Talk:Eric Gill/Archive 1

Archive 1

Organisation of article

Thanks to Johnbod for the superb illustrations. It's just a shame that the top one, perhaps because of the monitor used, appears to be slightly blurred because of the reduction in size.

I propose to move 'Private life' to the position below 'Reputation', the usual place in most biographies for such a section, and especially in view of the subject matter included. This seems to me to be much more appropriate.

I will also dig out more details about Gill's life and work, which may be suitable for inclusion in the main part of the article. – Agendum 17:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks! They were just what was on Commons. b/w graphics (in the small files here) tend to look bad on screens - the top one looks ok-ish on my screen, but if people think it a problem, please change or improve. Can anyone expand the caption on the portrait, & say what technique the Initial at the top is done in - woodcut or wood-engraving I imagine ? Johnbod 17:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

So how comfortable are

you folks with the copyright info about the images in the article? I mean, since morality seems to be the most important facet going here, don't you find some info given on the images to be a bit thin? Is it a coincidence, for example, that the portrait of Gill used in the article is also the cover of David Peace's book Eric Gill: The Inscriptions? Hmmmmmmmmmmm? Carptrash 23:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Didn't look I must say - but I think the image is by Gill or an associate. I'm sure it's not just a book cover. Johnbod 00:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, well it is a self-portrait, done by Gill in 1927, but why does that make it okay to use here? I hate to see an article about an artist, especially one as prolific and varied as Gill, with no pictures of his work, but unless better documentation shows up explaining why it's all right to use these, they should (opinion) be removed. Carptrash 00:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that it's in the public domain, but I will check. If so, its copyright status needs to made clear on the relvent page. Agendum 00:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

On one of these illustrations, or in the so-called documentation, it is claimed that the creator of the work released it to us. Hello! The earliest versions of any of these pictures that I have is 1927 and that does NOT make it copyright free or in the PD or fair use [well someone might try arguing that] or anything. Carptrash 02:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Whoops! I don't know much about copyright relating to Wikipedia, I'm afraid. According to the laws where I live, almost everything on art in Commons is piracy, so I never upload anything myself. I hope the typeface at least is ok. I notice the original drawing has a fair use tag. Can i leave it to you guys to sort out? Johnbod 02:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Paedophile art

This article could be of use in this article [1]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hypnosadist (talk • contribs) 00:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:LEAD

WP:LEAD says all notable parts of the article are repeated in the lead. His pedophila as well as his incest and beastiallity are clearly notable as especially as this guys supporters claim him as some sort of moral authority on how evil the modern secular materialistic world is. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 08:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:LEAD also says "Avoid lengthy paragraphs and over-specific descriptions." I think listing each act of perversion is a little over-descriptive. --Davémon 17:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Which one should be kept then? I think the pedophilia as it is clearly notable about him as the BBC chose him to represent pedophile artists in the story above.^{(Hypnosadist)} 17:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I like the encyclopedic paraphilia intro and more NPOV as well, good job.^{(Hypnosadist)} 17:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

the leading as it stand now seems a bit misleading to me. mentioning religion first and sexual depravity later suggests he was a christian guy who was looking for sexual boundaries (within christianity), when obviously he has broken about every boundary the church has for sex. it should also be more specific about the things he did, the way it's written now he might as well have been a gay dude who liked to fuck statues (or something equally innocent)

Fair use rationale for Image:A9ccea7237b9961efd7fb...9f1d8d9bcd1c1ef1.jpg

Image:A9ccea7237b9961efd7fb...9f1d8d9bcd1c1ef1.jpg 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 insure 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) 04:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Changed to B

This article has eight inline citations and numerous sources and several illustrations. I have changed it to class=B. --DThomsen8 (talk) 02:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Description in Opening Bars

The autobiography "Opening Bars", by Spike Hughes includes 3- 4 pages of a description of life at Ditchling with the Gills, first at Christmas in 1919 (when Hughes was 11), and later over a summer holiday (year not specified).

For instance: "The Gill menage can best be described as a "set-up." Its uncompromising atmosphere of Roman Catholicism I found not a little sinister. There was a considerable amount of splashing of holy water at the saying of grace before meals, and there was an interminable nightly performance of compline around a spinet with Eric Gill taking the part of cantor and singing plainsong in an unmusical voice."

Would it be appropriate to include an exerpt of this first hand description in the article itself? What about adding "Opening Bars" to the list of references?

