Jump to content

Talk:Gilbert Stuart

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleGilbert Stuart has been listed as one of the Art and architecture good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 31, 2007Good article nomineeListed
July 16, 2009Good article reassessmentKept
On this day...A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on December 3, 2019.
Current status: Good article

Untitled

[edit]

Was any reason ever given by the National Gallery for the name change from the 1880 Breschard to the 1970 Ricketts? I thought Riggs was one of America's premier collectors?

is this the same gilbert stuart who was one of the editors of the edinburgh review in the period 1773 or thereabouts? the artist gilbert stuart was known to have been in edinburgh at this time. gilbert stuart the literary critic was known to have been a reviewer of lord monboddo's work at that time.

signed Anlace posted jan 4, 2006 Anlace 05:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Location of Birth

[edit]

When was G. Stuart actually born? On different locations I'm finding different things. These are: Kingston, Kingstown, Narragansett, Saunderstown. To Anlace: Stuart was only 17 years old in 1773. Sztavrosz 00:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I mean WHERE not WHEN. Sztavrosz 00:24, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He was born in Saunderstown, which is a village within North Kingstown. Technically, either location is correct. He was definitely not born in either Narragansett (a separate town) or Kingston (a village of South Kingstown). "Kingstown" does not exist, probably just a typo meaning North Kingstown. Raime 17:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i dont know where, but ill let you know if i come upon it. age 17 might work because his critic work was very immature and received much adverse comment from authors and even jurists of the time Anlace 03:31, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

J. E. Stuart

[edit]

I have removed the sentence from the article that read:

J.E. Stuart, a famous California artist of the later 19th century, was the grandson of Gilbert Stuart.

Due to information found on on The San Francisco Art Boom: 1860s-1880s: James Everett Stuart (1852-1941). This website states:

James Everett Stuart was asked if he was related to the famous portrait artist Gilbert Stuart, and he replied: "Perhaps, but we are not sure. I may be a distant cousin only." (source: Letter from Arthur Thomas to J. A. Baird).

This clearly contradicts the claim that Gilbert Stuart was his grandfather. Whoever found the original information, please identify the source from which you retrieved it from if you want to reinstate it into the article. Raime 06:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

transferred from main page

On American Painter James Everett Stuart[[1]] being the grandson of Gilbert Stuart: According to the Gilbert Stuart Birthplace museum, at the time of Gilbert Stuart’s death, age 72, on July 9, 1828, he had no surviving male children, only four daughters: "The 4 daughters and their mother (Gilbert's wife) eventually moved to Newport, RI where they lived out their days, died, and were buried. Despite having 12 children, Gilbert Stuart did not have any grandchildren! Thus, James Everett Stuart's claim to be a grandchild of the famous artist can not be valid. There are a number of biographies on the life of Stuart. Dorinda Evans is writing a second biography in which his children will be discussed in detail. In conversations with her, she concurs that of the 12 children born to Stuart, there were no grandchildren produced." Information provided by Margaret O'Connor, Executive Director, Gilbert Stuart Birthplace and Museum. www.gilbertstuartmuseum.org

An article published in 1906: “In 1825 Gilbert [sic] Stuart's health began to fail. Symptoms of paralysis greatly depressed him, and although his mind remained clear and unimpaired to the last, his buoyant spirits deserted him, and it was only occasionally that flashes of the brilliant wit for which he had been famous were shown. In the spring of 1828 the gout, to which he had long been a victim, attacked his chest and stomach; for three months he suffered acutely and bore the torture with fortitude. On July 9, 1828, as recorded in the original register of deaths in the city of Boston, the end came, and in the seventy-third year of his age Gilbert Stuart passed away, leaving his wife and three daughters to survive him. He was buried in the cemetery on Boston Common, where to-day a bronze tablet marks as nearly as can be determined the location of the vault.” www.oldandsold.com/articles33n/gilbert-stuart-1.shtml

