Talk:Jacob Epstein

Note from a viewer

He served briefly in World War I with the *Jewish Legion of the Royal Fusiliers. For an online link (for reference only) search the Catalogue on the Website The Churchill Papers at http://www.chu.cam.ac.uk/archives/churchill_papers/ -- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.53.29.94 (talk • contribs) . 13:45, 22 November i think that 3pstein is ok bu not dat much and heya..,x lol2005

Dickie Lewis

The Epstein statue in Liverpool is usually referred to locally as Dickie Lewis, not Swinging Dick -- as a quick Google will rapidly affirm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.42.171.18 (talk • contribs) 09:16, 31 August 2006

Well its not an easy Google search to do as you have to exclude all the sites that just syndicate Wikipedia content. However I'm inclined to agree.

• 'Swinging Dick' - really just one or two - e.g. [1] and [2].
• 'Dickie Lewis' - perhaps about 30 that are relevant, including this one which describes a pub named after the nickname and also shows the statue in question.

Mind you there also seems to be some disagreement about the official title for the statue. Some sites says its 'Liverpool Resurgent', another gives 'The Spirit of Youth'. Thanks for the local input. -- Solipsist 08:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and for anyone interested, here's a better picture of the statue. -- Solipsist 08:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Year daughter Kitty married Wynne Godley

I've found two references to the year that daughter Kitty married Wynne Godley so changed to 1955

http://thepeerage.com/p33609.htm#i336087

Also Godley's own website has 1955 as the date.

http://www.wynnegodley.com/

Rrose Selavy (talk) 01:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion

suggestion: images of his artwork rather than text descriptions would perhaps be more useful to the peoples inquiries! This applies to all of our presentation of visual materials without visuals, only text, it is not awake 21st century media making! This article on an important artist needs improvement but is is not unconstructive! it is an early version which would benefit from enlightened expansion but not to be disalloweed please.! 173.13.106.242

Jewish identification

According to the article, Epstein rejected his parent's orthodoxy and was not religiously active during his life. Normally, we require evidence of self-identification before adding Jewish categories to an article. Of course, I realize that some people of Jewish descent still self-identify as Jewish despite rejecting Judaism as a religion. Do we have evidence that Epstein did so? Yworo (talk) 03:03, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Fact - Epstein was a sculptor. Fact - Epstein was born in New York. Fact - Epstein moved to England at age 22. Who's we? Speak for yourself because you do not represent this encyclopedia only your own opinion...Modernist (talk) 03:14, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Please try to learn our policies and also, please try to be more civil. Yworo (talk) 03:18, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Lets develop consensus - shall we...Modernist (talk) 03:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

The policies were developed by consensus. If you wish to change the policies, please discuss on the talk page of the policy itself. We do not override these policies on an article by article basis. Yworo (talk) 03:23, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

So, here's the rules for categorization by ethnicity, gender, religon and sexuality. Yworo (talk) 03:25, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I have zero interest in your interpretation, I am concerned only with the facts as presented in this article about Jacob Epstein...Modernist (talk) 03:26, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not my interpretation, it's explicitly spelled out "Categories should not be based on religion unless the belief has a specific relation to the topic." Yworo (talk) 03:27, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Currently the lede factually reads - Sir Jacob Epstein (10 November 1880 – 19 August 1959) was a sculptor who was born in the United States and who worked chiefly in the UK, and that is how it should be presented...Modernist (talk) 03:30, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

No it shouldn't. The standard lede sentence for biographies is clearly described at WP:MOSBIO:

The opening paragraph should have:

1. Name(s) and title(s), if any (see, for instance, also Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility));
2. Dates of birth and death, if known (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Dates of birth and death);
3. Context (location, nationality, or ethnicity);
   1. In most modern-day cases this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen or national, or was a citizen when the person became notable.
   2. Ethnicity or sexuality should not generally be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability. Similarly, previous nationalities and/or the country of birth should not be mentioned in the opening sentence unless they are relevant to the subject's notability.
4. What the person did;
5. Why the person is significant.

The opening sentence is supposed to go:

Name (dates) was a nationality occupation ...

Details that do not fit this format go in subsequent sentences. It's done this way throughout Wikipedia, for example Isaac Asimov, Al Jolson, Peter Lorre, Cary Grant. If the person changed their nationality before becoming notable, we use the new nationality. The latter two started their career and started to become noteworthy in their country of birth, but achieved real notability in their adopted country and so have hyphenated nationality. Please see the discussions at the talk page of the policy. I've been involved in refinements to this policy and know what I am talking about. I took the time to read the history of the policy before becoming involved. Your proposal is outside the standards for the lede sentence.

