Talk:Diego Rivera

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Educationstats28.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:28, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Marriage to Frida Kahlo

This can't be right: "They married for the first time in 1929, when he was 42 years old and she was 22; but owing to his infidelity and violent temper they divorced in 1928" Actually, she was 19. They divorced, but because of his incessant infidelity, but because of his affair with her sister. They remarried a year later.

Actually, it is right. Frida was born in 1907, making her 22 in 1929. Because of her passion for the mexican revolution, she attempted to change her date of birth from 1907 to 1910 to coincide with the revolution. Weili 17:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

So we're just not going to mention that he was married to Frida at all? Did someone remove that section for some reason?Saucybetty 02:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Alot of men trained to kill had families that needed food

Bonus army

How could there not be a threat of Revolution?

umm personally i think its really weird that she got back with him —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.71.204.253 (talk) 18:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Alot is not grammatically correct. It should be a lot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.102.67.43 (talk) 02:06, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Rivera allegedly vs. Trotsky

"it is proven have been highly unlikely"

In case any Rivera or Trotsky experts are reading, I'd like to draw your attention to this ridiculous phrase. I hope someone can fix it to reflect the amount of information that is available. Frida loves cake and sssniperwolf is a time travler. As they were known as best friends, but was erased in any data about it by the governmnet as to not change anything. But even today the edivance of this is held in the basement of the white house in a restricted room. Frida was killed and replaced by her secret twin sister, that had the same personality as her. Fridas final wish was for her sister to become a great artist, since she no longer could. --69.140.16.126 05:16, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Is the statement regarding Rivera's decendent in Austraila true or is it an example of using the wikipedia for malace?

Cubism?

Diego Rivera is NOT cubism. He is Socialist Realism. Cubism is Picasso.

Huh? Perhaps you should take a look at some of his paintings posted here. linas 05:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The section on Cubism would benefit from an inclusion of information from :Ramon Favela's Diego Rivera: The Cubist Years Phoenix Art Museum, 1984. Npsanchez (talk) 23:22, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

1st marriage?

the article says that his first marriage was to Guadalupe Marín yet when you click on the link and read the Guadalupe Marín article it says she was his second wife. Their were many wifes involoved but of course this was never made public.

Guadalupe being his second wife is consistent with what I've always believed but in either case, there's an inconsistency to be cleared up. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.113.83.98 (talk) 00:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC).

Notes?

what happened to them?161.253.40.203 05:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Rivera vs. Trotsky

Frida had a brief affair with Trotsky in the summer of 1937, not long after he came to Mexico, but this was most assuredly not the reason for his break with Rivera. This did not come until the winter of 1938-39, while Frida was absent at an exhibition of her work in New York and then Paris. The breach, according to Hayden Herrera, the author of Frida, was caused by a combination of personal and political differences. Rivera had an expansive personality, one that did not harmonise well with that of the didactic and humourless Trotsky. More and more the two men came into open disagreement, over the nature of the Soviet state, over trade union work, and over Rivera's support for Francisco Mujica's bid for the Mexican presidency. But these disagreements in point of detail came down to one big thing: Riviera was simply not the kind of man who could fit easily within the narrow political and personal discipline demanded by people like Trotsky. He was, as he told the old Bolshevik, 'a bit of an anarchist', which is as good an assessment of his politics-and his personality-as any. In Paris Frida reported the breach in a letter to a friend "Diego has now fought with the Fourth International and told piochitas [Trotsky] to go to hell in a very serious manner." And as far as she was concerned he was completely right. Clio the Muse 02:34, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Death

Two sources ([1] and [2]) provide different dates for Diego Rivera's death. Can anyone provide some insight? — The Storm Surfer 10:52, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

A La Gauguin

Is that a dish? I've heard of a la king, and a la carte but a la Gauguin or a la Henri Rousseau? Perhaps you mean that Diego Rivera was influenced by the paintings of Paul Gauguin and Henri Rousseau. Modernist 17:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Deletion, because of "I've never heard of it", is in violation of WP:IDONTKNOWIT of Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions!!!-70.18.5.219 15:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The Collins COBUILD Dictionary of English Language provides for the "á la" entry:

á la -- If you do something á la a particular person, you do it in the same style or in the same way that they would do it, e.g.: ...a crisp, tailored dress á la Audrey Hepburn.