It is documented by the Joseph A Baird, Jr. Collection which contains a copy of a letter written in 1970 to Mr. Baird by a close friend of James Everett Stuart, Arthur Thomas: “James Everett Stuart was not the grandson of the celebrated portrait painter Gilbert Stuart. The Joseph A Baird, Jr. Collection contains a copy of a letter written in 1970 to Mr. Baird by a close friend of Stuart. Arthur Thomas, whom I could not identify, had questioned the artist on this matter. Stuart replied: "I may be a distant cousin only." (Arthur Thomas was a close friend of J.E. Stuart, written in a letter to J.A. Baird. Baird Archives at U.C. Davis.) —Citation: www.greatwestbooks.com/espage.htm www.siskiyous.edu/shasta/art/boo.htm#end165#end165 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Breschard (talk • contribs) 18:42, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA Passed

[edit]

The article is well written, well referenced, and covers the the topic well. The automated peer review suggests:

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

  • The lead of this article may be too long, or may contain too many paragraphs. Please follow guidelines at WP:LEAD; be aware that the lead should adequately summarize the article.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.[?]
  • If there is not a free use image in the top right corner of the article, please try to find and include one.[?]
  • If this article is about a person, please add {{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}} along with the required parameters to the article - see Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.[?]
  • As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?]
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Congratulations, DoomsDay349 01:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart or Stewart

[edit]

I am finding that within the article the last name is spelled Stewart and Stuart. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.200.141.237 (talk) 20:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is correct; he was born as "Stewart", and the name of his father was "Stewart", but Gilbert later changed his name to "Stuart". I will add another reference ([2]) to clarify this. Cheers, Rai-me 22:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1) Gilbert Stuart was not baptized Gilbert Charles Stewart. There is no middle name in the baptismal record, and he was named after his father who was also Gilbert Stuart, sometimes misspelled Stewart. Stuart sometimes added "Charles" as a middle name while he painted in England to connect himself more strongly to an association with the royal Stuarts. He never did this after he returned to the United States and has always been known simply as "Gilbert Stuart."

2) McLanathan's book is an old and unreliable source, not respected by scholars. Three major scholarly sources on Stuart have appeared since its publication: the exhibition catalog by Carrie Rebora Barrett and Ellen Miles, and two books by Dorinda Evans, one of which discusses Stuart as bipolar.

3) Stuart did not paint copies of the Athenaeum portrait with his "daughters." Only one daughter, Jane, was an artist. He is not known to have allowed anyone else to paint the heads in his replicas. Jane helped in minor ways (grinding colors, etc.) with his work and produced her own copies, especially after his death. 

                                     Dorinda Evans  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dorinda22 (talk • contribs) 17:26, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfinished Portrait?

[edit]

"His best known work, George Washington (also known as The Athenaeum and the Unfinished Portrait) was completed the 1796" I'm not sure how that is supposed to actually read. "in 1796?" If unfinished, how "completed"? And why was it never finished? When was it first exhibited or reproduced? Шизомби (talk) 17:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed it to read: "His best known work, the unfinished portrait of George Washington that is sometimes referred to as The Athenaeum, was begun in 1796 and left incomplete at the time of Stuart's death in 1828." It was left unfinished so that Stuart could keep it in his possession and make copies to sell for a profit [3]. I will try to add all of that information to the article. Cheers, Rai•me 20:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Groovy. I wonder also why it was known as "The Athenaeum"? Шизомби (talk) 15:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the Washington portraits were named after their original owners. Perhaps this one was sold to an Athenaeum somewhere. --12.187.89.160 (talk) 13:28, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I believe it was named after the Boston Athenaeum. Cheers, Rai•me 19:19, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment

[edit]
This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Gilbert Stuart/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

Starting GA reassessment as part of the GA Sweeps process. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:02, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Checking against GA criteria

