Talk:Art & Language

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

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

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

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 14:45, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled[edit]

As a person with an interest in art history I have problems with this page: it is utterly incoherent, and it is totally inaccurate. For example, there is a less than subtle attempt to exclude the founding member, Michael Baldwin, and the current member, Mel Ramsden. This is merely to serve as an example of the absurdities which are, unfortunately, persistent throughout the article (there are countless and less trivial examples)... I hope they will be addressed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.9.233.89 (talk) 00:47, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, the referenced and wiki'ed version is superior. There's been no mention of the sources for the current, and no communication from the new accounts who changed it so I'm going to revert. Syrthiss (talk) 12:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well, guess I'll be back by on monday to revert from your unformatted mess. Cheerio. Syrthiss (talk) 15:41, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the spirit of encouraging dialogue: IP address, I don't understand why you think Baldwin and Ramsden are excluded in the article. They are mentioned throughout. You say there are absurdities in the article. Please state here on the talkpage what specifically you want changed and we can consider one thing at a time.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 20:48, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedia article not a resume[edit]

This is an encyclopedia article. References good. Dumping exhaustive lists of exhibitions/awards etc. and removing references bad.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 20:28, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

give up[edit]

Ethicoaestheticist: I am already tired of trying to correct your text. I have no desire to list its absurd misapprehensions, omissions and oversights. It is simultaneously provincial and tendentious. In a word: goofy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dgpjlggvtp (talk • contribs) 11:36, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While I appreciate your grasp of big words, if you can cite specific examples where the text is wrong...with references to why it is wrong...I'm sure that the article can be improved. Otherwise I expect the wall of text will continue to be reverted for the referenced text. Syrthiss (talk) 12:02, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to wade in with an opinion on this confusion, even if it is two years too late. The entire article reads like a discussion of Australian cricket in the thirties which is desperate to ignore Donald Bradman; it's like a description of quantum mechanics acknowledging Enrico Fermi as important as Paul Dirac. I'm not comparing Art Language's contribution to that of quantum mechanics or cricket. Nor am I comparing Michael Baldwin, Mel Ramsden and Charles Harrison to Paul Dirac. Rather (if this isn't too big a word for you) it was a metaphor, serving to highlight the absurd skew in the article. The thinly veiled - and moderately juvenile - attempts to radicalize and politicize the ex-members reeks of a desperate need to make them sound more important than they really are. I'm sorry for whoever you are, but please stop editing this article, and find a more constructive way to make yourself feel important, and please contain your slightly priapic relationship with Jerry Saltz's crtiticism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.71.15 (talk) 00:31, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Syrthiss: could you please tell me how to go about making serious, constructive changes to this article? Do I really need to list the problems one by one, or can I provide a new, more accurate text? While I am willing, if I absolutely have to, to go through each of the problems with you, there are so many that we are likely to be here for a very long time indeed. It seems odd to me that you would view a text as in some way 'superior' or appropriate - or indeed more coherently encyclopedic - simply because it was posted on here first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blanchot (talk • contribs) 11:40, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have faith in any editor to make changes to the article without my supervision. Make sure that the material you are putting in is properly sourced, be bold and have at it. If you don't know how to use the inline references to reference items, you can either stop by my talk page and I can give you some examples or you can just place whatever reference text in parenthesis after the text it is supporting and someone can fix the markup later. Hope this helps. Syrthiss (talk) 13:05, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Be bold. You obviously know about the subject. I'm happy to help as well.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 23:32, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Art & Language. 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, 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) 16:58, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting[edit]

I have some concerns about the choices in listing off notable members of the group. The text currently reads:

"Starting at the beginning of the 1970s, individuals such as Ian Burn, Michael Corris, Preston Heller, Graham Howard, Joseph Kosuth, Andrew Menard, Terry Smith and from Coventry Philip Pilkington and David Rushton joined the group."