-70.18.5.219 05:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, of course, WP:IDONTKNOWIT is not an official policy: "[t]his is an essay. It is not a policy or guideline." It is also not an issue of deletion; WP:IDONTKNOWIT refers to whole articles, not edits. But that's neither here nor there. I believe Modernist was questioning the appropriateness of the phrase, not the meaning, which I'm sure he knows. I won't speak for Modernist, but "á la" is perhaps a little too flowery for an encyclopedia. Simple and direct is better. Just an opinion, of course. Freshacconci | Talk 15:34, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Modernist clearly questioned the usage of the expression á la with people by expressing it as never heard next to "Gauguin" or "Rousseau" in the question (first sentence) above. In the second sentence Modernist offers a substitute, which is more formal, not because á la is not formal enough, but because - as Modernist said - "I've heard of... but a la Gauguin or a la Henri Rousseau?" meaning that Modernist NEVER "heard of [...] a la Gauguin or a la Henri Rousseau?", which discredits your above statement that "the meaning, which I'm sure he knows.", please. No, Modernist did not know the usage of á la, and had not even bothered to look into a dictionary before starting this wasteful "discussion" as a continuation from Talk:Frida Kahlo#Cultural trivia!. The main problem is not that Modernist makes such mistakes (everybody does, but maybe not such), but that Modernist acts based on such mistakes, e.g. damaging and blanking edits by others, as described below. Sincerely, -70.18.5.219 22:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism?

On 29 September 2007 at 01:32, Modernist changed without valid reason(s) given the Diego Rivera opening sentence ([3]) - damaging it - from:

Diego Rivera ([...]) was a world-famous Mexican painter influenced by Cézanne - and also a communist born in Guanajuato City - whose large wall works in fresco co-established the Mexican Mural Renaissance with those by Orozco, Siqueiros, etc. ([4])

to two sentences still opening the article (which is now protected):

Diego Rivera ([...] was a world-famous Mexican painter influenced by Cézanne - and also a communist. Born in Guanajuato City - and whose large wall works in fresco co-established the Mexican Mural Renaissance with those by Orozco, and Siqueiros. ([5])

The errors include: missing parenthesis, incorrect division into two (2) sentences, completely wrong structure of the second sentence, factual error that the Mexican Mural Renaissance was established by works of only 3 mentioned painters (there were more of them). Can such damage to article be considered as vandalism, please? -70.18.5.219 08:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Errors like this are not considered vandalism. Please review what vandalism is on Wikipedia, including what vandalism is not. Unintentional incorrect information, bad grammar, poor spelling, manual of style errors, and other common mistakes are not the same as vandalism. Additionally, editors should assume good faith with regards to edits that are not obvious, intentional, malicious destruction. Instead, just fix the errors, explaining in the edit summary why you're making those specific changes. (i.e. in edit summary box, type "fixing typographical errors, adding closing parentheses, adding info that multiple founders of MMR." etc,) Cheers, ^Ariel♥Gold 09:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Overprotected?

Ariel, I cannot fix the article, because it has been protected for 9 days - effectively against... myself - as a result of someone's vandalism. B.t.w., how such protection works against vandalism, which acts seem to be singular and unrelated to each other, so one occurrence does not allow to predict the next one? In other words, if acts of vandalism are random and unpredictable, how the length of duration of protection against random occurrences can be calculated? Wouldn't be better just to block the vandals instead of disallowing editing for all anons, please? -70.18.5.219 10:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Reliable sources

While addressing some of the issues above (which I have changed to reflect the proper Manual of Style, other issues caught my eye. This article uses non-reliable sources, such as geocities, and answers.com. Neither of these are reliable, third-party sources, and should be moved into the external links section, with proper sources found to replace them. Answers.com is nothing more than a collection of information obtained elsewhere, and that page actually is a copy of this article, so it is not at all a reliable source. Geocities is not a respected fact-checking news service, but a personal webspace host, and thus, not a reliable source. The same goes for the Fred Buch reference, it too should be moved to the external links section, as it is a personal website. ^Ariel♥Gold 09:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I put them there reluctantly and always wishing too that those sources were better, but - apparently - it is a lot easier said than done. The desire to have "reliable, third-party sources" is a guideline, not a policy, and, as such, it is deemed as advisable, and NOT as "should be" (required).-70.18.5.219 05:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Sysops, repeated Blanking as vandalism (corrected)?

