Jump to content

Talk:Metaphysical painting

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Metaphysical art)

Plagiarism?

[edit]

a large portion of this article is taken, word-for-word, from the Encyclopædia Britannica article on Metaphysical painting. (https://www.britannica.com/art/Metaphysical-painting#ref35324 ) i was, at first, just going to put a couple sentences in quotation marks and add an in-line reference, but the more i read of the EB article, the more word-for-word copying i saw, and i realized that, basically, most of this article would then need to be in quotes.

the paragraph that begins with "While Futurism staunchly rejected the past," i can't find on EB, although it is found, word-for-word, on many other sites (many of them "wiki" sites). i've noticed this copying between "wiki" sites before, but in this case, there doesn't seem to be any "original source." because it sounds/reads like the direct quotes taken from EB, i suspect it was taken from some article there, but i haven't found it.

at any rate, i don't know the WP, or the WMF, rules for copying/plagiarism. i know that the EB article is cited as a Source here, but citing something as a Source usually doesn't mean one can simply copy large chunks of text from said Source without actual attribution. but, as i've mentioned, i don't know how WP or WMF deals with this. my experience is with 'scholarly' papers (college or professional), and newspaper journalism.

so i'm noting it here, in case some editing needs to be done to bring this article into compliance.Colbey84 (talk) 23:48, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for spotting this. The EB copyvio been cleaned up; the rest is in progress. Ewulp (talk) 06:26, 2 September 2017 (UTC) ...and now complete. Ewulp (talk) 08:13, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed move

[edit]

The suggestion by User: Daask to rename this page "Metaphysical painting" (diff) seems sound; it's the literal translation of the Italian Pittura metafisica and in my experience is the more common term. Do we have a consensus? Discussion is invited here. Ewulp (talk) 22:00, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]