Based on the syntax, I am not certain if Philip Pilkington and David Rushton are both from Coventry, or Phillip is the only one. Also, a link to what Coventry is would be appreciated. TheTrashMan (talk) 05:33, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A&l listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect A&l. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. signed, Rosguill talk 23:36, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
To not merge on the grounds of independent notability and distinct scope, but to disambiguate with hatnotes. Klbrain (talk) 08:00, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am proposing to merge the current article with the one on the magazine, Art-Language. Both articles have a lot of overlap in contents, even using the same image. The difference between the two (& vs -) is a bit too subtle for me, and also for the average reader, I assume. Merging the two will provide for a more complete and coherent article than the current two. --Randykitty (talk) 12:17, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • [EDIT:Weakening] Oppose, as one is a notable group (with a large article) and one is the notable journal. Altough related, these are two different topics. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:18, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both articles are currently in a deplorable state. If some of the fluff is cut away, I don't see why the magazine, the movement's mouthpiece, could not be a section in the article on the movement. --Randykitty (talk) 13:06, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Randykitty (didn't I sit behind you in homeroom?). I'm not an expert on these topic, but upon skimming the pages the magazine seems quite notable, as does the group. If the lede of the magazine page is to be believed then its influence is historically important and seemingly worthy of its own article. Yes, on a quick read I can see that both articles need work, and will help putter around in them now and then in the short-run, if just to get a mental map of the subjects. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:05, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upon reading more of it I'm seeing what you mean. Maybe other editors will come by and take a look at the pages. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:09, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • A great example here are the Coen brothers. Each one of them is notable, but we don't have separate articles about them because of the huge overlap. Same here. Both the movement and the magazine appear to be notable, but that doesn't mean that we must have two separate articles. --Randykitty (talk) 07:35, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Coen brothers is indeed a great example against the merging as each one of their films have a separate article. Art & Language is the name of the artists (Coen brothers) and Art-Language is the name of a work of them (The Big Lebowsky for example).--Philippe49730 (talk) 17:15, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is indeed an excellent example, but for merging. Have a look at the actual articles. The article on the Coen brothers mentions their movies, but doesn't give much detail on those. The individual movies have detailed articles about those particular movies. They don't discuss the Coen brothers and the overlap between the biographical article and the movie article is minimal. Now have a look at these two articles. Both are relatively short (not something you can say about the Coen brothers bio and the articles on their movies) and their is a huge overlap in content. That the magazine and the movement somewhat split ways is not a problem, the article on the brothers also discusses their solo work. The question here is not whether the magazine or the group are notable or not. It's whether it is useful to have two separate articles on subjects that are intricately intertwined and hugely overlap (and that overlap cannot be reduced either). --Randykitty (talk) 20:42, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
*The Coen Brothers is an excellent example for NOT merging. Art & Language was a collaborative group of individuals - that is parallel to the Coen Brothers. Art-Language is a thing - a print publication. And that publication was only associated with Art & Language the colab group for 7 of its 20 year run. The other 13 years it was edited and run by people outside of the A&L group. So to compare this situation to the Coen Brothers is like saying "merge the Quay Brothers into the Film Magazine article" (if there were one). It simply does not make sense. The majority of the years A-L was published, it was NOT a project of A&L. What may be confusing to the OP is that the names are similar. Both articles can be cleaned up but that is not a reason to merge. See comment below. Netherzone (talk) 22:10, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is indeed an excellent example for Not merging. We already went through this as a discussion and you are very welcome to expand both of them. The fact is that Art & Language is an artist group and Art-Language is a body of work produced by Art & Language. The journal span over 20 years of production in 19 numbers and to compare with the Coen brothers wikipedia should have one article dedicated to each number of the journal as every single one is a significant release of a significant artist work. I am interested to know where you did read on wikipedia that the length of an article was a quality criteria? --Philippe49730 (talk) 16:34, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Oppose - The articles should remain as two distinct articles. After 1972 the group Art & Language was no longer so directly involved with the publication Art-Language. It was primarily a stand-alone publication from 1972 to 1985 when publication ceased. That is 13 years of its 20-year run. Netherzone (talk) 19:10, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have changed my position on this and think the two articles can successfully be merged. I misunderstood something I read about the magazine editorial staff changes, and retract my previous comments on this. Netherzone (talk) 14:02, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - The articles should remain as two distinct articles. One is a notable artists group and one is notable work of this group. The journal Art-Language is included in major museums collection such as Centre Georges Pompidou and Château de Montsoreau-Museum of Contemporary Art.--Philippe49730 (talk) 14:14, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - The encyclopedia needs both of these articles. They need to be expanded, not shortened. --Suavemarimagno (talk) 13:04, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - The journal is a monumental work of art for the conceptual art, therefore the article should be kept. Anyway, what the two articles describe are two distinct things (artist group & journal), just with the similar names.--Phlegetha (talk) 14:23, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Two separate notable entities. Perhaps add an
    This article is about the art group. For the journal, see Art-Language.
    note at the top of the articles and vice versa to aid navigation between them.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ♥ Talk ♥ 13:57, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:22, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maintenance tag removal without fixing the underlying issues[edit]

