Talk:Guernica (Picasso)/Archive 1

"Quite possibly apocryphal"

I cut this from the article.

A story, quite possibly apocryphal, circulates about Guernica. During World War II, a German officer sees a copy of the painting for the first time, in the presence of Picasso. In a wondering tone he asks Picasso "Did you do this?" and Picasso replies: "No, you did."

If it is "quite possibly apocryphal" and we have no attribution or citation, it does not belong in the article. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:33, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

Except that this is extremely widely believed and noted. I recall hearing the equivalent when I was at the Prado. - Taxman 02:40, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

Then someone should be able to find a citation at least of the anecdote being told. (& was Guernica ever in the Prado? In the early 80s it was in an annex to the Prado and then was moved to the Reina Sofia, no?) -- Jmabel | Talk 07:32, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

Duh, yeah that is what I meant to say. It has been 4 years since I was there. Yes, I would think someone could find a source for that being a common anecdote. - Taxman 13:32, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

The most specific version I could find as that Picasso is supposed to have said this in 1937, replying to German ambassador Otto Abetz, as he was visiting Picasso's studio[3]. Then there are versions that have Picasso handing out postcards (sometimes autographed, even) to Germans while making this quip[4], but the most popular is probably the one that uses an anonymous German officer bringing/seeing a postcard/photograph[5]. None of these sites mention sources, of course, but this one[6] has an interesting addition:

Picasso himself probably had contributed to Barr's and others' perception of him having behaved rather boldly throughout the war when, immediately following the liberation, he told an American correspondent for Newsweek magazine that on the day when a German army officer had recognized a sketch of Guernica pinned to the wall of his studio and had asked him, "Did you do that?," Picasso coldly had replied, "No, you did."

Now the tale originates with Picasso himself and is told to Newsweek, which makes this version much more credible than the others, since it's hard to see how a response to Abetz or a group of officers would not be better documented, while it's equally hard to see how a reply to a single anonymous German officer could be known at all. Unfortunately, no other site corroborates the Newsweek detail. I've sent a mail to the Newsweek editors and I'll keep you posted. If someone could check out some Picasso biographies to check whether they mention the anecdote (and what source they give, if any), that would be great. JRM 13:14, 2005 Apr 25 (UTC)

We can certainly cite the fact that Picasso himself told a (possibly apocryphal) story. It makes the line his, even if it's not clear he really said it in the claimed circumstances. -- Jmabel | Talk 16:05, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
Yes, if Picasso really told it. So far, no sources are backing up that website (or even just repeating that version), so I'm not too keen on it. Otherwise the whole thing is just as apocryphal as before. JRM · Talk 16:46, 2005 Apr 26 (UTC)
If anyone is up for some library work: old Newsweeks are pretty easy to find. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:31, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

Just an FYI, Louis Zukofsky has a reference to this story in his long poem "A" (section 12, written 1950-51). He writes: "Pablo the Ur-realist / Faced by his "Guernica" / And the Gestapo officer's hiss / "Did you do this!" / Said gently, you did." [Louis Zukofsky, "A," UC Press 1978] Julivox (talk) 16:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nudity?

I reverted this from Category:Paintings containing nudity to Category:Paintings. Clearly, the fact that one naked female human breast is visible in the painting is a very minor fact about the painting; no one by a very weird obsessive would look for it there. It is primarily a political work about war. I could make a case that it is a perfect illustration that nakedness is not always nudity, but I think it suffices to say that if we are subcategorizing Category:Paintings, we should come up with a category for this that has far more to do with its nature. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:12, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

I see three or four naked female human breasts. Nudity and nakedness point to the same article. What about Liberty Leading the People? --Error 01:14, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If Nudity and nakedness point to the same article, that's just ignorance, but it's not an area in which I wish to take up writing articles. Nudity implies sexualization; nakedness does not. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:28, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

UN date

The date of the Colin Powell / "blue curtain" incident at the UN was recently and anonymously changed, without citation. Since the original date wasn't cited either, I am not reverting; however, the date should be considered dubious until there is a citation. -- Jmabel | Talk 17:43, July 14, 2005 (UTC) Who cares if the womans breast is showing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.99.40.247 (talk) 13:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

Hi, I don't know how but I was trying to add some information from school work onto the page and it has messed up and now it's not showing anything and I'm really sorry. is there a way to get it back? Please don't ban me or anything as I use the site frequently and really enjoy it. I am so sorry. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.103.125.20 (talk • contribs) 22 Sept 2005.