Yworo (talk) 03:39, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

We are not talking about policy here but rather guidelines which are open to interpretation and therefore consensus-building. freshacconci talktalk 03:41, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

In nearly all articles, consensus has conformed to policy in the lede sentence, explicating any details in the second paragraph of the lede, though sometimes in the second sentence. My version was a studied compromise that has been used on many contentious articles, at least where no one was trying to own the article. Yworo (talk) 03:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

By the way - I am not talking about categories or religion - all I am saying here is - he was a sculptor who was born in the United States and who worked chiefly in the UK, as opposed to an American born or an American-British sculptor etc. I am saying - He was a sculptor - He was born in - He worked there...Modernist (talk) 03:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Specifically excluded by WP:MOSBIO: "Similarly, previous nationalities and/or the country of birth should not be mentioned in the opening sentence unless they are relevant to the subject's notability." Yworo (talk) 03:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

This is pretty much done out of respect for the subject's choices. The subject chose to change their nationality, yet you are trying to appropriate their nationality by denying their willed change of citizenship. It's just the same as whether they self-identify with a religion. We respect the subject's choice of self-identification in nationality, ethnicity, gender, sexuality and religion. Yworo (talk) 03:51, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

He was schooled at the Art Students League of New York an artist long before he went to England...Modernist (talk) 03:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Show me that he achieved widespread notability while still in the US prior to 1902. Sources please. Yworo (talk) 03:54, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

How is his American birth not relevant? He lived in the US until he was 22. That's significant and far different from, say, Bob Hope who was British-born but moved to the US when he was 2 years old. For a good comparison, look at Arthur Lismer, British-born but significant as a Canadian artist. The lede states that and I think it's wholly appropriate. freshacconci talktalk 03:54, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Marcel Duchamp became an American citizen in 1955. We say he was an artist who was born in France and who became an American citizen...Modernist (talk) 03:56, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:MOSBIO specifically ties the nationality to the notability. Are you saying that he was widely notable as a sculptor before 1902? These rules apply primarily to the first sentence. Of course his American birth is significant and should be in the second sentence, but he self-identified as British. Yworo (talk) 03:58, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a valid argument. This is how I find other articles to fix. Yworo (talk) 03:58, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

His training at a significant institution is an important part of his notability. His notability is as an artist. He became an artist in New York. There is no magic date where he suddenly becomes notable. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS doesn't apply here. You're the one who brought up precedents: "Isaac Asimov, Al Jolson, Peter Lorre, Cary Grant". freshacconci talktalk 04:01, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Cary Grant is a good example. For a long time American editors monopolized the article and the article described him as American only, because he changed his citizenship. A British editor provided reference that showed that he had been notable in the British portion of his career, that is, that there were reliable sources from the period which took note of him, and I helped that editor convince the other editors to describe him as British-American. Provide sources from the period here and I'll happily call Epstein American-British. Yworo (talk) 04:05, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

A very quick google search came up with this from page 1 of The Jewish East Side, 1881-1924 by Milton Hindus. In my opinion this establishes both his establishment as an artist in New York and his notability as an artist while still in the United States. freshacconci talktalk 04:18, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

It says it was a turning point, his first commission, at which point he used the money to leave the states, never to return. Was that commission noted at the time? A whole artistic career, and one commission not even in the field (sculpture) for which he became noted. I don't think so. Yworo (talk) 04:25, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I've added a source confirming he was Jewish. Bus stop (talk) 17:37, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

In his autobiography (referenced elsewhere) Epstein mentions that he does not like being referred to as a "Jewish sculptor." Just "sculptor" was what he wanted. Carptrash (talk) 22:39, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Excellent. I was pretty sure he didn't self-identify as Jewish and that confirms it. Yworo (talk) 22:46, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

There is a huge difference between identifying yourself as Jewish and identifying yourself as a Jewish sculptor. He was an artist and a Jewish man. I know a lot of women who are artists and they balk at the label woman artist; while at the same time being proud to be women...Modernist (talk) 22:52, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

The rule is self-identification. Until his self-identification as Jewish is established, the categories should remain off. Yworo (talk) 23:29, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, I've taken care of it. The "Jews" categories are religious in nature, the subject has self-identify and/or be known to have been observant to be included. There are also "of Jewish descent" categories for when the parents are known to have been Jewish but the subject does not self-identify. I've swapped in the correct categories. Yworo (talk) 23:41, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Nationality

I'm perfectly fine with the original lede which stated he was an American-born British sculptor. American-British would also be fine by me. He was born in the US and was initially trained there and his New York upbringing is significant (see my link above), especially as a Jewish New Yorker. He then became a British citizen so he is clearly British. Like every other hyphenated person, notable or not, being of two nations is significant, particularly when someone matures in one nation and moves to another as an adult. freshacconci talktalk 04:25, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, except WP:MOSBIO explicitly states not to use the phrase xxxx-born in the lead sentence. I was involved in the discussion and know the intent. Place of birth is supposed to be deferred to the second sentence or paragraph when the subject changes their nationality and the bulk of their notability is in their adopted country. Yworo (talk) 04:28, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

You are mistaking guidelines for policy and neglecting common sense try this WP:VAMOS...Modernist (talk) 04:30, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Are you referring to the phrase "nation or city of origin"? That's for works of art, not biographies. If that's not what you're referring to, please be more specific. Yworo (talk) 04:40, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Those are the Visual Arts Project MoS guidelines for articles about artists. I thought you knew...Modernist (talk) 04:42, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