[edit]
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose):
    b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):
    • Added a couple of cites to cited paras.
    b (citations to reliable sources):
    c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its scope.
    a (major aspects):
    b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
    b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Removal of Controversy section

[edit]

An editor wishes to remove the Controversy section which has been in this article since 2007. Any thoughts? Breschard (talk) 21:43, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like an edit war - Discuss here before anymore reversions...Modernist (talk) 22:23, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like it might be a conflict of interest to me, by the way...Modernist (talk) 22:24, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly the section is more relevant to the bios of the two candidates. It is rather excessive in a short bio of the artist it seems to me. Johnbod (talk) 23:06, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That was my initial reaction as well. The variant titles given this painting—which is not one of the prolific Stuart's most famous and has been little written about—seems to me to a small matter to warrant an entire section in the bio, particularly when so thinly sourced, rife with weasel words ("Stuart and Ricketts did not sail from Dublin to Philadelphia together as some have claimed"), POV ("Grain certainly would have been able to identify the sitter in Stuart's portrait as being Jean Baptiste Casmiere Breschard"), and original research ("to this day the NGA has failed to explain the reason for this identity change"). The "controversy" seems rather hyped, and any bystander might get the impression that a novel about this very subject—advertised on this talk page until two hours ago—was being promoted in the article.
Breschard uses the NGA bibliography to support the line about the NGA "fail[ure] to explain the reason for this identity change", but the link says nothing about any failure to explain. Furthermore, it appears to me—if I'm reading it correctly—that the NGA exhibition history for the painting indicates that it was exhibited under its current title consistently since 1947. This would mean that the painting has been known by this title for generations.
The NGA identifies Francis Ricketts, brother of John Bill Ricketts, as an early owner of the painting. Breschard rejects this part of the provenance on the grounds that he has found the NGA's source, T. Allston Brown's "A Complete History of the Amphitheatre and Circus" (1861) to be unreliable about circus history. But it appears that Brown is also the NGA's only source for Peter Grain having owned the painting. This part of the provenance is mustered by Breschard to bolster his argument, which seems like cherry-picking of the Brown account, based on OR, as no sources are cited for the unreliability of Brown. The deck is thus stacked in favor of the two contrary sources: Mason (1879) and Havard (2008). Against this we have various NGA-affiliated historians since 1970 or 1947, and Mount (1964) who identifies the sitter as "Mr. Ricketts". Lawrence Park (1926) evidently catalogued the painting as "Rechart or Rickart"; I haven't seen this book but hope to have a look in the next few weeks.
I am now being accused of editing in bad faith; this began during conversation on my talk page after I carelessly named Ellen Miles as a scholar "not from the NGA" who supports the Ricketts identification. I acknowledged the obvious error immediately; it certainly reveals my ignorance of who's who at the NGA but wikipedians are encouraged to differentiate between stupidity and bad faith when dealing with other editors. I know of no other reason for this accusation, which seems a violation of WP:CIVILITY. Ewulp (talk) 23:33, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Modernist, unless I am reading the time stamps incorrectly, I believe you made a number of revisions to the Stuart article after you called for a halt to all revisions to the Stuart article on this very page. Would you please return the article to the state it was in when you called for a halt to all revisions. I think that only fair. It's good to remember that editors shouldn't delete the good faith work of other editors simply because they are of a different opinion. If an editor feels a revision should be made to an established article, they should offer their revisions for discussion on this page and not simply delete the work of others. Arbitrarily deleting the good faith work of others promotes a great deal of bad feelings and is counter productive. If the original edits currently in question had been handled in this manner, perhaps a good deal of ill will might have been avoided. Once again, Modernist, if you made any revisions after you called for revisions to be halted, please restore them and offer your thoughts up for discussion elsewhere on this page. I believe if there are other interested editors they should be allowed at least another 48 to review the "Controversy" section before any discussions begin.Breschard (talk) 04:13, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, the article was a mess and the changes to the imagery were necessary. You clearly have a conflict of interest here see WP:OWN. I made no reversions by the way - my remarks above were in regard to an edit war you are engaged in - I made legitimate changes that clarified the galleries and enhanced the article...Modernist (talk) 11:29, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is a huge difference between making revisions to an article and reversions of another editors work...Modernist (talk) 11:49, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps discrepancies between the information in our article and the information provided by the cited sources can be addressed. For instance, the "Controversy" section says: "Peter Grain is cited in the NGA provenance for this painting as being the owner in the mid-19th century. A former member of the Circus of Pépin and Breschard, Grain certainly would have been able to identify the sitter in Stuart's portrait as being Jean Baptiste Casmiere Breschard. Grain sold the portrait to George Washington Riggs." Yet the NGA provenance indicates that the painting was purchased at auction "around 1853" by Peter Grain, who—unless Peter Grain|his wikipedia entry]] is wrong—died in 1857. The next owner of the painting was one "Barlow", who the NGA says was "probably the picture framer and dealer Henry N. Barlow". The provenance says the picture was purchased "before 1867" by Riggs. The alleged sale from Grain to Riggs appears to be unsupported, as is the implication that Grain conveyed information of the sitter's identity to Riggs. The NGA says that Tuckerman, in his Book of the Artists: American Artist Life Comprising Biographical and Critical Sketches of American Arts (1867) "lists the painting, sitter unidentified, as in Riggs' collection".
George C. Mason, in The Life and Works of Gilbert Stuart' (1879), identifies the painting as "Breschard the Circus Rider". Mason was quite punctilious about biographical data; the entries in his Stuart catalogue typically present the sitter's full name, last name first, often followed by dates of birth and death. The entry for The Circus Rider is unusually sketchy. Mason says nothing about the provenance of the painting, which is somewhat unusual. He is also less than certain that the painting is by Gilbert Stuart. Riggs apparently provided Mason with little useful information. Yet the language throughout the "Controversy" section encourages the reader to trust Riggs, whose credentials are emphasized, while the NGA is scolded for failing to explain the change of title. An editor with a differing POV could just as easily add language to impugn Riggs: "G.W. Riggs never explained why he thought the Ricketts portrait represented Breschard". Ewulp (talk)
Support removal of section, per Ewulp. Any major painter has multiple works whose subjects are characterized by this sort of ambiguity. In Stuart's oeuvre this painting hardly seems important enough to merit this much mention, unless someone has a point to drive home, which is suggested by wording like At present there is some debate as to the identity of the sitter and to this day the NGA has failed to explain the reason for this identity change. I don't see that the sources support charges of a debate, and wonder how much of this is original research based on synthesis of sources. JNW (talk) 14:45, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good to hear from other editors.