Maintenance tags were boldly removed without resolving the underlying issues. The tags were then restored and were removed again in an edit-war manner without starting a discussion here nor resolving the issues; additionally more unsourced material was added.

The tags were as follows:

COI: the article has been heavily edited by single purpose editors, editors who never responded to COI inquiries nor made a disclosure, editors adding COPYVIO material, SPA editor adding huge listings of works held by the collector and who owns the museum whose primary function is to house Art & Language’s works, edits made by several commercial galleries that represent A&L, etc.

Citations needed for verification: there are multiple claims, statements, and “facts” throughout the article, including multiple paragraphs, lists of artists and collections without proper sourcing.

Excessive detail: this is obvious per the two issues above.

The maintenance tags will be restored. Please do not remove them again without resolving the issues. Netherzone (talk) 00:29, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Netherzone that's a start. Please explain what exactly is wrong with the article now, and ideally fix it. Which major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject, and which edits? Presumably the copyvio stuff isn't there any more? Where do you get the info about COIs?
Excessive detail: this is obvious per the two issues above - have removed due to being obvious per the other two tags.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ♥ Talk ♥ 21:02, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Netherzone COI tag removed, since you failed to justify it, and there is no other mention of it on this talk page.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ♥ Talk ♥ 21:29, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Template:More footnotes needed instead of Citations needed for verification. This is the template that was there before, and seems appropriate given number of references and OR tag.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ♥ Talk ♥ 21:53, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Original research[edit]

Large blocks of unsourced content regarding living persons have been unsourced for many years, therefore indicating original research WP:OR and/or not complying with WP:NPOV. BLP violations since much of these unsourced additions concern living persons;. Self-sourced content. Maintenance tag for citations for verification repeatedly removed rather than resolving the problems in the article. Netherzone (talk) 23:53, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Netherzone are these the same blocks of text that have been tagged with citation needed tags? Guidelines clearly say "Redundant issues: Please do not insert tags that are too similar to or redundant with each other. " Why do you want to add another tag? Please explain above what changes you want to the article to remove the COI tag you added earlier. Remember that a tag is not intended as a badge of shame.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ♥ Talk ♥ 16:01, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

COI tag (February 2023)[edit]