And yes - nation or city of origin, present location; look if you don't like it change it over there with consensus, currently consensus is against you...Modernist (talk) 04:47, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Read the whole sentence: "The lead section in articles on works of art should give at least the following information, in roughly this order: Name(s)/title(s) of work, artist, date, type of work and materials, subject, nation or city of origin, present location." That particular sentence doesn't apply to biographies. Yworo (talk) 04:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Once again - these are guidelines - that section covers both artists and works of art - succinctly - and in flux - not set in stone, rock, or cement. If you want it to be changed then propose your thoughts on the talk page there; for now we see things differently. I see Epstein as having been born in the US and moving to England and you see him as British. I'm really curious how you would describe Francis Bacon (artist) is he Irish or English or Irish born English or just an artist. It's late but check that article out, adios...Modernist (talk) 05:08, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

He's Irish. Of course, he could have applied for an obtained a British passport as well as an Irish one. There is disagreement about how to describe the various natives of the United Kingdom. Most are described as British, but Sean Connery is described as Scottish. It depends on the degree of self-identification with the region of the UK. Yworo (talk) 06:09, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I am going to propose that we go back to where this recent Tempest in a teapot started and suggest that Epstein again be an "American born British sculptor in the lead paragraph.

In searching through my pretty good at-home sculpture library I find that Taft places Epstein in the British section of his book , as does Parkes.

Chaney sort of dodges the issue, writing, "Jacob Epstein, originally American, French trained, but a giant figure in English modern art"

On the other hand his inclusion in both Mantle Fielding's Dictionary of American Painters, Sculptors & Engravers and Contemporary American Sculpture as well as that he showed in the 1929 National Sculpture Society's Contemporary American Sculpture exhibition argues for his Americanism.

On the other other hand, the catalog from the 3rd Sculpture International (in Philadelphia, PA, May 15 - September 11, 1949) includes Epstein in the Foreign, "English" listing.

In his autobiography Epstein quotes an article from the New York Evening Post, (October 21, 1927) which states, "Jacob Epstein, famous American sculptor . . . . . . ... ".

So, how about we just go back to "American born, British sculptor?" Carptrash (talk) 19:36, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed...Modernist (talk) 19:40, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

American-born is not needed, as the place of birth is clearly visible above the fold in the infobox. That's one of the reasons WP:MOSBIO discourages the use of xxx-born, a proper bio has an infobox and the place of birth is clearly visible. If the details are also put in the second sentence as I did, it's even more clear and detailed than what you are suggesting, because it tells when he left the US and when he became a British citizen. My proposed version is:

Sir Jacob Epstein (10 November 1880 – 19 August 1959) was a British sculptor who pioneered modern sculpture. While born in the United States, he moved to Europe in 1902 and became a British citizen in 1907...

That provides much more background of the situation, it's right up front, and is preferable to violating the spirit of WP:MOSBIO. Yworo (talk) 19:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Perish the thought that we should violate a Manual of Style. You might notice that I changed the "pioneered modern sculpture" to something like "helped pioneer". That he is not even mentioned in Tradition and Experiment in Modern Sculpture suggests that at best he was one of many. Carptrash (talk) 20:00, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

And since you seem disinclined to respond to my postings of places where Epstein is considered an American you probably will not care that he is listed in Who Was Who in American Art either. Carptrash (talk) 20:10, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Different publications have different rules for nationality. Some always use place of birth, some always use adopted citizenship: we use citizenship at time subject achieved their major notability. So what different publications say isn't particularly worrying to me. What does worry me though is the rejection of a more informative version for a less informative version. I can't believe that an unbiased Wikipedian would choose a wording that's less informative. Yworo (talk) 20:15, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

So far the consensus is 3 to 1 for American born British...Modernist (talk) 20:17, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Consensus is not a vote. Proper consensus gives the most weight to the best argument for the application of policy and guidelines. I've not seen any valid arguments but mine, the rest are either I like it or I don't like it. Yworo (talk) 20:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

"I've not seen any valid arguments but mine". Wow. No, consensus is not a vote but unilateral declarations are not acceptable either. Again, WP:MOS is not policy and I don't recall you being appointed Style Police. We are having a discussion and you've summarily dismissed three opinions because they differ from your own. There is a great deal of opposition to infoboxes, especially over at the VisArts project. The gist of problem with infoboxes is that the info is reduced to mere trivia and although I personally don't mind the use of infoboxes, over-reliance on them is a big problem. The sentence you propose is essentially leaving out a crucial aspect of what makes Epstein notable: his New York, American upbringing and training as an artist. You blithely tell us people can glance over to the infobox but the point is Epstein was American-born and this is a crucial aspect of his bio. His notability is established in New York, as I pointed out above, and yes two important commissions early in his career and his training at an important institution are notable. I don't see how "American-born British sculptor" or some variation is not an acceptable compromise unless you particularly enjoy arguing the minutia of guidelines which I need to point out again are not carved in stone, are flexible and can be altered on a case-by-case basis. To reduce what we have argued as I like it or I don't like it is arrogant in the extreme. freshacconci talktalk 20:39, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I object to the American-born per the guideline. If you wish to propose expanding the second sentence to include that he was born and educated in NYC before moving to England, that'd be great, since that's your objection. How about:

Sir Jacob Epstein (10 November 1880 – 19 August 1959) was a British sculptor who helpd to pioneer modern sculpture. While born and educated in New York City, he moved to Europe in 1902 and became a British citizen in 1907. ...