Don't worry, we try not to bite the newbies. You should get a look at Wikipedia:How to edit a page. And if you will open an account, it will be much easier for people to communicate with you. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:50, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I looked in vain for any comments critical of this painting. Was this painting universally loved when it was introduced, or were there "important people" who thought it to be juvenile and unappealing?

Skull?

Just where is that "outline of a skull" formed by various objects? I just can't find it. Maybe someone can add an image where that outline is, ahem, outlined in red or such? -- mawa 06:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a rough drawing (skull is marked roughly in bright green. The nose is clearest; the brows seem reasonably clear. If someone wants to do this in the article, they will want to start from Image:PicassoGuernica.jpg, do something much neater than I just did, and upload it to Image:PicassoGuernica-Skull.jpg -- Jmabel | Talk 06:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

where is the skull? Chenhsi (talk) 18:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the highlighted image in the article, I can sorta see the skull in the body of the horse, but the skull in the horse's nose and upper teeth stretches my imagination. 71.231.56.40 (talk) 18:24, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Partial Image!

the jpg you show is incomplete; missing the right-hand component; not an unusual mistake; but the work is significant; so get the image right; please! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.49.148.13 (talk • contribs) 18 May 2006.

I agree! If someone finds it, fix it! --212.247.27.196 21:24, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it was fixed, though I'd love to see a higher res image up there. 101kb jpeg hardly does a 30 foot painting justice.Sammermpc 14:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article reorganized with new History section

I reorganized the article, separating descriptive material about the painting from the painting's history. The article could be improved if contributors add information about how Picasso conceived and painted Guernica and insert it into this new section. --Dkwong323 17:59, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cubism

A citation is needed for cubism. However, the comment that the mural is not cubist because is was created in 1937 is off-base. The Microsoft Encarta describes Guernica as a "cubist collage". Someone might want to look at what the curator at Museo Reina Sofia in Madrid , Espana , says. --Dkwong323 19:14, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Symbolism in Guernica

The article's information on symbolism is not representative of consensus interpretation of the work. For example, The Encyclopedia Britannica says the creature on the right is a bull (not minotaur), and that it represents "the hope of overcoming the unseen aggressor, Fascism". This is diametrically opposite of what is indicated in the article, and this needs to be examined: Note that the bull is often used as a symbol for Spain itself and Picasso would not want a painting intended to be sympathetic to the Spanish government's cause be interpreted otherwise. Certainly, the creature that stands in an opening to the "room" doesn't look like it is poised to threaten or destroy the grieving woman with dead child under it. Given the Britannica narrative, I've deleted the sentences. Overall, the article should at least provide a review of the different mainstream symbolic interpretions of Guernica. --Dkwong323 19:14, 25 June 2006 (UTC) I want to add some references for further discussion about the symbolism of guernica and the history of its interpretation:[reply]

Gijs van Hensbergen: Guernica. Biographie eines Bildes, Siedler Verlag, MÃ¼nchen 2007, ISBN 978-3-88680-866-3

   * Gereon-Becht-Jördens: Picassos Guernica als kunsttheoretisches Programm. In: Ders., Peter M. Wehmeier: Picasso und die christliche Ikonographie, Berlin 2003, S. 209-237.
   * Max Imdahl: Zu Picassos Bild "Guernica". InkohÃ¤renz und KohÃ¤renz als Aspekte moderner Bildlichkeit. In: Imdahl: Gesammelte Schriften, Bd 1, Frankfurt a.M. 1996. S. 398-459.
   * Annemarie Zeiller: Guernica und das Publikum. Berlin 1996.
   * Ludwig Ullmann: Picasso und der Krieg. Bielefeld 1993.
   * Carlo Ginzburg: Das Schwert und die GlÃ¼hbirne - Picassos Guernica. Frankfurt am Main 1999.
   * Juan Marin: Guernica ou le rapt des Ménines, Paris 1994.
   * Siegfried P. Neumann: Pablo Picasso, Frankfurt am Main 1992.
   * Ellen Oppler (Hrsg.): Picasso's Guernica, New York 1988.
   * Werner Spies: Guernica und die Weltausstellung von 1937. In: Ders.: Kontinent Picasso, München 1988, S. 63-99.
   * Herschel Chipp: Guernica. History, Transformations, Meanings, Berkeley, Los Angeles 1988.