L'Origine du monde, please stop removing the COI maintenance tag without resolving the issuesit has been removed three times now. The last time you did so, you stated that there was no justification for it, this is incorrect. The COI issues are not resolved, the justification is above on this talk page stating COI: the article has been heavily edited by single purpose editors, editors who never responded to COI inquiries nor made a disclosure, editors adding COPYVIO material, SPA editor adding huge listings of works held by the collector and who owns the museum whose primary function is to house Art & Language’s works, edits made by several commercial galleries that represent A&L, etc.. Additionally, one of the main Single Purpose Editors who added large amounts of unsourced content failed to ever respond to the COI notification on their user page, thus the COI issues are NOT resolved. If you examine the article history, you will see that I have extensively worked on the article, and have cleaned up some, but not all of the problems yet. The unsourced content added by the COI SPA involves living persons and is thus also a BLP violation. Please stop edit warring over the maintenance tag, and try to develop patience. Netherzone (talk) 22:20, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Netherzone I clearly stated in my edit summary "Removed COI tag because not properly explained on talk page - no editor identified, and editor who added the tag is not discussing his addition." There is no information on this page to support your claims, and I asked you to explain them, and waited a week before removing the tag. You still haven't explained them properly. What do you want changed in the article to remove the tag? You have already added "unsourced content", and "insufficient references" - how does this tag help? As far as I can see it is simply duplication, and I'm not sure it is true or relevant - when did this happen? What BLP violations are you talking about?♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ♥ Talk ♥ 14:21, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the unsourced content and/or original research that has been unsourced for years, and removed the maintenance tags for footnotes and original research. I added two inline hatnotes for "citations needed" for the sections on "Past members and associates", and "Permanent collections" these should be sourced for verification. The COI template should remain until that specific matter is fully resolved. BTW, I have been familiar with the works of Art & Language since the 1970s and it is a shame this article has been in such dismal shape since at least 2009. Moving forward, please only add content that is sourced to secondary, verifiable, reliable sources that are fully independent of the subject. Thank you. Netherzone (talk) 17:55, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Netherzone please explain what BLP violations you are talking about, and what exactly you want changed to remove the COI tag, with no information from you about that here it is impossible to understand your desires. Judging from your comments on my talk page, the editor in question last edited this page 3 years ago, but perhaps I am mistaken. It is not clear from looking at the edit history what you mean, please elaborate.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ♥ Talk ♥ 18:11, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Netherzone the tag you added said "It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view. Please discuss further on the talk page" please can you explain what clean up is needed, and how the article now deviates from NPOV.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ♥ Talk ♥ 18:31, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the tag, because as far as I can see there is now nothing wrong with the article in terms of NPOV or BLP, and everything seems sourced. Please do not reinstate the tag without an explanation of what is now biased in the article/wrong with it because of COI.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ♥ Talk ♥ 18:37, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I see that past members and collections lack citations. I do not see how this violates NPOV - please explain. I don't think that justifies keeping the COI- please explain why it does.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ♥ Talk ♥ 18:41, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I had answered you on your talk page User:L'Origine du monde because you had pinged me in multiple venues despite my asking you not to do that. Here is what I wrote there:
I have already provided justifications several times on the Art & Language article talk page and in my edit summaries. Just because you don't agree with those justifications is not a reason for you to bludgeon the process. If you would kindly look through the article history (which I have also asked you to do more than once, but I will explain again), you will find that the most frequent editor, who has added scores of unsourced content, and who primarily only edits Art & Language, Château de Montsoreau-Museum of Contemporary Art where the permanent collection of Art & Language is held and where they had added a tremendous amount of puffery, Philippe Méaille the owner of the Art & Language collection and the president of the Chateau de Montsoreau museum which houses that collection, and whose other edits are to frequently add Art & Language content to other articles, as well as half of their article creations having to do with Art & Language, including the article on the building that houses the A&L collection (which was deleted four times before being accepted under another article name). As an experienced editor, that seems quite odd to me, and is clearly indicative of conflict of interest editing, or worse, UPE, undisclosed paid editing. And that they never responded to the message I left for them regarding COI, is a pattern I've seen before. There have also been numerous other single-purpose editors. I have already communicated this, please stop making demands for justification when I have already done so. The maintenance tags that you so vehemently object to are are a helpful way to alert the community that work is needed on a specific article. I will continue to clean. up the unsourced content and original research and the remainder of COI content, but I won't be doing it on your timeline as you are certainly not the boss of me. I have other priorities on the encyclopedia and in real life. As previously suggested, please try to cultivate patience. Thank you and goodbye. Netherzone (talk) 21:29, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Netherzone you have not explained how NPOV has been violated. Please explain what POV you think has been promoted by COI editors and what work is needed. The tag is basically useless without a clear description of problems with the article, and I do not understand why you won't give one other than past members and collections lack citations- the significance of which to NPOV I don't understand.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ♥ Talk ♥ 11:03, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

COI tag (March 2023)[edit]