Sec. I. From 70.18.5.219: Dear Modernist, your three (3) instances of removing references justified as unnecessary and redundant, but without saying why and to whom seemed to violate the WP:VANDALISM#Types of vandalism "Blanking" in the part described there as Sometimes important verifiable references are deleted with no valid reason(s) given in the summary. On what ground you deprived readers additional sources, please? Those instances were:

1. [6] <"18:11, 26 September 2007 Modernist (removing all redundant and unnecessary Olga's gallery references from lead - see external links)">, which was blanking of references without required saying why, and so constituting "no valid reason(s) given" qualified as vandalism under the "Blanking" rule (partially restored: [7] with the comment <"20:46, 26 September 2007 70.18.5.219 (On what ground you deprive readers additional sources, please?)">).

2. [8] <"18:29, 26 September 2007 Modernist (?Later work abroad - removed unnecessary and redundant artchive reference - see external links)">, which was blanking of reference without required saying why, and so constituting "no valid reason(s) given" qualified as vandalism under the "Blanking" rule.

3. [9] <"18:32, 26 September 2007 Modernist (?Career in Mexico - removed redundant unnecessary artchive reference see external links)">, which was blanking of reference without saying why, and so constituting "no valid reason(s) given" qualified as vandalism under the "Blanking" rule.

Would the sysops be so kind and take appropriate steps (like issuing a warning against Modernist) to protect other editors from repeating undue blankings by Modernist, please? -70.18.5.219 20:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Seraphim Whipp says it best here. There is a difference between deletions and editing: Modernist is not an administrator and therefore does not have the actual tools to delete an article. And let me be clear: he is not deleting articles. He is editing. There are no violations of policy or guidelines on Modernist's part. He is editing well-within his rights. 70.18.5.219, please stop harassing other editors. Freshacconci | Talk 16:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

From 70.18.5.219: Dear Freshacconci, the base of my argument above has been corrected, so you may want to modify yours too. My point has been the same that the editors shall NOT blank (delete) others' work (like mine) with "no valid reason(s) given", as it is clearly prohibited by WP:VANDALISM#Types of vandalism "Blanking" especially in regard to references. In general, it seems that Wikipedia protects its expansion by making Blanking (and Deleting at all) difficult through prohibiting it with "no valid reason(s) given", while NOT having such a requirement, when Adding to Wikipedia. So, the issue of violations of that rule seems to be threatening expansion for Wikipedia. -70.18.5.219 09:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Protecting Diego Rivera for 20 days... excessive and abusive???

• Transferred from bibliomaniac15's talk page by -70.18.5.219 03:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC):

On Nov. 8, you protected Diego Rivera for the whopping 20 days after User:24.8.104.191 had vandalized it six (6) times in one day almost in a row. Why you did not blocked the vandal instead of making access to Diego Rivera impossible for others - innocent editors, please? Don't you think that your action was abusive since Wikipedia:Protection policy#Semi-protection clearly states to use protection ONLY, when Preventing vandalism when blocking users individually is not a feasible option, and blocking just User:24.8.104.191 definitely has been an option, but you chose not to follow it, please? Did other - relative sporadic and typical for that article - instances of vandalism justify the whopping 20 day protection blocking access for others - innocent editors, please?

Sincerely, -70.18.5.219 21:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

This is in fact an article that has been subjected to multiple attempts at vandalism and has been protected previously. I see nothing improper in what Bibliomaniac15 has done here and as it is only for 20 days, it seems to me to be no big deal. Sincerely. --Malcolmxl5 02:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

This article (and Frida Kahlo) has been subject to constant vandalism at a higher rate than other articles, and protecting it does not cure sources of it. I've noticed that in addition to a typical, random (prank) vandalism it is also subject to vandalism provoked by errors and low quality of content, similarly as Frida Kahlo. The problem with improving the content is that both articles are sort of hijacked by a group of registered editors (in violation of WP:OWN), who - on one hand - cannot edit too well, and - on the other - remove edits by others they do not like justifying by personal opinions, e.g. "we (I) don't like it", and not by required valid reason(s), which personal opinions are not. That way they effectively rule the editing process on a low level by: or demanding editing the way they want it, or removing disliked edits without giving valid reason(s) (against WP:VAN). When a conflict arises with a particular editor, they have a majority and advantage of knowing better Wikipedia procedures, and they prevail, because editors do not know, how to prove sneaky vandalism of personal opinion justification - though in violation of WP:VAN, but often not obvious. Then it is necessary to establish, if the removed without valid reason edit was detrimental, which can be subjective, and they - having a majority - outvote anyone else, and inform sysops that the removed without valid reason edit was in fact detrimental even, if it wasn't, but since they have a majority, the sysop has no choice, but to believe them, unless he is an expert, which is not a case. So, often such defeated and frustrated inexperienced editors resort to the unfortunate protest of vandalism, and then you - the sysops - are called to protect both articles. So, protecting them serves the interest of those hijacking editors and not the articles themselves. So, please, end the protection of Diego Rivera ASAP, and do block only User:24.8.104.191 instead.