You see, your version with American-born doesn't detail that either. A second sentence is on most article consistently found to be the best way to get the nuances about change of citizenship into the article. Audrey Hepburn is a good example (although she didn't change her citizenship, her birth and upbringing simply took place outside her nation). Yworo (talk) 20:46, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

The reader coming to the version you suggest first learns that Epstein is British. The reader then finds out that he was born and educated in NYC. That's interesting. Obviously his British parents were living abroad in NYC for some reason. Then the reader learns that this British person became a British citizen in 1907, without actually ever being told he was ever anything other than British. The reader then goes back to the beginning of the article to work this out, compute dates and make sure he hasn't misunderstood something. He then has to make an educated guess that Epstein was actually not British at all to begin with, but was American and had American parents. I don't think this is the easiest way to introduce the reader to the subject. Ty 02:05, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I actually find the Audrey Hepburn example illustrative of why the suggested WP:MOS style for ledes is actually quite confusing. Ignoring the fact that I thought she was American (with a Mid-Atlantic, East Coast boarding school accent), we learn that she's British. Except of course, that she's Belgian-born (and ethnically Belgian or perhaps Flemish) and lived part of her childhood in the Netherlands and died in Switzerland. That's pretty damn convoluted and I need to read well into the article to find out the basics of her rather interesting life. But of course, the bulk of her career (her main notability) is in American movies. I didn;t get too far into that article to find out how long she actually lived in the US, but I think my point is obvious. Her citizenship is British but the truth is actually far more complex and the lede doesn't give a clear idea of any of this. I'm proposing (and will post as such at the VisArts talk page) that perhaps the visual art MOS needs to be expanded to address international complexity (see my Arthur Lismer example). I think we need to figure out ways to address this in an agreeable manner because I don't think the main MOS deals with it adequately. freshacconci talktalk 03:13, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

She was born to parents who were British citizens. Her citizenship was British throughout her entire life. Yworo (talk) 16:43, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that clarification and discussion should be resumed at WP:VAMOS also in the light of these discussions at Talk:Marcel Duchamp, [3]...Modernist (talk) 04:17, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

If there is to be discussion, it should be at WP:MOSBIO, which is the overarching guideline. Yworo (talk) 16:45, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I really don't see how his place of birth is so important: I've always known Epstein as a British sculptor (that's the WP category he's in too). He doesn't have any connection to the American art scene that I can tell. All his works were created in Britain, and are displayed in Britain; he took British citizenship, served with the British army, was granted knighthood by the Queen, and is buried in London. How important is his birthplace that it needs to go in the first sentence-?? The way it's written right now makes it sound like he was an American who just "worked chiefly" in the UK (i.e. as an American abroad), and that's just not the case. LillianVee (talk) 17:55, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

And you are an expert in 20th century sculpure? You say he has no connection to the American art scene and yet the article says the opposite - Although Epstein's work was highly original for its time, its influence on the younger generation of sculptors such as Henry Moore and Barbara Hepworth may have been limited, as much of Epstein's work was not on public display but in a few private collections, mainly in the United States....Modernist (talk) 20:47, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Well: no, I'm not an "expert". I didn't know you had to be one to contribute to Wikipedia. I thought since you wanted to "build a consensus" that you might actually want to hear from other people, but I obviously you don't. I have to point out, though, the line you quote doesn't say a thing about Epstein's impact on the American art scene, only his impact on collectors. And it says absolutely nothing about his nationality, which anyone can plainly see is BRITISH. But you know what? I don't care. I didn't make my first discussion comment ever just to get my face slapped. I'm just a Fine Arts major who thought WP seemed like a fun and noble project, but seeing what you adminstrators are like here, it's no place for me. I'm sorry I'm just a "new user" with "uninformed opinions" (yes, I read your snotty comments about me on your talkpages), so I won't bother you "experts" anymore. Your arrogant bickering is too much for me. So thank you for souring me on Wikipedia forever: I won't be coming back. And thank you also for ruining my entire day with your rudeness. Enjoy your triumph. LillianVee (talk) 22:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

A Wikipedia expert would have noticed that the sentence quoted had no citation. He would have then done a search to verify it and would have found sources that suggest that that bald assertion simply isn't true. Also, don't blame administrators for Modernist's actions, he doesn't seem to be one. Nor does he seem to understand some of the nuances of Wikipedia policy that would be necessary for him to become one.... Yworo (talk) 00:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