Right off the top I’d like to state that I believe the significance of the “Controversy” section has less to do with the actual identity of the Circus Rider and much more to do with the scandalously shabby research methods exhibited by the Smithsonian’s National Gallery of Art. I did not name the section “Controversy”, the editor who did seems to have retired from Wikipedia.

Speaking to people who are far more expert on the subject than I, they seem to agree that the original identification of Circus Rider appears to be as solid as such things ever are. A well known collector and an original trustee of the Corcoran Gallery of Art, George W. Riggs, was the owner of the painting, George Mason published The Life and Works of Gilbert Stuart identifying the sitter, and the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, displays the work as identified by Mason. I don’t believe any of these facts are in dispute and none are original research.

It is my understanding that the above constitutes about as bulletproof an identification as one is going to come across in such cases and would be accepted without any question by the vast majority of people who deal in these matters. But the National Gallery of Art changed the identification of the sitter. There is an obvious conflict here. Which is the more reliable source of information, The Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, or the National Gallery of Art?

Go to the provenance?

Not much to go on for the 1880 identification. It might be assumed that George W. Riggs identified the sitter for Mason who then identified the work for the MFA. That’s that.

The NGA does something else. In overturning the 1880 id, the NGA offers up a provenance for the work. This provenance is primarily based on a rumor, story, published by T. Allston Brown. Brown was a theatre historian. Since Brown is used to identify Ricketts it might be interesting to see what he has to say about Pepin and Breschard.

“Peppin and Burschard. - Peppin and Burschard, with a French Circus, landed in Boston in 1806, from Spain. They performed in conjunction with West, at Philadelphia. Peppin built the Walnut Street Theatre. Peppin had a thorough military education. He was an officer in the cavalry of France. He was born in Albany. His parents were French. They left Albany for Paris when Peppin was two years of age.” This quote can be easily found in Google Books.

None of the above is original research, all of it is simply verifying sources.

To save a great deal of everyone’s time, I will tell you right here that Brown’s paragraph on P and B contains at least six errors, starting with the spelling of the principals’ names. I will offer my opinion here, this is the most error filled piece of “theatre history” or any kind of history I’ve ever seen in my life.

So what has the NGA relied upon for overturning the 1880 identification by the MFA? The NFA has overturned a fairly solid identification by resting their identification on a rumor reported by a most unreliable source, well, the most unreliable published source I’ve come across in my life.

Shouldn’t the NGA be held to a higher standard than this?

Is all the research of the NGA this horrible?

Should the NGA no longer be considered a reliable source?

This is the reason I believe the editor gave this conflict a section all its own and titled it “Controversy”. The NGA should be held to the highest of standards.

If you don’t think the NGA should be held to the highest of standards, I can see why you wouldn’t consider this controversy to be of any importance.

I agree with the original editor who created this section. – That was you - [4]...Modernist (talk) 23:24, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since the “Controversy” section was created, over five years ago, the Stuart article has been edited around 300 times. Many, many editors have given it tacit approval at the very least.