Sincerely, -70.18.5.219 19:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

From User talk:70.18.5.219#Diego Riviera by -70.18.5.219 22:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC):

May I ask if you can provide any diffs for your statement of ownership? If you would like to edit the article, I suggest you get an account. If you'd like to request unprotection at WP:RPP, go ahead, but I feel that in this case, protection was justified. Again, I can lower the protection time if you'd like. bibliomaniac15 A straw poll on straw polls 21:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I do would like you to lower the protection, please. It looks fair without requested diffs, so I do not like to use WP:RPP, and I think that you act in good faith, but I do not want to get an account until the issue of sneaky vandalism by registered users is addressed at least somehow. Such vandalism is described with requested diffs at:

• Talk:Diego Rivera#Sysops, repeated Blanking as vandalism (corrected)? in strong examples;
• Talk:Diego_Rivera#Vandalism? in an not so obvious example, but still as vandalism, because the edit was a detrimental and without valid reason(s) qualifying for the warning <{subst:uw-vandalism1|PageName}> (unintentional vandalism/test), but because made by experienced editor, so qualifying rather for the warning <{subst:uw-vandalism2|PageName}> (suitable for nonsense) per WP:VAN#Warnings (for reference see also Talk:Diego Rivera#A La Gauguin);
• Talk:Frida_Kahlo#Sysops, repeated Blanking as vandalism (corrected)? in very strong examples including malicious one described in Sec. I.

Sincerely, -70.18.5.219 22:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

From User talk:70.18.5.219#Diego Riviera by -70.18.5.219 03:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC):

From what I've seen, Modernist was not being malicious or a vandal. I really don't see how WP:OWN is playing into all of this. Granted, maybe the removal of the citations was a bit iffy, but I have not seen any thing that is "a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." You are misunderstanding the concept of malicious blanking and vandalism. And really, your past conduct on Talk:Frida Kahlo was unacceptable. bibliomaniac15 A straw poll on straw polls 01:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I have never denied PAST mistakes on Talk:Frida Kahlo. They were caused by frustration of not knowing Wikipedia procedures to fend off blanking of my edits - a possible cause of some Wikipedia vandalism at large by inexperienced editors, whose some contributions may be invaluable as the best in the field, and who just do not want to register. But, my past mistakes do not excuse vandalism by others, and - so - are irrelevant to the raised issue. How "the removal of the citations" without valid reason(s) can be just "iffy" and not "a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia", please? Integrity means soundness, hence more citations (references) means more soundness. So, how fewer citations does not mean less soundness, which means exactly compromise of soundness, which means compromise of integrity, please? Then WP:VANDALISM is half-fake, and there is almost no protection of edits! Thanks for your time and attention. Sincerely, -70.18.5.219 03:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

From User talk:70.18.5.219#Diego Riviera by -70.18.5.219 07:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC):

I would like to have a third opinion about this issue, since I perceive that we are having differing views about WP:OWNership of the articles and it would be a waste of time to try to argue each other's positions out. I believe you asked User:Newyorkbrad about this issue. See if he has any comments to make. bibliomaniac15 A straw poll on straw polls 05:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, it is pointless, though your position seems to be typical and to the best of your understanding of the policies, but - I think - not very strict partially due to the present definition of vandalism, which - as I argued in Wikipedia_talk:Vandalism#Make it less vague, define "deliberate" & "good-faith effort" - seems to be incomplete allowing for vandalism with impunity, or - as you call it - "iffy" edits. My objective is that sneaky vandalism is better recognized and the vandals are blocked, instead of (over)protecting articles for 3 weeks, so User:Newyorkbrad is not needed to be bothered, when I intend improve Diego Rivera's lead, and added references by myself will not be "iffily" blanked with impunity, like the last time. I am outnumbered, and explaining every phrase and sentence to everyone can be very tedious especially to those having high school graduation ahead, but I have learnt my lesson, and I do not intend to repeat my past mistakes from Talk:Frida Kahlo. Sincerely, -70.18.5.219 07:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

PS.: Or - maybe - explaining every phrase and sentence to everyone asking is the desired way to go. -70.18.5.219 18:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