Incidentally, Hughes's mother's maiden name was Lillian Meacham, and several sources have named her as the "young Fabian woman with whom, largely on account of our mutual enthusiasms, I fell very much in love" referred to on pg 286 of Gill's Autobiography. Jpg1954 (talk) 22:28, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I removed two categories

from this article. They are :
Category:English rapists
Category:20th-century British criminals
As far as I know Gill was never convicted of rape or any other crime. As far as I know he was not accused of these things until well after he was dead. But there must be another opinion or these would not have appeared. Your turn. Carptrash (talk) 01:33, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I also just removed the box informing us that this is part of the Criminal biography project. Carptrash (talk)

I think contributors to this article are in danger of assuming that modern-day moral standards and prevailing attitudes should be applied to Eric Gill and his times. They shouldn't, and we must be careful not to overreact to activities that we admittedly find appalling from our twenty-first century viewpoint. For all we know, similar sexual behaviour may have been far more common than we know – it's just that Gill wrote about it. UK editors will know of the fallout from the Savile scandal, which has revealed (among other things) that behaviour that is now rightly regarded as perverted (and which is illegal) was forty years ago sadly far more tolerated and regarded as (just about) excusable. It just wasn't talked about, and it didn't make the newspapers – or encyclopedias. – Agendum (talk) 11:36, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

There is no doubt that Gill had sex with his daughters, sister and dog. The categories in question do not require that the person was convicted. Fred West was never convicted of killing anyone, but he is rightly in the categories English serial killers, Filicides and Serial killers who committed suicide in prison custody because his guilt is certain. The only way in which things were different in Gill's day in regard to incest and bestiality is that such things were rarely mentioned. Incest and bestiality were serious crimes then, as they are now. He would have been sent to prison had he been detected. The moral aspect of this is not relevant; in any case such things were rightly regarded as repugnant then, as they are now. They were not tolerated or excusable by society or the law. How common it was then and is now is also irrelevant. Burglary, theft and criminal damage are very common crimes, but that does not make them tolerated, excusable or moral. Jim Michael (talk) 16:55, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Place of Birth

Currently, the text asserts that:

Gill was born in 1882 in Steyning, Sussex.

The citation in the notes is given as:

http://www.findmypast.co.uk/search/all/results?recordCount=-1&forenames=Arthur+Eric+Rowton&_includeForenamesVariants=on&surname=Gill&_includeSurnameVariants=on&fromYear=1882&toYear=1882&region=&county=&mothersMaidenName=&_useMothersMaidenNameAsSurname=on&sortOrder=RK%3Atrue&_performExactSearch=on&event=B&recordType=ALL&route=

Following the link to the findmypast.co.uk site returns an entry in the name of GILL Arthur Eric R. To obtain more information by clicking on the provided link requires five credits or a subscription to the website.

I have a number of problems with this citation. First, while it's likely that it does refer to the subject of the article, it's an example of primary research. Hence, it breaches WP:NOR. Second, it makes use of a commercial website to which one needs a subscription if one wants to view the record in order try to verify that the subject of the record is indeed the same person as the subject of the article. Third, the citation URL is over-long and looks ugly and out of place in the list of references.

The most serious criticism, however, of the citation is that even if Gill's birth was registered at Steyning, and, based upon the primary research, I suspect that it may well have been, the current assertion about Gill's place of birth contradicts Gill’s entry (by Gill’s biographer Fiona MacCarthy) in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (ONDB) which states:

Gill, (Arthur) Eric Rowton (1882–1940), artist, craftsman, and social critic, was born at 32 Hamilton Road, Brighton, Sussex, on 22 February 1882, the eldest son and second of the thirteen children of the Revd Arthur Tidman Gill (1848–1933), ...

Note that according to Google maps, 32 Hamilton Road, Brighton is about twelve miles (~ 19 km) from Steyning.

As a minimum, I suggest replacing the existing lengthy and ugly citation to the findmypast.co.uk web-page with one to the corresponding entry for GILL Arthur Eric R on the non-commercial, free website freebmd.org.uk at

http://www.freebmd.org.uk/cgi/districts.pl?r=67970414&d=bmd_1392656156

Further, the current assertion in the Wikipedia article needs to be amended to refer to the place of registration of birth (POROB), rather than to the place of birth (POB) itself. And it needs to be accompanied by a reference to Gill's ONDB entry (op cit). 124.186.104.184 (talk) 03:27, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Publication added

I've taken the liberty of adding his last(?) publication Christianity and the Machine Age. I hope this addition is uncontroversial. Norvo (talk) 20:58, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

BBC documentary on sans serif designs of Edward Johnston and Eric Gill

A very interesting hour-long BBC documentary on sans serif typography designs of Edward Johnston and Eric Gill for London Transport by Mark Ovenden might be of interest / use for this page: available for a month on iPlayer — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.150.91.128 (talk) 15:50, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Private life

User:144.136.123.112 recently added and then removed a paragraph about Gill's private life. Removed, because some of the details are already mentioned earlier in the text? I don't know. But perhaps it would be useful to have a separate section devoted to the issues surrounding Gill's private life. Its a thorny subject. In the mean time, the link to the Fiona MacCarthy article is useful. -- Solipsist 13:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The page needs a lot more information about this man's abuse of his own children 78.151.24.68 (talk) 00:14, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

So far there is only one reference to "relationships" with his children which implies there was a mutual sexual relationship. His own diaries recount the sodomising of his daughters and their repeated rape.