With all due respect you must be kidding - you are the one who actually added the material [5] - the other editor simply sectioned the article with headings [6]...Modernist (talk) 21:30, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In a related matter regarding the relative importance of CR in regard to the rest of Stuart’s work. The NGA appears to hold it in more esteem than some of the editors. http://www.nga.gov/kids/is-stuart.pdf While this leaflet might be aimed at children, the NGA places Circus Rider right after The Skater and immediately before George Washington. Pretty lofty company. CR is also on the road at present contributing to circus history. https://www.bgc.bard.edu/gallery/gallery-at-bgc/main-gallery/highlights-circus.html The importance of Stuart’s work can be viewed in a number of ways, artistic, historic, educational, or just plain entertaining. Sometimes a painting can be important simply because it helps sell tickets and brings new audiences the chance to appreciate all of Stuart’s work. Breschard (talk) 20:12, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. There's no need to go through all of the above strand by strand--the opening says it all: Right off the top I’d like to state that I believe the significance of the “Controversy” section has less to do with the actual identity of the Circus Rider and much more to do with the scandalously shabby research methods exhibited by the Smithsonian’s National Gallery of Art. That alone is a pretty strong conclusive argument for the section not belonging here. It's also a personal indictment of the museum. Nothing neutral about this, and yes, the passage synthesizes sources to draw original research conclusions. An article on Gilbert Stuart--and Wikipedia in general--is not the place to grind an ax against the National Gallery. It's not the place, in fact, for any of the above WP:SOAPBOXING. JNW (talk) 20:42, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support removal of the controversy section, per above - Gilbert Stuart was an important early American artist, this controversy about a minor painting does not belong in this biography, neither does the minor painting. This also sounds like a vendetta against the National Gallery, take this elsewhere...Modernist (talk) 20:47, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also struck by this edit summary [7], which is remarkable given the circumstances. It's reasonable to interpret a conflict of interest here. JNW (talk) 20:51, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If it's not already obvious, Support removal of the controversy section. Congratulations to Ewulp to catching this, having lingered here since 2005. The section is a misuse of the encyclopedia by a user with an agenda, with an apparent familial motive, and an attendant sense of WP:OWNERSHIP. JNW (talk) 23:06, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus clearly demands the removal of the section...Modernist (talk) 23:26, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've started discussion at the COI noticeboard [8]. Given that this has apparently been part of the article since 2005, it seems that the editor in question has a strong personal interest. JNW (talk) 23:29, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Needless to say, I support removal of the section. User:Breschard has noted that "CR is also on the road at present contributing to circus history", but the link to Bard Graduate Center shows the subject identified as John Bill Ricketts and the painting dated 1795-99, following the NGA. I have not seen the exhibition or the catalogue by Matthew Wittmann; does Wittmann raise any questions about the identification? That would be a source that could be cited (in a separate article about the painting, not in this article, where such a minor work need not be discussed); otherwise it appears that there is at present no serious controversy here. As JNW suggests above, a discrepancy between modern sources and a 133-year-old source is not unusual. The Ricketts painting is not the only Stuart work that has been reevaluated since Mason's day; here's an example of a painting of George Washington that Mason accepted as a Stuart which is now attributed to his pupil, Matthew Harris Jouett. The linked article also mentions a second painting listed by Mason as a Stuart--a portrait of Thomas Jefferson--that was reattributed to Jouett in 1943. This is not an exceptional occurrence in art history. Ewulp (talk) 23:38, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ewulp, the main point of the Controversy section is the methodology used by the NGA. Nobody is saying that identifications don't change over the years but NGA's use of sources has not been addressed by any of the editors you have recruited to assist you. What do you think of the NGA use of Brown as the basis of their provenance? This is a serious question and should be addressed.