From User talk:70.18.5.219#Diego Riviera by -70.18.5.219 03:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC):

I've lessened the protection to expire on the 20th of November. Personally, I think the vandalism policy is already clear enough in its present version, but I'd like to get back to research and not argue about policy interpretations. bibliomaniac15 A straw poll on straw polls 21:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, and I agree 100 %; the vandalism policy - if problematic for some - is way over our heads, but I made a contribution to its discussion in case there is room for improvement. Thanks a lot again. Sincerely, -70.18.5.219 03:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• Above transferred from bibliomaniac15's talk page by -70.18.5.219 03:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Rivera-the-arsenal.jpg

Image:Rivera-the-arsenal.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Was Diego Rivera Jewish?

He is described in the article as a converso, and categorized at the bottom as a Mexican Jew. My understanding is that conversos had converted and no longer practiced Judaism. Is there any evidence he considered himself Jewish? If so, why is he a converso and not a marrano? ~ 72.222.181.186 (talk) 00:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC) ~

Diego Rivera was not Jewish, although he claimed to be. In the biography Dreaming With Eyes Wide Open, it is stated that no one (not even Rivera himself) was ever able to prove Rivera was of Sephardic descent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.221.92.43 (talk) 17:35, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

This sentence is without any sense "Diego Rivera was not Jewish, although he claimed to be." He considered himself Jewish, his mother was a converso. If someone consider itself Jewish, there is no need to prove it. There is a plenty of literature available about both his personal view of himself as a Jew and about his Jewish maternal origin--Tritomex (talk) 14:33, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

According to the Jewish Chronicle Diego Rivera announced himself as having Jewish ancestry but "was not raised as a Jew and later declared himself an atheist." The Jewish physician Edgar Schoen also claims in his book Circumcision that Rivera - a high-profile victim of penile cancer - was not circumcised. (Schoen's theory is that infant circumcision protects against penile cancer.) Muzilon (talk) 08:49, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Rockefeller Center

Was it John D. Rockefeller who was 94 at the time or his grandson Nelson A. Rockefeller or his father John D. Rockefeller, Jr. that you meant? Please provide a reference for your changes, thank you...Modernist (talk) 18:52, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

File:RiveraMuralNationalPalace.jpg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:RiveraMuralNationalPalace.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 2 August 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 04:46, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 9 December 2011

I'd like to request the page for Diego Rivera be edited. Someone put that Google designed their logo around his 125th birthday, and to me that's going too far - It's for Google's page not Diego's, to showcase Google logo treatments. What's more, the source used for the entry (#22, www.popherald.com is a website that talks about gadgets and google news - not in my view a reliable source for documenting the "historical record."

Including information about a corporation's logo I feel has nothing to do with Diego as a person or his life as an artist. Further, a logo is not like a movie or a book reference where you might be able to learn something - although I would argue references to books and films should go at the end of an entry separate from the main body of the article. The bottom line is a company logo is being "advertised," unwittingly in a wikipedia article - an action that does nothing to educate the reader on the life of Diego Rivera.

Please change the following:

Cinematic and online portrayals Diego Rivera was portrayed by Rubén Blades in 1999's Cradle Will Rock, and by Alfred Molina in 2002's Frida. On the occasion of Diego Rivera's 125th Birthday Google designed a specialized logo to honor the legendary painter.[22]

to the following:

Cinematic portrayals Diego Rivera was portrayed by Rubén Blades in 1999's Cradle Will Rock, and by Alfred Molina in 2002's Frida. Bdfmail (talk) 08:56, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• -  Done - unopposed reasonable request - removal of trivia that was supported by a low quality source. Youreallycan (talk) 12:39, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Google Art Project images

El Picador. 1909. 177 × 113 cm. Museo Dolores Olmedo

I've uploaded 19 works by Diego Rivera (pre-1923 and so PD in US) to Category:Google Art Project works by Diego Rivera and plan to add them to the gallery in this article, and to augment the gallery with specific information like dates, dimensions, locations. Particularly remarkable is File:Diego Rivera - El Picador - Google Art Project.jpg (right), which is over 340 megapixels. Please have a look! Dcoetzee 12:59, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

There are errors magnifying the El Picador image. I posted the difficulty on the images' Talk page. Thanks, Wordreader (talk) 19:55, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Rio Juchitan

Can you add this Image to the article it looks like it will add value.2602:306:CC1F:BFA0:8DF7:95BB:D05C:2BAC (talk)

