, called the Caldecott Honors or Caldecott Honor Books. The "Honor" was introduced in 1971, but some runners-up had been identified annually and all those runners-up were retroactively named Caldecott Honor Books." I am reverting your edits, if you have a reason for your edits, please state it here.Dktrfz (talk) 13:48, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Edits by 32.218.xxx.xx et. al.
Every edit I make is intended to increase accuracy and clarity. Feel free to edit them as much as you like, but refrain from personal attacks.Dktrfz (talk) 01:55, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks to 32.218.45.191 for the constructive edits!Dktrfz (talk) 15:08, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Wanda Gág. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130428170715/http://members.dodo.com.au/~dublsar/static/biography/index.html to http://members.dodo.com.au/~dublsar/static/biography/index.html
 * Added tag to https://collections.artsmia.org/index.php?page=search
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304045103/http://www.nga.gov/content/ngaweb/global-site-search-page.html?searchterm=wanda%2Bgag&searchpath=%2Fcontent%2Fngaweb%2Fnotfound&pageNumber=1 to http://www.nga.gov/content/ngaweb/global-site-search-page.html?searchterm=wanda%2Bgag&searchpath=%2Fcontent%2Fngaweb%2Fnotfound&pageNumber=1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:20, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Sexual Relationships
In biographies and her diaries Gág's sexual relationships has been mentioned as important to her artistic inspiration and development, something to bear in mind when editing. Bowdlerization has cropped up here in the past, editors would do well to consult the Winnan, Hoyle, and Cox references, as well as Gág's own writings before removing them.Dktrfz (talk) 17:01, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Reassessment
Wow! This is a splendid biography of a person that Wikipedia needs to know all about. A potential featured article. I understand it had copyright problems in the past and did not check for them except to run Earwig's Copyvio Detector (which says violation is possible at 42.2% which needs to come way down). At this time I raised it to B class which is as high as it can go without impartial review. Comments:
 * I added alt text for the photos and tried to put them in chronological order. Sorry the illustration in the New York section probably belongs one section up.
 * Can you please remove or adjust some of the citations in the lead? They break up the prose. WP:CITEBUNDLE might apply I don't know.
 * I added paragraph breaks but you might want to change those.
 * The lead should be expanded to explain her influence on picture books. It could be at least two or more paragraphs.
 * Policy on this is extensive, more than I have time to learn today. The section "Selected prints" is informative but it might need to find another way to present them. WP:EL, MOS:LINK and WikiProject External links are some places that could help. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:27, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Susan! We've met once at the January 2019 Wiki-meet up in Minneapolis! I really appreciate your edits to this article and the elevation to B class. As you could probably tell, I have been a main contributor to it for many years. Here are my responses to your comments:


 * Copyright issues - Early versions had whole sections that were plagiarized, these are long gone. I looked at the Copyvio page and nothing there struck me as egregious, only some direct quotes, I may be wrong about that. It would be nice to have some images from her books, but those are definitely under copyright. Most of the copyright "violations" were from articles which copied the Wikipedia article, several of my edits were copied word for word.
 * Illustration order is still a little odd, I liked the Gág house image in the legacy section as it shows a current picture of the restored museum. If it was put back there the other pictures could be moved up to be in better sync with the sections. The litho stone picture should be in the New York section.
 * I like all the new paragraph breaks.
 * The lead does have some style issues, it could easily be longer, but that might take away from later information. The multiple citations for Growing Pains was the result of an old edit war where an anonymous editor didn’t think that that book was important. Maria Popova and other modern writers have featured it. It is a great book and central to the understanding of Wanda’s artistic development (and the best pre-WWI chronicle of life in the Twin Cites I have ever read.)
 * The Selected Prints section avoids any copyright issues with its direct links to high quality images in museums and art publications. They are sort of a 'greatest hits' of her best prints, previously there were some low-quality files in the article.

A big problem with this article has always been is that Wanda was a complex individual: parallel careers in children's books and serious art, a 'leftie' and a free-thinker, especially in regards to her sexual relations. The early versions of the article were very "sanitized" and had no information on her fine arts efforts and some of the 'facts' about her personal life were simply wrong. I've featured her in my blog many times, but most of that information is a result of my original research so is not suitable for Wikipedia. You can read them here: https://flippistarchives.blogspot.com/2004/04/wanda-gag.html

I could see the article being expanded, but I'm too close to the subject to do so. Feel free to make any changes, I'll be supportive of your efforts.Dktrfz (talk) 14:35, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * sorry I don't recognize your name from the meetup. I'm not interested in developing this article and was hoping to encourage more work on it, unfortunately several years en retard. You are welcome to revert any or all of my changes. Best wishes, -SusanLesch (talk) 22:38, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

OK, I will take all this into consideration. I look at this page about once a month or so, I'll sleep on making any changesDktrfz (talk) 01:04, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Glad to hear it. If you remind me where you were sitting maybe I will remember who you are. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:55, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm the grouchy looking guy on the left in this picture: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup/Minneapolis/WikipediaDay#/media/File:Minneapolis_WikipediaDay_2019_--_putting_candles_on_cake.jpg Dktrfz (talk) 22:49, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, yes! I have a vague memory. Thank you for the link. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:05, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Growing Pains References
Here are some further references to reviews of GP removed from lead for clarity: Smith, Frances. "Growing Pains".The Saturday Review, October 5, 1940, p. 12. Woods, Katherine. "Growing Pains". The New York Times Book Review, October 20, 1940, p. 9. Worcester Telegram, October 6, 1940, p. 6. The Saint Paul Dispatch, September 26, 1940, p. 10. Sherman, John. "Growing Pains". The Minneapolis Star Journal, September 22, 1940, sec. 1, p. 13. "Growing Pains".The New Yorker, September 28, 1940, p. 79.

Removing wrong attribution because it was Dehli not Wanda
I am removing the following:
 * In 1928, Gág hand-colored some of Rockwell Kent's illustrations in a limited edition of Candide.

https://archive.org/details/worldofartmuseum0000zigr/page/134/mode/2up?q=Dehli, the art historian Carl Zigrosser attributes the coloring of Rockwell Kent's to Ione Robinson & Dehli Gág. Dehli was one of Wanda's siblings.

The Voltaire/Kent edition of Candide mentions neither Gág or Robinson.

Peaceray (talk) 22:18, 18 January 2024 (UTC)