You have removed it four times in a little over a week without resolving the issues. I have explained it will take time to go through several years of edits by connected editors. Do not remove the template again without fixing the issues. Netherzone (talk) 20:14, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[[User:Netherzone|Netherzone] please explain what problems you have identified with the very short text other than "citations needed" for the sections on "Past members and associates", and "Permanent collections" these should be sourced for verification ". I can't see any NPOV issues in the text - please explain why you have added this tag saying " It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view. Please discuss further on the talk page". It isn't needed if there are no problems with the text.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ♥ Talk ♥ 20:23, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have read through the article and the history and agree with @Netherzone that the COI tag should remain. @L'Origine du monde you're edit warring, and because you think you're "right" doesn't give you license to do so. I'm not going to template warn you as you've been here long enough to know better than this. Speaking as someone who edits in art related articles, this one needs a major haircut to even approach NPOV regardless of whether the editors at issue are still actively editing. Among the issues I see, unsourced and red linked artist lists and ELs mixed in where there should be reliable references. Star Mississippi 01:43, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
User:Star Mississippi I believe tags need to be justified if challenged, and not used as a badge of shame - do you disagree? I clearly explained that I removed the tags because they were unexplained and unjustified. What are ELs, and how do artist lists relate to NPOV? Neither you nor Netherzone have explained what POV is being pushed in the article, and I can't see a POV reading the article, please explain it to me in words. Do you also see the BLP issues that netherzone identified, but refuses to explain. Best wishes ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ♥ Talk ♥ 10:56, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
External links (ELs) are those such as @Netherzone removed here. Some still remain present in Art_&_Language#Permanent_collections where the links tell nothing about A&L's significance. They should be wiki linked to the institution and verified to their collection via proper referencing, such as NZ did here. Extensive lists of permanent collections and affiliated artists serves to promote and raise the profile of A&L, which is not what this project is for. The tag is not a badge of shame, it's showing that the issues have not been addressed and is something the reader should be aware of. When they finish their cleanup, Netherzone or other unaffiliated editors may opt to remove the tag. If you have a conflict of interest with regard to A&L, you really need to disclose it @L'Origine du monde Star Mississippi 17:33, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see no justification for the tag in that text. Please can you make your reasoning more transparent. I do not understand your, or Netherzone's unpleasant suggestions that I am doing "promotional editing" or have some undisclosed COI. What exactly leads you to making this unpleasant insinuation? I find it very rude, and would like an explanation, and preferably an apology. I do not understand your POV problem with lists of galleries or affiliated artists being added to this article years ago by someone with an interest, since your complaint seems to be about formatting and use of references, rather than the accuracy or notability of the information. I do not understand your NPOV point about the article "promote and raise the profile of A&L". Are you suggesting that this very short and almost empty article is too big for England's only conceptual art group? Do you want me to wait until you add NPOV with sourced descriptions of the artist as unimportant, insignificant, irrelevant before removing the COI tag? Are you, as an American, qualified to judge the importance of this article to English art history? Regarding "promotional links" surely the Artist's representative gallery deserves a link, and it was a mistake to remove this link. Please reinstate it, or provide a rationale for omitting it. Art & Language page at Lisson Gallery ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ♥ Talk ♥ 17:56, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You do not understand how Wikipedia works as evidenced by surely the Artist's representative gallery deserves a link (WP:ELNO), I do not understand your problem with lists of galleries or affiliated artists being added to this article years ago eby someone with an interest (WP:COI, WP:UPE). I have done nothing that merits issuing you an apology. There are no expert editors and every single one of us is qualified to provide an opinion on an article, it's contents and its sourcing. Your conduct, persistent interest in removing what you believe to be a "badge of shame", concern about the size makes me think yes, you have a conflict here. I'm going to be offline for several hours but will come back to this later today. Star Mississippi 18:15, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Surely that is an official link therefore allowed by the policy you linked to [1] - please explain why it is not so. If you read your previous comment you will see that your complaint about the lists was as I summarised, but for some reason you didn't finish my sentence " I do not understand your problem with lists of galleries or affiliated artists being added to this article years ago by someone with an interest, since your complaint seems to be about formatting and use of references, rather than the accuracy or notability of the information." - please explain your complaint. If you look at policy it clearly states that tags should not be used as a badge of shame. For many years the article had 3 tags pointing out the obvious, with repetition. I do not understand, or appreciate, why quoting wikipedia policy makes you suspect a COI, nor do I understand why thinking that the article is short and bad, and adding all the available images from wikicommons should make you suspect it. I have been editing subjects including art and terrorism for over 10 years. I have consistently asked for an understandable justification for maintaining the tag, and I think you owe me an apology because, rather than explain your reason for keeping the tag, you attack me. As far as I can understand you are an admin.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ♥ Talk ♥ 18:29, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Does this look like a promotional edit? [[2]]♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ♥ Talk ♥ 19:31, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Or this edit from 2008? [3] ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ♥ Talk ♥ 21:01, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have turned the long list of artists into a short paragraph, and collapsed the list of collections that holds the work. Please can we now remove the tag, or explain to me why it is important that some of the collections that do hold the work are not properly referenced.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ♥ Talk ♥ 21:42, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Re: the short paragraph of associated members - I think the short paragraph works very well however the formatting needs adjusting: the citations should go after the punctuation (commas), not before.
Re; the now collapsed collections and the maintenance tag - Again, the reason why the tag exists is because the collections are not referenced, and therefore are not verifiable. WP:V is a key policy of the encyclopedia. Shuttering unsourced material within a collapsed container does not fix the issue that the collections are unsourced. What would fix the issue is to add properly formatted citations to reliable sources (like the museum collection entries themselves. I've started to do those searches at my own reasonable pace. The maintenance tag should not be removed until all the entries are sourced, and if some of them are not verifiable, they should be removed. Netherzone (talk) 17:18, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Netherzone are you sure that COI is the right maintenence tag for this situation? I don't think that it is intended to for this, and it doesn't read as though it is intended for it either. ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ♥ Talk ♥ 23:36, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
User:Star Mississippi please reply. As I wrote 2 days ago, "Surely that is an official link therefore allowed by the policy you linked to [4] - please explain why it is not so. If you read your previous comment you will see that your complaint about the lists was as I summarised, but for some reason you didn't finish my sentence " I do not understand your problem with lists of galleries or affiliated artists being added to this article years ago by someone with an interest, since your complaint seems to be about formatting and use of references, rather than the accuracy or notability of the information." - please explain your complaint. If you look at policy it clearly states that tags should not be used as a badge of shame. For many years the article had 3 tags pointing out the obvious, with repetition. I do not understand, or appreciate, why quoting wikipedia policy makes you suspect a COI, nor do I understand why thinking that the article is short and bad, and adding all the available images from wikicommons should make you suspect it. I have been editing subjects including art and terrorism for over 10 years. I have consistently asked for an understandable justification for maintaining the tag, and I think you owe me an apology because, rather than explain your reason for keeping the tag, you attack me. As far as I can understand you are an admin."♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ♥ Talk ♥ 00:21, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They are represented by the Lisson Gallery.[edit]