First of all - I pointed out an obvious contradiction in LillianVee's comments vis a vis the sentence that was in the article at the time that she made her comment. I certainly did not prevent her from voicing her opinion; In my opinion I guess her arrogant bickering comment refers to Yworo's ongoing commentary; as to that sentence having a citation - that was irrelevant to my remark in the conversation above, although to remain in the article a reference would be useful. As to Epstein being represented in American art collections and having an impact albeit a minor one on the American art scene - I do subscribe to that idea. He was certainly like other expatriate artistic American counterparts in Europe at that time well known to the artworld intelligentsia if not to the general public. Because what was happening at that time was American artists, writers, poets were going abroad - mostly to France, Italy, England and Spain to learn firsthand about the art scene in Europe. Although most returned to America - some like Epstein and Theodore Earl Butler fell in love, started families and stayed in Europe. Stanton MacDonald-Wright, Morgan Russell, Ezra Pound, Ernest Hemingway, Marsden Hartley, Thomas Hart Benton and dozens more. As to my becoming an administrator - this thread is irrelevant to that issue one way or another...Modernist (talk) 04:16, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Try to remember not to bite the newcomers. Yworo (talk) 04:19, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

And somebody always just gotta WP:TLW but somebody aught to WP:JDI already...Modernist (talk) 04:38, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:SELFREF much? Yworo (talk) 04:40, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I think you might read that as well...Modernist (talk) 04:45, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd suggest using T.S. Eliot as an example. Like Epstein, he was born in the United States but later became a British citizen. The Eliot article doesn't use the nationality field in the infobox - this article shouldn't either. One solution is to remove the infobox altogether since they're not required. That would solve the problem. The wording in the lead should be "American-born". Truthkeeper88 (talk) 11:39, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the clear-headed intervention into this nonsense. I agree with your suggestions. freshacconci talktalk 13:32, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I've done a quick search on Credo Reference. Of the first ten of so entries - all encyclopedias or reference books - none identifies him exclusively British. They all identify him as American-born. The Wikipedia entry do the same. American-born, took British citizenship, and delete the British from the infobox, if not the entire infobox. As with all modernists, the influences field on the infobox is rife for subjective entries, so I'd strongly suggest removing the infobox if consensus to so can be achieved. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:19, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and welcome to the fray, Truthkeeper88. It didn't take Yworo long to attack you for daring to disagree with him. But then he is the expert on "policy" and only his interpretation of policy is valid. I'm sure he'll dispute that "use the library, chum" is an attack, but it all does add up to some interesting behaviour, policy-wise. But again, welcome, your points are appreciated and valid. freshacconci talktalk 15:46, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Your removal of citations was uncalled for. All the works cited identify him as British and are verifiable. Use the library, chum. Sources do not need to be verifiable online. Yworo (talk) 14:47, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

You've misinterpreted my intentions. In my view four references in the infobox are more than are necessary. I removed three and left one. I apologize if you felt the edit summary was wrong; I could have written a much longer edit summary, and in retrospect should have. I do have this page watched, so no need to chastise me on my talkpage. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:12, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I am in agreement - lets remove the infobox...Modernist (talk) 14:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Let's not, all the sources indicate that his citizenship was British. If they also say "American-born" they are not talking about citizenship. The birthplace is also in the infobox, can't be missed, so all the relevant data from all sources in included in the infobox. Let's not engage in pointless nationalistic appropriation exercises. The man changed his citizenship and his choice deserves to be respected. Yworo (talk) 14:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

He held US citizenship until he was in his twenties, simply describing him as British does seem potentially misleading. On a slightly differnt note, the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography states that he was not naturalised until 1910, viz http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/33025 (subscription/UK library card required), and a bit of further ferreting suggests that the process was not actually complete until 1911 http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/28462/pages/874 ODNB also indicates that he initally lived in Regents Park, and then Fulham, not at Loughton. Th ODNB further places his marriage to Dunlop to November 1906, not 1907, which is consistent with these entries in the indices of the General Register Office, http://www.freebmd.org.uk/cgi/information.pl?cite=MDlC2UCA%2B2ro%2FR%2FCYtE1OA&scan=1 http://www.freebmd.org.uk/cgi/information.pl?cite=t175NzGYJjXP4xpPoEXeDQ&scan=1 David Underdown (talk) 15:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Clearly, it was a good idea getting UK Wikipedians involved in this. You seem to have much better resources for getting the details of the article right. Thanks for the information! Will you be updating the article with these changes and sources? Yworo (talk) 15:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't sure what the precise provennance of the existing info was, so thought it better to bring it up on talk first. I see the details were changed, I've tweaked the formatting of the refs a bit. David Underdown (talk) 09:42, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Epstein's Jewishness