File:Río Juchitán.jpg

Río Juchitán (River Juchitan), at the Museo Soumaya (Museum Soumaya) the last mural by Diego Rivera

When I magnify the Río Juchitán image, it looks like it could be a mosaic instead of a fresco, unlike the other mural photos attached to the article. Is it? Was that a new technique for Rivera? Or did he use a pointillist technique here and not in the other murals depicted? Incomplete captions can be very frustrating! Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 19:55, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Please decapitalize "Y" in "Later Years"

Thanks. 14.200.68.118 (talk) 18:59, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Done - thanks for pointing that out- Arjayay (talk) 11:52, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Rivera's Lithographic Prints

Please add a section discussing Rivera's lithographic prints. See John Itman's article about Rivera's printmaking (from the book Mexico and Modern Printmaking). [10]

Andrewshuta (talk) 23:19, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Am I missing something?

The last paragraph in the Career in Mexico section is confusing to me. Perhaps I am missing something? The first sentence (if true and verifiable - no citation as it now stands) is an excellent topic sentence that I wish were expanded upon. Now, for my confusion, the sentence about Trotsky seems to pop out of nowhere, wedged between two sentences about murals:

"His art, in a fashion similar to the steles of the Maya, tells stories. [Stuff about the mural En el Arsenal.] Leon Trotsky lived with Rivera and Kahlo for several months while exiled in Mexico.[16] [More stuff about murals.]"

Did the author mean to imply that Trotsky is included in the murals mentioned? If that's the case, please complete the thought for clarification. If not, and that sentence is as randomly placed as it seems, please move the reference to a more appropriate place. Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 18:15, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Missing something indeed! No surprise, really, to see Gloriosa Victoria absent among the plates. Wikipedia is a fine resource, trustworthy in general, except where the CIA might have a gripe. Then, forget it. ProudPrimate (talk) 15:36, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Diego Rivera. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060909083539/http://www.sfai.edu/page.aspx?page=35&navID=79&sectionID=2 to http://www.sfai.edu/page.aspx?page=35&navID=79&sectionID=2

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:50, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Name

someone needs to explain that absurd name. I am a Spanish speaker and I am accustomed to firstname firstname surname surname. I have no idea what all those names are or why he has so many names and I am sure anyone looking at this page is going to wonder the same thing as their first question. Did he pick that name for himself? Which of those are his surnames and which are his first names? does he have three surnames? WTF!? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.212.229.235 (talk) 06:50, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

The spanish page mentions and cites it, though not so prominently. Says it is his baptismal name. Still no explanation as to length. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.212.229.235 (talk) 06:53, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Have paragraphs about Rivera's later life been removed?

Checking on possible vandalism saying Rivera died of penile cancer, I found that he didn't, but recovered from it twice (in his autobio he says he was 'released as cured' in 1952 & 1955), and died of heart failure. All of these details are missing from the article, but Rivera's cancer is fairly well known, and mentioned by other commenters above. I then noticed that in fact there's nothing in the 'Later Years' section after 1940, despite clearly working on since there are artworks depicted at the foot of the article from that period.

So, has there been a section blanked? Anyone familiar with the article know? Bazzargh (talk) 15:22, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Diego Rivera. 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/20150714114959/http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20110406/ENT01/104060365 to http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20110406/ENT01/104060365

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 03:35, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Cannibalism

This addition indeed seems to have reliable sources, but out of context is little more than trivia, and perhaps misleading at that:

Rivera claimed to have engaged in cannibalism, particularly enjoying the taste of brains.

The passage in Kimmelman's book review reads in part "Rivera, who lavishly embellished his own history to augment his significance. He claimed, for instance, that he nearly died at birth and was disposed of in a dung bucket by a midwife before miraculously reviving… [a long list of other presumably tall tales] … You can see where Marnham's title [Dreaming With His Eyes Open] comes from." Why not have instead a developed paragraph on Ribera's managing of his image? Sparafucil (talk) 02:05, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Photo date wrong

Under "Later years" there is a photo of Rivera accompanied by Engel and Nagel at Berlin Ostbahnhof station. It is dated 1921: this is a mistype - it should be 1956, as it evident from the Details acoompanying the photograph. (This explains why it is a photo of three old men, whereas in 1921 Rivera was 35 and in the prime of life.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.200.187.196 (talk) 10:23, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Parents and Siblings?

Who were his parents? (And siblings if he had any) 2600:1700:3681:7110:FC4C:2D85:617F:4F3A (talk) 20:23, 21 June 2023 (UTC)