Not external links

The following three items were in the "external links" section of the article. They are clearly not external links; it is not obvious to me that they belong in the article at all; I have brought them here to the talk page. - Jmabel | Talk 06:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[Begin cut material]

"Guernica", a guitar solo by Adrian Belew on his 1986 solo album, Desire Caught By The Tail
"My Guernica", a song by indie band Manic Street Preachers from the 2001 album 'Know Your Enemy'
"Guernica", a song by the band Brand New on their 2003 album Deja Entendu

[End cut material]

Links

What do others think of the recently added "Guernica for rent" link? I'm inclined to remove it: the linked page is probably one big copyvio, since it seems to be basically reproduction without commentary of details from the painting. - Jmabel | Talk 02:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Numbers

I see that some anon removed the high end of the range of estimated casualties, which I have now restored. We have been dealing with this over and over in Bombing of Gernika, where the numbers are explained: or at least they are except when this person removes all the sources he disagrees with. - Jmabel | Talk 08:06, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What Did Picasso say?

I cut from the article: "The Spanish struggle is the fight of reaction against the people, against freedom. My whole life as an artist has been nothing more than a continuous struggle against reaction and the death of art. How could anybody think for a moment that I could be in agreement with reaction and death? ... In the panel on which I am working, which I shall call Guernica, and in all my recent works of art, I clearly express my abhorrence of the military caste which has sunk Spain in an ocean of pain and death."

But in fact Picasso did not say anything about the painting, or write anything about it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.3.137.211 (talk) 18:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

It may be difficult to find sources where Picasso gives his own opinion on the symbolism of Guernica; however, I have found an authentic source that states what Picasso has said in the past regarding his painting. The following excerpt is from the textbook Civilizations in the West, Volume C (since 1789), 7th edition by Mark Kishlansky, Patrick Geary, and Patricia O'Brien (ISBN 0205556892). It may be found on pages 834-835 under the section entitled "The Screams from Guernica". The excerpt reads as follows:

"In one of his rare moments of self-interpretation, Picasso explained to a public eager to grasp the mural's symbolism that the horse whose side is opened by a terrible gash is "the people," victimized by incomprehensible cruelty. The bull is an enigmatic figure symbolizing, Picasso said, darkness and brutality. The horned beast appears as a powerful and vulnerable witness to the scene of needless destruction."

Pdinestdnt89 (talk) 00:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC)Pdinestdnt89[reply]

Spelling

Why is it referred to, in the "See Also" section, as the "Bombing of Gernika" rather than the "Bombing of Guernica" as it is in BOTH actual articles? Why are we contradicting ourselves here? It may be "Gernika" now, but come on. Basic contradictions should probably be rectified before an article is protected.

intro

the article is locked, otherwise i'd fix it myself, but the opening sentence is insanely long and needs work. also has preposition issues. might i suggest something to the effect of:

Guernica is a painting by Pablo Picasso, depicting the Nazi German bombing of Guernica, Spain, by twenty-four bombers on April 26, 1937 during the Spanish Civil War. While he had already started working on the painting at the time of the bombing, he decided to incorporate the event into the work, and name the painting after it.

slightly better, i believe. 198.190.212.45 19:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Power of Art

According to Simon Schama's book The Power of Art, Guernica was painted in response to an article that Picaso saw in an French newspaper. The first line suggests that he was already working on the project when the bombs fell. He had agreed to do 'a politically minded painting' for a 1937 Paris Fair, but he had not decided what he was going to do until after the events in Geurnica unfolded. It was a front page photograph of the inferno that inspired the work.

Joallen17 00:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References

I've added two references relating to the hidden imagery in the picture, because I happen to know the people who originally identified the concealed skull and bull and I feel credit should be given. Mel Becraft discovered and wrote about some of the hidden imagery back in 1981, and Mark Harris expanded on this work in the early 90s.

Akhen3sir 08:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Painting in Popular Culture?

A section like this should be added, mainly to reference that the painting was used in the 2006 film "Children of Men" by Alfonso Cuarón. Not sure how it could be cited, but it's in the scene where Theo is meeting with his rich friend about the "transit papers", and the painting (or some rendition of it, likely) is hanging on the wall behind him. It may even relate to the themes of the movie: the painting depicts a civil war that Picasso hated, and a war of similar sorts rages in the movie.