In regards to Epstein’s “Jewishness,” in his autobiography he describes growing up in “the Jewish quarter” of New York City, about being exposed to “Newspapers in Yiddish, Yiddish theaters, literery societies,” about being taken to the “Chief Rabbi” of NYC, and in one telling passage explains, “I saw a great deal of Jewish orthodox life . . .. I imagine that the feeling I have for expressing a human point of view, giving human rather than abstract implications to my work, comes from these early formative years.” (p. 12). Let's see if we can get those categories back. Carptrash (talk) 16:29, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm gathering together some material now that should support that, from his autobiography. Bus stop (talk) 18:06, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

The correct categories have been added, he is of Jewish descent. That's not in dispute. These details don't verify him as practicing the religion. You don't seem to get that there are two types of Jewish categories: one set includes known self-identifying adherents of the religion (American Jews, British Jews, etc.) The other is for non-adherents (American people of Jewish descent, British people of Jewish descent, etc). So far, you are only verifying the latter, not the former. Yworo (talk) 18:09, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Yworo—the sources (that I've seen) are not even presenting his parents as "practicing the religion." Bus stop (talk) 18:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

The descent categories are ethnic, the Jews categories are religious. So even if his parents didn't practice, the descent categories are appropriate. Take a look at the supercategories and category trees and you will see what I mean. Yworo (talk) 18:18, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Was Epstein Bar Mitzvahed? What does his autobiography say? Were his children Bar Mitzvahed?...Modernist (talk) 18:44, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

There is no need to establish that anyone was bar mitzvahed. In Christianity one might be expected to demonstrate their acceptance of Christ as Messiah. No such counterpart exists in Judaism. Religions share similarities, but obviously religions depart from one another in various ways. The basic definition of a Jew is a human being who was either born to a Jewish mother or a human being who converted to Judaism. There are other definitions but this one is said to be the "normative" one. I think it is one of the most basic definitions. But none of the other definitions either, as far as I'm aware, require "practicing" in order to be of the religion. Yworo is applying original research to the definition of Jew. Yworo seems to be applying the mechanisms applicable to defining a Christian to defining a Jew. Bus stop (talk) 19:20, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

On p. 180 (of my edition) of his autobiography Epstein writes:

"The average unfavorable criticism of my sculpture or drawings I have never put down to anti-Semitism and I have never joined in all-Jewish exhibitions of art. Artists are of all races and climes , and to band together in racial groups is rediculus. I am most often annoyed rather than flattered to be told that I am the best of formost Jewish artist."

Notice that he does not say, nor can I imagine him thinking to say, “ Because I am not a Jewish artist.” Carptrash (talk) 19:51, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

You're not distinguishing between Jewish ethnicity and the Jewish religion. Many sources don't. The criteria for adding a religion category to an article is self-identification as an adherent of the religion, i.e. being not only of Jewish descent but actively practicing Judaism as a religion. You've made no comment about inclusion in the ethnic categories of Jewish descent. Where is the spirit of compromise? I compromised by finding and adding the correct categories given the sources we have. And you haven't even acknowledged that or acknowledged you understand the difference. All the Jewish religion categories have notices at the top saying the some of the entries may be miscategorized. This difference is precisely what those notices are talking about. We don't put people in a religious category unless they self-identify with the belief system rather than just ethnically. Just as we don't call someone agnostic or atheist unless they profess agnosticism or atheism, or call them gay unless they say they are, etc. There are two completely different sets of categories for Judaic people and religious practitioners of Judaism and they were created not to be redundant but to address precisely this difference. Yworo (talk) 20:14, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Reliable sources identify him as a Jew, so that's all that matters. I've added to the article four sources that explicitly identify him as Jewish; there are many more. One need not practice Judaism to be a Jew. Also, the "descent" categories are for people who have Jewish ancestors, but are not Jewish themselves. Someone who is Jewish is by definition "of Jewish descent", so the category is redundant in that case. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

context for quote in article

In the article we find:

"I never joined in all-Jewish exhibitions of art. ... I am most often annoyed rather than flattered to be told I am the best or foremost Jewish artist. Surely to be an artist is enough."

It's out of context. It's not representing his (Epstein's) main point. He's not voicing the platitude that his Jewishness is unimportant in contrast to his art which is of transcendent importance. He is writing in 1940, or at least his autobiography is published in 1940, I think, in reference to what he refers to as an antisemitic review (in a publication called the "New Age") of an exhibition of his work. The review itself dates from 1924. I think the spirit of what he is saying has to be seen as a defense against negative charges being lodged against Jews at that time. He speaks not only of himself. He references other Jews, working in other fields of endeavors, some not art-related.

The book is: Let There Be Sculpture, Jacob Epstein, 1940.

