Talk:Cloaca (art installation)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Rjjiii talk 02:16, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Wim Delvoye's Cloaca N°5 being exhibited

• ... that the Cloaca art installations (one pictured) create smelly faeces? Source: Broeckmann, Andreas (23 December 2016). Machine Art in the Twentieth Century. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press. pp. 215–217. ISBN 978-0-262-03506-4.
  • ALT1 ... that the Cloaca art installations (one pictured) turns food into something like faeces?
  • ALT2 ... that the Cloaca art installations (one pictured) create smelly shits?
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Lewis Pragasam

Created by Vladimir.copic (talk). Self-nominated at 04:26, 16 January 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Cloaca (art installation); consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• The article says "Critics also have argued whether or not the digested material produced by the installations can be regarded as faeces", so you can't describe it in the hook as faeces. Hook needs to be modified or substituted accordingly. Gatoclass (talk) 16:07, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

@Gatoclass: Does ALT1 work? BuySomeApples (talk) 04:18, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

I had another brief look at the sources around this and I think I probably characterised them in a too binary way. I should have time to revisit this better tomorrow. Most sources do refer to the digested material as "faeces" (or equivalent term) so I don't think the critical discussion negates this. ALT1 is fine but I'd love to remove the qualifying "like". I'll respond again tomorrow. Vladimir.copic (talk) 05:41, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

@Gatoclass: Is ALT1 approved? If not, what needs to be done to get this approved? Z1720 (talk) 19:10, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Well, the nominator said he would respond the next day so I've been waiting, but he never did. As for ALT1, it's okay but there is probably a better hook in there somewhere. Gatoclass (talk) 03:52, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Sorry - I ended up getting side-tracked. I will have a look at this within the next 24hrs. I agree that there is probably a better hook than ALT1 but I actually think the original hook is usable. Most sources use faeces or an equivalent term to describe the digested material. See: "Delvoye’s machines—bearing the title Cloaca—was turning food to excrement" [1], "producing faeces at the other end" [2], "with the resulting product being faeces" [3], "The apparatus is fed food and produces poo" [4], "the machine that takes in food and turns it into shit" [5], "before it emerges at the other end of the machine as faecal matter" [6]. While some art critics have discussed in critical terms whether it can be called "faeces" most sources still refer to it as faeces (excrement, shit, poo). As I said, I need to revisit the sources as I wrote this as a draft a while ago.

If anything I would prefer to go for my ALT2. Give me 24hrs to revisit the sources and I'll reply here. Vladimir.copic (talk) 05:43, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

• @Gatoclass: @BuySomeApples: @Z1720: Colleagues. I have now updated the article to better reflect the source (see page 217) as the critical discussion is really about if the machines perform the digestive process rather than if the end product can be called faeces or shit. Therefore, also taking into account the sources I quoted above, I strongly believe the original hook or (my preference) ALT2 should be approved. I am against ALT1 as it weakens the interestingness of the hook. Vladimir.copic (talk) 06:12, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Vladimir.copic, the source you yourself cite above quotes several sources stating that the end product is not shit, and itself ends up describing it as virtual faeces. So alts 0 and 2 are not appropriate, and neither are your attempts to avoid the question with your latest edit, which needs to be reverted. Gatoclass (talk) 15:19, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

You could go with something like:

*ALT3: ... that the Cloaca art installations (one pictured) are designed to create a smelly product virtually indistinguishable from human faeces? Or:

*ALT4: ... that critics have debated whether or not the excretions of the Cloaca art installations (one pictured) can accurately be described as real faeces?

- but you will still need to revert your last edit. Gatoclass (talk) 21:31, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Well I'm obviously not reverting my last edit as it is a more accurate summation of Denker's and Loring Wallace's discussions as outlined in Broekmann's book. Nowhere in that paragraph of the book does it talk about Denker and Loring Wallace discussing whether the product can be called faeces - they discuss the process (in fact the entire section does). This was my mistake when I first drafted it a few month ago and I'm not going to reintroduce that mistake now. Unfortunately neither ALT3 nor ALT4 are in the article so are not suitable.

You are wrong about the original hook. Basically every single source refers to it as faeces or an equivalent term (sometimes with a descriptor such as "virtual" or "machine-made"), the article refers to it as faeces and the artist refers to it as faeces. I can show you more sources: NBC, The Lancet, The Guardian, Forbes, Sydney Morning Herald, ArtNews, Observer. The hook does not say this is human faeces or real faeces - just faeces. When we talk about Van Gough's Sunflowers I don't think we would expect clarification these are not real sunflowers on the canvas but oil paint said to represent sunflowers. As much as I have enjoyed this discussion on representational realism (Ce n'est pas une merde) I suppose I could begrudgingly go with the following:

ALT5 ...that, according to the artist, the Cloaca art installations (one pictured) are "shit machines"? Source. Vladimir.copic (talk) 06:13, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

ALT5 looks fine as an AGF hook, however, the edit to which you refer is not, and I will resist any attempt to promote the article until it is reverted. Gatoclass (talk) 06:28, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

@Vladimir.copic and Gatoclass: Should this nom be closed since you guys are at an impass or...? BuySomeApples (talk) 20:46, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

If V. doesn't want to revert, this should go to WT:DYK for wider input. Gatoclass (talk) 02:06, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

This is the source: But can we say that, unlike Vaucanson's duck, this machine really shits? Christian Denker has described the process as both a "simulation" and an "imitation of biological processes,” while Isabelle Loring Wallace writes that "what the Cloaca machines show us, at considerable expense and labor, is not digestion, but digestion's facsimile, not shit, but shit's representation. An important criterion for Denker is that Delvoye's machine mimics only part of the functions of the human organs, while others -like the primary function of nourishing and providing energy - are lacking.

This is the apparently unacceptable way I summarised it in the article (inc. the text I deleted): Critics Christian Denker and Isabelle Loring Wallace have discussed whether the material produced by the installations can be called faeces. Critics Christian Denker and Isabelle Loring Wallace have discussed whether the installations' work can be identified as digestion. Denker described the work as a "simulation" and "imitation" of the biological digestive process that omits the provision of nourishment and energy which is the primary reason for digestion. Wallace commented that what the installations demonstrate, at a great cost, is not the digestive process but rather "digestion's facsimile, not shit, but shit's representation."

It is a more accurate summary and it would be counterproductive to self revert. I’m not sure what is happening here. It feel like I am being asked to be part of some kind of game where I have to make a concession on the quality of the article in order to get this DYK approved. This is something I’d prefer not to participate in. I’d like a new reviewer or, if the above text is so contrary to our content guidelines as to not be suitable for the mainpage, please feel free to reject the nomination. Vladimir.copic (talk) 11:21, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

@Vladimir.copic and Gatoclass: I see no reason why any of these edits need to be reverted. ALT0, as discussed above, is questionable; ALT2 is unsuitable per WP:DYKHOOKSTYLE; while ALT4 is not in the article. I am thus approving ALT1, ALT3, and ALT5 only. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:15, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, but this one still has issues - I just haven't had time to get back to it yet - I will come back to this tomorrow. Gatoclass (talk) 15:41, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Started a new discussion here. Gatoclass (talk) 09:29, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Minor note here but ALT3 is unusable as it is not in the article. There is no discussion of "human faeces" or how it can be distinguished from it. Vladimir.copic (talk) 11:58, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Per WT:DYK#Cloaca (art installation), the above approved hooks are all viable; yes, that includes ALT3, which is clearly in the article, which is why I approved it. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:26, 19 February 2024 (UTC)