Crazy Coyote 12 July 2007

Fair use rationale for Image:Guernica skull decontrast.png

Image:Guernica skull decontrast.png 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 ensure 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) 23:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lead Introductory paragraph

I am replacing the deleted lead introductory paragraph. It belongs at the top of the article. See WP:MoS, leads...Modernist (talk) 12:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rubens

After seeing a report on the editor assistance board concerning resent changes to this article I've found several sources that reference Picasso as having drawn inspiration from Rubens's Horrors of War (alt. Consequences of War) on this particular painting.

The Guardian makes passing mention to it.
At JSTOR there are two articles behind pay wall that google cache has caught regarding this information "Picasso's Guernica after Rubens's Horrors of War by Alice Doumenian Tankard" and on a hunch from an old article of Art Journal, which I own "# Picasso's "Guernica": A Study in Visual Metaphor by William Proweller, Art Journal, Vol. 30, No. 3 (Spring, 1971), pp. 240-248"... also by coincidence found on JSTOR [7].
Britannica claims Rubens's painting as a precursor to Picasso's here.
Google Books brings us a few things too... first is a reference to the Tank paper in Guernica: Images Within Images By Melvin E. Becraft and in Death and the Humanities By Sharon Scholl the author directly contrasts the two works. Lastly, The Cambridge Introduction to Tragedy By Jennifer Wallace says that Picasso references the painting in the making of Guernica.

So, although I don't believe the statements that the editor was trying to place in the article are accurate I do think there is a place for the root idea behind the statement in this article. --Torchwood Who? (talk) 20:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that my original statements in the article were dramatic in nature, and for that I apologize. However I do think that the artcile is lacking in this regard. Guernica is one of the most influential paintings of all time, and I think it is very important that the artwork be put into context. The research done by Alice Tankard in her book is wonderful and if you are interested in Guernica alone and do not find the cause relevant it is still a worth while read. In her book she compiled evidence from all types of sources, and also has letters written by Rubens describing all the symbolism in detail. Which will give a better understanding of Guernica. We all know that artists take inspiration from other sources all the time. But this goes a step beyond inspiration and into the same painting by two different artists. Any help in making this information easier for the general public to get a hold of will be greatly appreciated. Thank You and you can see my emotionally charged arguments on the deleted versions of the Guernica page, and maybe you can all help in coming up with an agreeable solution to add in the page. Rubensrevenge (talk) 21:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, try to be thoughtful and careful, as you continue to edit, no rash conclusions but thoughtful and referenced additions, much improved...Modernist (talk) 21:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV?

This monumental work has eclipsed the bounds of a single time and place, becoming a perpetual reminder of the tragedies of war, an anti-war symbol, and an embodiment of peace

Um, whoa. That's kinda opinionated, no? - Eric (talk) 19:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re. copy

The section on the copy of the tapestry in the USA needs to be altered and updated. We need to make it clearer that it's a copy, and explain more about it being in London; also the fact about it moving needs a suitable citation. I found this reference]. I'd do this myself, but don't have time right now; I'll try to get back to it some day and do it, if nobody else has. Chzz ► 18:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The Painting"

In the "The Painting" section, one of the bullets define the stigmata on the hand of the soldier as a direct reference to martyrdom, while the final bullet mentions the same instance and also adds that it should not be inferred from the symbol that Picasso was a religious man. At the very least, these should be fused into one bullet to avoid redundancy (unless one of them is incorrect or unverified, at which point it would have to be deleted). 24.15.197.87 (talk) 04:32, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct, and I just merged the redundant points (and added a verification tag after the description of how the symbol is to be understood--it seems pretty sound but should be sourced). Ewulp (talk) 05:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The best picture?

Is this the best picture we can get of Guernica? It seems a little...blurry. There's no higher resolution, which prevents me from distinguishing the subjects of the painting. Can we get a better pic? 76.120.200.30 (talk) 17:22, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree it's quite poor.2601:642:C481:4640:0:0:0:B21 (talk) 01:52, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More a response than a depiction

The work, as I have seen it and been taught, is more a response to the bombing at Guernica than it is a direct depiction. It's more an allegory than a it is anything else. 68.144.130.215 (talk) 03:11, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Historical Context

Guernica was a quiet village. The nearest military target of any consequence was a factory on the outskirts of the town, which manufactured various war products. The factory went through the attack unscathed. Thus, the motivation of the bombing was clearly one of intimidation.