First a quick quote from earlier in the same book, this to show that he thought of his Jewishness as being entwined with his efforts as an artist:

"The earnestness and simplicity of the old Polish Jewish manner of living has much beauty in it, and an artist could make it the theme of very fine works. This life is fast disappearing on contact with American habits, and it is a pity that there is no Rembrandt of to-day to draw his inspiration from it before it is too late." [4]

Now here is the longer quote I was referring to at the top. A long part of the below excerpt from his autobiography is his own reproduction of the 1924 review of his art exhibition. My below excerpt is uninterrupted except for parts I couldn't read in Google books because it was unclear. The quote that is in our article is only at the bottom of this long excerpt:

"In the 'New Age' appeared the following anti-Semitic article. If one refers to the date, 1924, it will be seen that hatred of, and propaganda against the Jews in art is of no recent growth. I, for the life of me, cannot see why my bronzes in this exhibition were peculiarly Jewish, any more than the works of Rembrandt, and he is certainly not condemned for his Jewish subject matter, except by the Nazis, of course. I remember that Modigliani was intensely proud of his Jewish origin, and would contend with absurd vehemence that Rembrandt was Jewish. He gave as his reason that Rembrandt must have been Jewish on account of his profound humanity. This article in the 'New Age,' where even the Child's Studies of Peggy Jean "are touched with horror," Aryanism has run amok. This review, so venomous, so vile, was signed by a pseudonym—Rusticus. Obviously a forerunner of Herr Streicher. I print this piece of Aryanism for what it is worth. I will add that since the growth of Nazism and Fascism, both Italian and English, I have been favoured by articles in Der Sturmer, and similar periodicals in Germany and Austria; not to speak of attacks in our own Fascist Press, and the painting of the Hudson Memorial in Hyde Park with Swatstikas. When invited to show at the Venice Biennial by the Italian Government, receiving a personal invitation from Count Volpi, my works on arrival at the British Pavilion were held up, as Mussolini, in imitation of Hitler, had brought in his Aryan decrees; but the twenty-two works were, nevertheless, eventually shown, owing to the strong representations made by the British Committee."

"Here is the 'New Age' article of February 14th, 1924:"

"'There is no race in the world more enigmatic, more fatal, and therefore more interesting than the Jews.'—Dr. Oscar Levy."

"On leaving the exhibition we remarked to the attendant that a world peopled by such inhabitants as the artist depicted would be a nightmare. "But different people have different ideas on art," was the reply. "For instance, you might not like Chinese art, but still it is art."

"He apparently recognized that Epstein was not of the Aryan race, for this significant fact burns itself on the consciousness of every European who enters that room. Surrounded by Epstein's sculptures, the Aryan is in face of alien genius."

"Puzzled, vaguely uneasy, you wander round closely inspecting each head in turn. Wonderfully moulded, they are the work of a genius. They grip you. They will not let you go. But a sickening disgust gradually conquers you. The intensity of repulsion aroused by them cannot be explained merely on the ground of their Semitic cast—their high cheek bones, their half-shut eyes, their prominent noses and their full open lips. There is something more. They are instinct with evil."

"On closer analysis, it is found that there is a wide gulf between the men and women represented by Epstein. The women appear to be of a lower race. They are types without individuality. [The next several sentences are partially illegible in Google books.] So detestable has Epstein found the Aryan type that we turn from his insipid frigid creatures, "An English girl" and "Selina", with distaste. At least his Semitic creations are full of vitality and power."

"Mr. Orage contended that the Jew forms a link between the black and white races. This theory would explain how Epstein could so sympathetically depict a young Senegalese girl. Although she possesses the usual heavy features of the negress, the sculptor has endowed her with a gentle smile which makes us feel the human predominate over the animal."

"The mens heads are highly individualised. But they represent the power of intellect divorced from character. Here is old Pinager with knotted hands, terribly alive in spite of his amusing attitude. Dr. Adolph S. Oko, with intellectual head and cold, sneering, irresistible smile; the Duke of Marlborough cased in aristocratic pride; the Napoleonic study of a man; and the marvelously vivid head of R. B. Cunninghame Graham. Into these sculptures Epstein has poured his genius. But they are incarnations of evil."

"We recall the poise and balance of the Greek gods and feel that we are surrounded in their stead by Circean beasts. Where is man's power to erect himself above himself? How loathsome is the species when deprived of nobility and dignity! Even the charming studies of "Peggy Jean," the baby laughing, grave, asleep, are touched with horror when we contemplate the adults by whom she is surrounded and whom she will grow up to resemble."

"It is significant that Jacob Epstein should choose to display his undoubted genius in the portrayal of such savage types. His models, according to the photographs published in the daily Press, are ordinary good-looking people. But he has read into them certain bestial characteristics. Why has he done so?"

"We believe that in the artistic genius the soul of the race speaks. The individual is here the instrument impelled by a power far greater than himself. And we believe that in his gallery of sculptures, Jacob Epstein has expressed the subconscious racial Hebraic life—utterly and entirely alien to the Aryan life which reached its artistic apotheosis in Greek sculpture, and Christian painting and poetry."

