Talk:J. C. Leyendecker

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Gay[edit]

This is an North American slang word that is ironic, in that there is nothing merry about this choice of homosexual behavior. What citations can be referenced to prove that this artist or his brother behaved in this manner? Who was present to observe this behavior? I could say that he was an alcoholic or violent or lazy. Would you believe me? There has to be some proof for encyclopedia articles that include such deleterious attributions.Lestrade 13:51, 13 January 2006 (UTC)Lestrade[reply]

The word "gay" does not appear in this article, but I'll take the opportunity to point out 1.) that the word "gay" is neither "short-lived" or used by "a particular group," and therefore not "slang." It has been in use as a synonym for "homosexual" for at least one hundred years in both US and UK, and widespread for at least the past forty years. 2.) Best current research indicates homosexuality is not usually a "choice." 3.) You can believe what you wish about Leyendecker, but his homosexuality is not disputed, and is based on primary sources such as an interview with Beach which appeared in the New York World-Telegram and Sun in December 1951, a few months after Leyendecker's death. 4.) There is nothing deleterious about this information in the context of Wikipedia in 2006, except in your mind and the minds of those with fears similar to your own. --Kstern999 22:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fear of what? There is no question of fear in my comments. This article, like many others, needs continual surveillance to deter rabid, fanatical homosexuals from including speculations about sexuality. They are intent on legitimizing and naturalizing their unnatural behavior. One tactic is to characterize opposition to homosexuality as fear of the unfamiliar. User:Kstern999 uses this "homophobe" method, as though opponents of homosexuality are merely similar to children who fear the unfamiliar. Lestrade 12:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)Lestrade[reply]
  • Leyendecker's personal life is referred to by noting his relationship with Beach. I think it is neither appropriate nor necessary for this entry to become an argument on the morality of homosexuality.JNW 12:44, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Agreed. But homosexuals do not have the right to use this Wikipedia article to further their intentions and purposes. Schools, television, and movies are already doing enough of that.Lestrade 13:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC)Lestrade[reply]
  • Again, this is not the place to debate political or moral p.o.v.

JNW 22:04, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. So why is the topic even mentioned? Are there any documented facts about this artist's private physical relationships? Is the topic mentioned for a reason?Lestrade 22:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)Lestrade[reply]
  • It is, I believe, documented information about the artist's life (Among illustrators, collectors, and art dealers, Leyendecker's personal biography is well known), and probably sheds some light on the fashion and attractiveness of his male subjects. After his death, his friend Beach cut up his paintings and sold the fragments for very little money; very sad, really. But considering how deeply some of the biographical entries delve into their subjects' personal lives, the entry on Leyendecker, as it stands now, is a model of restraint. JNW 23:50, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lestrade is wrong. Gay is good. His homophobia is wrong :)Mardochee1 (talk) 12:21, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • This talk section demonstrates exactly why Leyendecker kept to himself--straight people will go on the attack at every possible moment, using depoliticizing language as an excuse to erase us. It would be nice to live in a society where sexual identity is just an unremarkable attribute to a person, but these comments demonstrate exactly why we need to establish oppositional cultural identity. 2600:1702:2050:C650:F9C6:E6D0:E0DB:5AEA (talk) 23:29, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above two comments (by Mardochee1 and the anon) should be deleted as they contain only slogans and are in no way related to the discussion. It's pretty much like posting "ManU rules! City sucks!" under a discussion about the history of Manchester United. 90.186.83.177 (talk) 16:09, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Haggin Museum[edit]

Why is a link to a bio and gallery on a commercial web site deemed acceptable in the external links section, but a link to a bio and gallery from a nonprofit organization is deemed a "conflict of interest" and removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by HagginMuseum (talk • contribs) 18:10, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article J. C. Leyendecker, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:
  1. editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
  2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
  3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:18, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heading change[edit]

He was and is better known as J. C. rather than full name. Pepso2 (talk) 12:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is considerable evidence from 1890s Chicago newspapers and arts magazines that J. C. Leyendecker was known colloquially as "Joe" among friends and art colleagues, even though he signed all his works with "J. C. Leyendecker" or some variant of the "JCL" monogram. 24.107.189.69 (talk) 16:43, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on J. C. Leyendecker. 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: 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) 15:06, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion of my edits[edit]

@JimPercy: Please account for your reversion of my edits. Content that cannot be reliably sourced is not "good info" by definition and does not belong on Wikipedia. I have no idea what "not speculative concerning the era" is supposed to mean. Ya hemos pasao (talk) 06:00, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rationale for recent changes[edit]

I've made a number of changes to this entry today. Much of the text was verbatim copied from the 2008 Cutler & Cutler monograph on Leyendecker and reflected those authors' speculations, biases, and language. I've edited to remove these, to focus on what has been written in the secondary literature that's supported by primary evidence. The Cutlers are major owners of Leyendecker's works and their arguments should be carefully scrutinized before inclusion here (i.e. potential conflict of interest).

Second, I've added some content reflected in David Saunder's 2021 Leyendecker biography, which described Leyendecker's Chicago years better than anyone else to date.

Third, I've removed most references to Frank Leyendecker, since the entry is on J. C.

Fourth, I've grouped the personal and career information together and added cites supporting the assertion that Leyendecker was homosexual. My recommendation is that we stick to what the secondary sources have written, not our personal beliefs or opinions on this subject. Many, MANY secondary sources imply (Rockwell, Schau, etc.) or outright state (Saunders, Cooper, Saslow, Streitmatter, etc.) that Leyendecker was homosexual and the entry should say that with cites to those sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ProfMurphy (talk • contribs) 21:37, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Leyendecker’s Inspiration[edit]

Someone goofed up his inspiration as being from video games, can someone please fix that? 138.47.228.84 (talk) 12:35, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:J._C._Leyendecker&oldid=1214672160"