First of all Guernica was (and is) a town, not a village. Furthermore the claim that "the motivation of the bombing was clearly one if intimidation" is unsupported speculation. As the preceding paragraph citing Beevor notes Guernica was situated on the Republican main line of retreat. Although historians have been unable to fully reconstruct the process that lead to the decision to bomb Guernica the most likely explanation was to interdict the escape of Republican forces. The "intimidation" (read: "terror bombing") explanation, although once fashionable, makes no military sense since Republican forces made to attempt to seriously defend the town (the rearguard action of the Rosa Luxemburg Battalion notwithstanding). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.109.40.105 (talk) 07:31, 22 April 2011 (UTC) (oops this is my comment Lexington50 (talk) 08:36, 26 April 2011 (UTC))[reply]

File:Mural del Gernika.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Mural del Gernika.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests December 2011

What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:47, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fringe theory

Please provide more reliable sources that go beyond speculation and theories...Modernist (talk) 11:51, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It has been known for more than a decade. It has been published in books and newspapers, and it has been ratified by the people that commissioned the painting to Pablo Picasso, who confessed the picture used a previous work. I'm frankly amazed the Wikipedia doesn't mention this. It's hard to find sources on the internet, which is why I scanned the page of the newspaper. 84.121.147.73 (talk) 12:02, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We certainly need better sources than these. Johnbod (talk) 12:42, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This has been known from a long time, but I just found today that it wasn't mentioned in the wikipedia, as such I took a few hours of time to search the web for references to write this section. There are probably out there better references, but maybe not on google as these news predate Internet by many years (year of implantation in Spain, that is). 84.121.147.73 (talk) 00:28, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Better sources are needed, preferably in English. It's not news that Guernica incorporates imagery that Picasso had been working with for some time, but the work is not a collage, and the claim that the painting is "the greatest lie of our time" is Roda's opinion. These references do not demonstrate that Roda's conclusions are supported by Aub. Ewulp (talk) 10:30, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Previous painting claims

There are claims that Picasso's Guernica would have been a previous work of Picasso, originally commissioned by a mexican cultural institution in 1935 to promote the art of bullfighting, and that Picasso resold to the Republic under a different title. José María Sánchez Roda, who was the president of the Junta del Tesoro Artístico Nacional during the second republic, and the person in charge when the Republic appointed Picasso the task to draw the mural, called the painting "the greatest lie of our time". ^[1] According to him, Picasso used pieces from a previously commissioned work to create the mural. He was asked to paint a typical spanish Fiesta with bulls, horses, swords, blood, and exalted people. The mexican institution didn't pay Picasso for the painting, so he stored the unsold piece in his attic. When the Republic commissioned him a mural on January 8th of 1937 for the Spanish Pabillion at the Universal Expo of Paris, he made a collage out of this previous piece, then asked her wife to add a few minor strokes of paint to the painting. "Joseph Renau, the general manager of the Art School, made a comment about Picasso's nerve, however we opted to remain silent out of respect to the artist.", he added. "By the time the painting returned to Spain, it had already become a myth and a symbol of the reinstated democracy, and I didn't want to become a Party Pooper, so I keep silence about the painting's truth." Roda broke that silence at age 92, in a book he wrote about the II Republic at the region of Requena (Spain).

These claims are supported by a note of Max Aub, Cultural Assistant of the Spanish Embassy at Paris, who paid Picasso 150,000 francs on January of 1937 for a mural. "Picasso reportedly took sixty days in painting the mural, and the piece was exhibited in May, 4th, merely a week after the Guernica's bombardment. That's why the painting has no reference whatsoever to the bombardments or any other historic events that took place in Guernica." ^[2]

During the exposition, when Picasso was pointed out that his painting couldn't represent the bombardments because they took place at night while his painting depicted a sunny day, he quickly took a brush and painted a lightbulb over the sun to turn it into a night scene.^[3]^[4]^[5]

Attacks and defacement?

I've read that there were several attempts by people to vandalize the painting, particularly when it was on display at the Museum of Modern Art. People who didn't like the polotical message (Spanish nationalists?) supposedly vomited on it in the belief that it would be impossible to restore once stomach acid damaged it. BrotherSulayman (talk) 13:37, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

from "The Massacre of the Innocents"?

Please look at these pictures: http://www.sanatlog.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/masumlarin-oldurulmesiguernica1.jpg Canan Elçioğlu wrote about that in 2008. "The Massacre of the Innocents" (Whose work? Giulio Romano??? - 1531, now in Vatican)Böri (talk) 10:28, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting - this Austrian paper is probably to be regarded as a an RS: [8], but I can't see anything in English, including on JSTOR. Johnbod (talk) 15:16, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

what olive branch?