This is true, and important, so I added it to the lede. I think their gallery's website is a reasonable source for this info.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ♥ Talk ♥ 21:55, 4 March 2023 (UTC) [1]♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ♥ Talk ♥ 21:55, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Star Mississippi and @L'Origine du monde, I object to the addition of a commercial gallery because Lisson Gallery is one of many of the long-term COI and COPYVIO problems.
  • Today User:L’Origine du monde added, “They are represented by the Lisson Gallery” with a link to the gallery website. [5]
  • I had removed it the day before here: [6]
  • Previously, a single purpose editor , User:JLJL01, added COPYVIO content from Lisson Gallery on 19 February 2022 (now redacted), then User:DanCherek removed it here:[7] They only made 3 edits to WP which was to add this content.
  • Another single purpose editor, User:LGL2022 added COPYVIO material from Lisson Gallery on 17 February 2022 (now redacted), then User:DanCherek removed it here:[8] This was the only edit they ever made to WP
I cannot see the redacted edits, and I don't have time right now to go further back through article history, but feel strongly that it is not necessary to add this information about Lisson Gallery since there is a clear financial link between Lisson Gallery and Art & Language and their associated artists. This seems like promotional and possible COI editing. I think the edit about Lisson Gallery should be removed because the encyclopedia is not a venue for advertising. Netherzone (talk) 00:45, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Netherzone they are represented by Lisson Gallery. This is true, and important, and the link is to their official page on that gallery's website, as discussed in the previous section links to official websites are allowed. Why are you opposed to the article mentioning that there is a clear financial link between Lisson Gallery and Art & Language?♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ♥ Talk ♥ 10:00, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is buisness insider a reliable source? [[9]]♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ♥ Talk ♥ 10:11, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Netherzone I agree with your actions here. If an independent reliable source discussed Lisson's representation of A&L, it might make sense. True and important does not justify adding yet another commercial link. @L'Origine du monde, WP:IDHT is not becoming of an editor of your tenure. @Theroadislong and I both believe you're heavily invested in this article and yet you have not disclosed. Star Mississippi 14:59, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Or Death of the Artist Art World Dissidents and Their Alternative Identities