"In the Grecian marbles, the human spirit sought expression for the ideal. Before even their mutilated remains were uplifted and chastened—we glimpse Olympia beyond and above our petty selves and share the larger life of common aspiration. But before Epstein's works we are humiliated and cast down. It seems scarcely worth while to belong to such a bestialized or evil humanity. He narrows us down to tribal conceptions—to animal women serving the lust of their patriarchal owners, cunning and cruel. The centuries are obliterated. European civilization has vanished. Balance, self-poise, control, proportion—the gifts of ages—have been swept away. He transports us anew to the twilight of early Jewry, where power is the motive force of man, and woman is but an instrument of sensuality."

"This astonishing tirade might have been written in the Germany of to-day. I remember when in New York one evening, at a party to which a friend had taken me, I met the genial Pascin, very depressed, and recall with what pleasure he greeted me. At that time in New York he was attacked by anti-Semitic art critics, and as he had had great popularity there, this weighed upon him. Shortly after that he committed suicide in Paris. The average unfavourable criticism of my sculpture or drawings I had never put down to anti-Semitism, and I have never joined all-Jewish exhibitions of art. Artists are of all races and climes, and to band together in racial groups is ridiculous. I am most often annoyed rather than flattered to be told that I am the best or foremost Jewish artist. Surely to be an artist is enough. Who thinks of whether Menuhin or Huberman are Jewish when you hear them playing the violin? Or whether Einstein is Semitic in science? Einstein said to me when I worked from him that it was only the Nazis who had made him conscious of his Jewish origin. This pernicious racialism in art should be forever banished." [5]

I don't think the quote as presently placed in the article conveys an accurate representation of Epstein's thoughts. I've changed it to read as follows:

"Epstein being a Jew,[8][9][10][11] negative reviews of his work sometimes took on an antisemitic flavor.[12]"

I think the above wording is more in keeping with what the larger context implies. Bus stop (talk) 05:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

We have been here before

and here we are again. I just cut this out.

"Epstein was Jewish for all his life,"

Why? you might ask. Well for one thing, if one is born Jewish, how is one not Jewish all one's life? And the references given do not really say he was Jewish all his life. rather they show that various writers at various different times called him Jewish. So I lopped that off and plopped it here. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 03:31, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I removed the IP insertion, so the sentence is back to what it was before, which is an accurate representation of the sources. I'm not sure why you had to remove the entire reference, rather than just the recent IP insertion. In any event, the discussion of antisemitism makes little sense unless one knows that Epstein was Jewish. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:15, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Jacob Epstein. 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/20060725152001/http://www.londonist.com/attachments/Matt/Zimbabwe%20House.jpg to http://www.londonist.com/attachments/Matt/Zimbabwe%20House.jpg
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070524132513/http://titilos.sorocabana.com:80/thumbnails.php?album=27 to http://titilos.sorocabana.com/thumbnails.php?album=27

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} 22:16, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Jacob Epstein. 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/20060725151958/http://www.londonist.com/attachments/Matt/Madonna.jpg to http://www.londonist.com/attachments/Matt/Madonna.jpg
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060725151954/http://www.londonist.com/attachments/Matt/Pan%20et%20al.jpg to http://www.londonist.com/attachments/Matt/Pan%20et%20al.jpg

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} 15:12, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Jacob Epstein. 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/20081218063335/http://londonist.com/attachments/Matt/Rima.jpg to http://www.londonist.com/attachments/Matt/Rima.jpg

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} 08:52, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jacob Epstein. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20131020185722/http://www.camdennewjournal.co.uk/2004%20archive/090904/r090904_4.htm to http://www.camdennewjournal.co.uk/2004%20archive/090904/r090904_4.htm
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080827195716/http://www.loughton-tc.gov.uk/2bhpl.htm to http://www.loughton-tc.gov.uk/2bhpl.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 17:17, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Hudson Memorial

When this was unveiled in Hyde Park in 1927, the Prime Minister was visibly shocked. It was vandalized off and on till the war broke out. If we can get some sources, could be worth a mention. 2600:1010:B067:AAC8:B117:8DB8:7FFE:A29 (talk) 21:27, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Stanley Baldwin was "visibly shocked"? Yes, this source also says: ".. questions were asked in Parliament, the Royal Academy campaigned for its removal and it was vandalised with green paint" (that last detail already mentioned, I think). Perhaps we could consult Hansard to see what those questions were? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:43, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Trent's Own Case

The 'Wetherill' character in this E. C. Bentley detective novel is supposed to be based on Epstein. This can be added when a reference is found. 2600:1010:B067:AAC8:B117:8DB8:7FFE:A29 (talk) 21:30, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Antiques Roadshow

A late watercolour by Epstein, of dahlias was featured on BBC One's Antiques Roadshow on 15 October 2017: [6]. It was valued by art expert Dendy Easton at £4,000 - £6,000. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:35, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jacob Epstein. 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/20081019011707/http://www.epstein.org.uk/ to http://www.epstein.org.uk/

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) 12:18, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jacob Epstein. 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/20140212024320/http://www.carrickhill.sa.gov.au/british_epstein.html to http://www.carrickhill.sa.gov.au/british_epstein.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.gtj.org.uk/en/item1/27348

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) 15:29, 19 November 2017 (UTC)