I have looked at several pictures on the net searching for the supposed olive branch mentioned in the article. The bird (barely visible in the article's picture by the way) seems barren of any branch. Nicknicknickandnick (talk) 20:17, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; it's fixed. Ewulp (talk) 02:01, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's been referenced in two episodes of The Simpsons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.124.116.101 (talk) 23:38, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Guernica (Picasso). 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/20050429013052/http://www.thenation.com:80/doc.mhtml?i=20041213&s=hoberman&c=1 to http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20041213&c=1&s=hoberman

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: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:07, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Guernica (Picasso). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:51, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lede

Ban evasion by User:HarveyCarter.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

It does not make sense to say "by Nazi Germany and Italian warplanes" so I have reworded accordingly.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.111.130 (talk • contribs) 18:59, May 20, 2019 (UTC)

The Fascist Italy language does seem more accurate as long as the counterpart language "Nazi Germany" remains. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:20, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The original language regarding Nazi Germany was correct...Modernist (talk) 02:15, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To be crystal clear - Picasso lived in Nazi occupied Paris...don't change that historical fact to suit your whim...Modernist (talk) 02:19, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd retain "Nazi-occupied Paris" with piped link to German military administration in occupied France during World War II. The IP edit to the lead seems an improvement to me. Ewulp (talk) 03:06, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"German-occupied Paris" is more accurate. France had declared war on Germany and invaded the country in 1939. (86.156.74.5 (talk) 12:46, 21 May 2019 (UTC))[reply]

Reason for bombing

Ban evasion by User:HarveyCarter.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The lede should mention why Franco's government asked for the attack - the town was being used as a communications centre behind the front line during the fighting. (86.156.74.5 (talk) 12:50, 21 May 2019 (UTC))[reply]

No reason for that to be in this article, which is about the painting and the deliberate bombing of the civilian population. That is what inspired Picasso and what fueled his work. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:56, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Except the Germans and Italians bombed a legitimate military target on the front line, at the request of the Spanish government. (86.156.74.5 (talk) 12:58, 21 May 2019 (UTC))[reply]

At this time the deliberate bombing of civilians was not common, was a war crime, and was lucky to have literate witnesses who were able to communicate what had occurred. That literal mass murder was what made the bombing of Guernica's residents so abrasive to the world, and Picasso was able to communicate that in his painting. That is what the painting is about, not the politics of why or how. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:04, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Germans and Italians did not deliberately bomb civilians. At the request of the Spanish government they bombed a town behind the front line that was being used as a centre by the enemy. Nobody was ever charged or convicted for war crimes so the operation cannot be fairly described as a war crime. (86.148.226.37 (talk) 15:11, 21 May 2019 (UTC))[reply]

You need to provide references for your suppositions and unproven point of view which sounds like nonsense...Modernist (talk) 21:14, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody was tried for bombing Guernica so it can't be called a war crime. In any case the laws on aerial warfare were very different in 1937. (JohnFanud (talk) 22:39, 21 May 2019 (UTC))[reply]

- Prove your nonsense; and this from an expert with a total of 5 edits!!!!!!!Which sockpuppet are you? Try adding references!!!...Modernist (talk) 23:42, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
links to war crimes articles: Washington Post; Independent UK; the Guardian...Modernist (talk) 01:17, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Randy Kryn that we shouldn't include an alleged rationale for the bombing in the lede; the article is about a painting and the historical context can be summarized in the appropriate section. Ewulp (talk) 04:56, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody was ever charged with war crimes over Guernica so calling the operation a war crime is POV. The Spanish government was very pleased with the raid. (86.160.157.45 (talk) 11:31, 22 May 2019 (UTC))[reply]

Reliable source calls it a WAR CRIME: [9]...Modernist (talk) 13:24, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Independent is just a tabloid. (86.160.157.45 (talk) 14:01, 22 May 2019 (UTC))[reply]

Why does it say 'hello' at the top of the page

it says 'hello' in bold for some reason

[1] LEVANTE emv 9/4th/1997 (screenshot)

[2] [1]

[3] [2]

[4] ttp://cine.terra.es/actualidad/noticias/-El-Guernica-esta-basado-en-una-pelicula-de-Hollywood/verFicha_3347.htm

[5] El Guernica de Picasso nada tiene que ver con el bombardeo del Guernica

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]