By Nicola McCartney · 2018 ?♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ♥ Talk ♥ 10:14, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They look possible, but not required unless they report with significant coverage, it just looks like spam, Wikipedia doesn't usually mention galleries like this. Theroadislong (talk) 10:37, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Theroadislong why not? Are you claiming it isn't notable? Lisson has been their gallery for a long time. The gallery has their official website which should certainly be linked to.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ♥ Talk ♥ 10:44, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The gallery may be notable but the fact they represent Art & Language isn't necessarily notable. Theroadislong (talk) 10:47, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Theroadislong I don't understand why you claim that. If you look at a musical artist their label is normally mentioned. The artists are represented by the gallery, and reliable sources support that. Their official site is hosted by the gallery- do you agree that it should be linked to?♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ♥ Talk ♥ 11:30, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to be heavily invested in this article, if you have a reliable, independent source then it could be added, but I don't see it as being essential. Theroadislong (talk) 11:36, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Theroadislong yes, as you can see from my successful un-block request on my talk page, or my edits over the last 14 years, I am interested in this article. I don't understand why it is so hard to edit it. Do you accept the two sources I gave above? Could you reinstate the information about their gallery based on them? Do you agree that there should be a link to their gallery's official page about them at the end of the article?♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ♥ Talk ♥ 11:42, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can see, they have been with the Lisson Gallery since the 1970s, and have had numerous exhibitions there [[10]]. Currently all mentions of the Lisson Gallery have been removed from the article. This seems strange, and wrong to me.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ♥ Talk ♥ 11:50, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Art & Language stands on its art historical importance as a key conceptual art collective of the late 20th century. Their Wikipedia article does not need to include a free advertisment for their gallery. The encyclopedic importance of their work is their art historical signifcance, that is why they are notable - what is important is their art historical value, not their market value or where to buy their work. To include a link to their commercial-market showplace is promotionalism. Netherzone (talk) 17:04, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They are important, but they work in the system, and make money too, and it seems strange to want to point out that the gallery is editing the article, but avoid naming the gallery. Official links are allowed. [11] ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ♥ Talk ♥ 23:34, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While there is nothing fundamentally wrong with mentioning gallery representation of a contemporary artist, any such inclusion should make sense within the context of the article and contribute to encyclopedic purpose as @Netherzone had alluded to earlier. What worries me here is that ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ has pushed this inclusion without providing any further background, when in fact they could have put together some potentially valuable edits about exhibitions of Art&Language at Lisson held during the 1970s and 1980s to help expand the article. But inserting gallery name name into the article that already has commercial issues only because they represent the artist makes little sense, if any at all. It seems, L'Origine du monde, that you might need to do more research before making any more suggestions of this nature and you should seriously rethink the way you interact with other editors. The way you're arguing here is the opposite of WP:CONSENSUS and does not help make the article better. Ppt91talk 02:50, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.lissongallery.com/artists/art-language
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Art_%26_Language&oldid=1205370440"