on a lighter note, I wonder who won the game?

Happy New Year

All the best!..Modernist (talk) 22:37, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

And the same to you. The holidays have brought a new technological obsession: [10]. Just give a holler if you want to play. E-Scrabble....who woulda thunk it? Cheers! JNW (talk) 00:10, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

And to think for a moment that I thought the two of your were independent objective agents.LOLBreschard (talk) 23:59, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Breschard you lied about the editor who first added the material that was tagged controversy; you added it in 2005 because you had a book, a plan and an agenda and you've been flushed out by some experienced visual arts editors - simple as that. You are as phony as a 3 dollar bill...Modernist (talk) 01:38, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neither Ewulp nor Modernist recruited me--I came across this on my own. It's been my privilege to collaborate with a number of editors in the visual arts over the years. None of the sources you've offered refers to a controversy or a debate, so the appearance is that you've fomented one here on your own. And now you're snidely suggesting that editors are colluding. Good luck with that. JNW (talk) 00:06, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Breschard's claim of collusion is groundless and reckless. For the record, every communication I've ever had--in my life--with my two valued colleagues, JNW and Modernist, has been on talk pages and edit summaries in wikipedia, available for all to see. I recruited nobody. Ewulp (talk) 00:26, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's amusing how modernist tried to delete his original 2 cent comment in response to Ewulp asking for assisstance. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts ‎

Help may be needed at Gilbert Stuart. An editor whose user page identifies him as the author of a novel about Stuart's painting John Bill Ricketts is insisting on a great deal of OR and POV. The sources cited generally do not support the polemics. I also note what looks to me like an advertisement for this book on talk:Gilbert Stuart and three related talk pages. Ewulp (talk) 21:08, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I added my 2¢...Modernist (talk) 22:59, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Breschard (talk) 00:43, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you out of your mind? I did not try to delete that comment - I placed it and I left it there. I think you really do not know what you are talking about!..Modernist (talk) 01:10, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If this notice on the VA project talk page is your idea of recruitment...no, it's the most likely place to find visual arts editors who can contribute to this discussion. It's an invitation to friend and foe alike; you're certainly not the only editor whose work I've treated brutally over the years. Ewulp (talk) 00:53, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can find no evidence that Modernist attempted to delete his response from the WP:VA page [9]. This is a good example of experienced editors reaching a consensus on an inappropriate use of the encyclopedia, and of someone with an agenda not enjoying the process, and not improving their position. JNW (talk) 00:58, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Before we return to the slapstick, a quick response to the charge that nobody is addressing the NGA use of Brown as a source. They presumably use their best judgement, and Brown is apparently the only source for the early provenance. Do you know of another? That Brown misspelled two names and got a date wrong by one year is perhaps less significant than you think for a mid-nineteenth century writer who didn't have the advantages of modern researchers. Mason, as I've said more than once, apparently knew nothing of the provenance, or he would have included it in his book as was his usual practice. Ewulp (talk) 01:20, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Both here, and on my talk page, I've raised many, many such questions, and I don't think a single one has been addressed, except by a canned "Brown is unreliable" refrain. But do you hear me complaining? No! Ewulp (talk) 01:24, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So what about Grain's sale to Riggs? Why no first name for Breschard in Mason, and why no provenance? Did the NGA name change happen before 1970? It looks to me like 1947 at latest. Ewulp (talk) 01:29, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, it's not our business to use Wikipedia to put forth our theories--no matter how well researched--regarding attributions, or to offer our opinions in more than a casual fashion regarding the relative connoisseurship of various museums in support of those theories. I suspect that because this passage had stood unchallenged for so long its author considered it unimpeachable, but more than anything it speaks to the difficulty editors have in covering the entire waterfront; there aren't that many of them patrolling visual arts. An interest in maintaining neutral and adequately sourced content is what drew a few old-timers here, even jarring me from semi-retirement. My take is that editor Breschard knows a lot about the subject, and having reached conclusions that may or may not be valid, has used the article to give voice to those findings. JNW (talk) 02:55, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Or to put it another way--even if our original research has uncovered the truth, we are not at liberty to place the truth in wikipedia until it can be sourced. Sometimes this is frustrating but it is not the place of wikipedia editors to "set the record straight"; we must wait for reliable sources to publish something before we can report it here. It is an undisputed fact that the painting was published under the title Breschard the Circus Rider in 1879, and exhibited by that title in Boston in 1880. During the 46 years that followed, during which the portrait remained in a private collection, perhaps nobody published a word about the painting. In 1926 the painting was catalogued under a different title. The NGA website indicates that since 1947 it has been repeatedly exhibited as John Bill Ricketts. All we can do is report what is in the record. The editor Breschard has undoubtedly researched this matter in far greater detail than I have (I had barely heard of this painting until a week ago). But the questions I've posed here need to be answered by citing reliable sources, not original research, and not things museum professionals have told the editor in private conversations. Ewulp (talk) 04:12, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gilbert Stuart Selfportrait.jpg to appear as POTD

[edit]

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Gilbert Stuart Selfportrait.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on December 3, 2014. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2014-12-03. 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! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:44, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gilbert Stuart
A self-portrait of Gilbert Stuart (1755–1828) completed c. 1778, when the artist was in his early 20s. Born in Saunderstown, Rhode Island, Stuart began studying painting at a young age. He studied art in Scotland under Cosmo Alexander, and in England during the American Revolution under Benjamin West. By the time he completed this self-portrait, Stuart's works had already been exhibited at the Royal Academy of Arts.

Stuart returned to the United States in 1791, and went on to paint several presidential portraits – including one of George Washington which has been used on the one-dollar bill for over a century.Painting: Gilbert Stuart

Archive – More featured pictures...
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Gilbert Stuart. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:21, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Gilbert Stuart. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:45, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He without shadow respelt his birthname from “Stewart” to “Stuart”…Why?

[edit]

Most unbecomingly unimaginative for a socalled artist. So what are the true whyfors the respell of “Stewart” to the uglierlooking “Stuart”. 2A00:23C7:2B13:9001:4AF:C298:A248:4556 (talk) 05:10, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gilbert_Stuart&oldid=1252176305"