If anyone with more complete access to information than me would care to update the page please go ahead, otherwise I'll try to find the time. NBeddoe 13:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Are these alleged incidents in the public domain? I'm aware of the incest – about which he was quite frank in private – and would say the article has got it about right. His main claim to fame is, after all, as a typographer, engraver and sculptor (whatever one may think of his private activities). – Agendum 13:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I have edited the page to include an extract from his own diary and to emphasise the fact that he was repeatedly performing acts that would have resulted in an extremely long prison sentence then as they would now. Given the sexual nature of much of his work I feel it is appropriate to let people know just what he did in his private life. It is not sufficient to separate his art from the character of the man. Also, his express devotion to Christianity was not borne out by his private conduct.

I don't need to say what he was, his own diaries express it eloquently. NBeddoe 22:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I have to say that I'm not sure about the inclusion of this material in this article – over to other contributors for their views. But perhaps it would be good to list the referenced works by MacCarthy and Speaight in the 'References' section. – Agendum 00:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

It is interesting (at least to me) to note that this article has two References sections. One, the latter, I added more than two years ago and it includes MacCarthy. Anyway, I'm curling up in front of a fire with my copy and see what she has to say on the subjects of incest, beastiality and . . . ... what else was there? Carptrash 00:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

You'll find plenty... Johnbod 01:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Reasons why I think it is appropriate to include this information:

1. Gill was a man of the 20th century and the moral judgement of his time on this matter would have been just as damning as it is now. I don't think I can be accused of apply 21st century morals to a historic figure.
2. He was an avowed and active Christian who was very public in his expression of his religion. His sexual activities were in direct contradiction of the teaching of the church.
3. Much of his work is sexual in nature and it is important to view them in the light of his abuse of his family.
4. The subject is not adequately covered elswhere; the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church is silent on the subject, referring only to his spirituality and art for example.

-- NBeddoe 08:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

It certainly has to be included; the MacCarthy biography has been out for years & never significantly challenged - unsuprisingly since so much evidence is from Gill's own papers. I don't know quite how you balance this into the rest of his achievement, but it should be done. Maybe look at some Roman Emperors

Johnbod 09:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I suspect that the way that we'll get through this is to "let it all hang out" [as we used to say] but at the same time being very careful about our choice of words. MacCarthy, for example says,"Nor is there anything so absolutly shocking about his long record of incestuous relationships with sisters and with daughters:" adding later, "...his pratctical experiments with bestiality , thought they may strike one as bizzare, are not in themselves horrifying or amazing."

So our task (opinion) is to present this material in a non shocking, non horrified, unamazing way. Good luck. Carptrash

Some of Gill's activities were monstrous. It's not morally possible to be neutral about them - to suggest otherwise is itself POV, so what the hell. Countersubject 16:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

You call some of his activities "monstrous" - yet it seems [to me] that these activities were all too human. It might not be morally possible for you to be neutral about them, but, nonetheless, it is the task of encyclopedists to do so. Carptrash 16:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't aplogise for calling child abuse monstrous. It is something that cannot be presented in a "non-shocking" way, because it is in itself shocking. To pretend otherwise is delusional. Countersubject 17:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

It is never, in my view, necessary for any wikipedian to apologize for his or her opinions. What we all do need to be mindful of is not pushing our value judgments in the articles. That's what the discussion pages are for, among things. The early Egyptians saw nothing wrong with siblings having sex and the prevalence of sex with animals, and even offspring through out history means that an awfully lot of folks thought that it was acceptable. Let's be content to mention that these were things that Gill did and let the reader contribute the moral conclusions. Carptrash 00:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid this looks terribly weaselish. In one breath you say we shouldn't push a POV, and in the next that incest and bestiality really aren't all that bad, in the wider perspective of things. You also elide the issues of child abuse and incest, and make the preposterous suggestion that bestiality has resulted in offspring. I'd stop digging if I were you. Countersubject 13:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

NPOV is not negotiable here. Charles Matthews 13:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Apart from sounding off, who thinks that the current version:

• A) gives too much space
• B) gives too little space
• C) gives too much detail
• D) gives too little detail
• E) ought to contain moral comment
• F) is correct not to contain moral comment

Answers please (up to 3!). I would say a weak B, and F. Johnbod 14:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

F is correct. Charles Matthews 23:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I would like to see the opinions of some of the original authors of this article.

We are writing an encyclopedic biography of one of the finest typographers, sculptors and designers of the twentieth century. I believe that the aim of some here is not to celebrate his art, but to dig for dirt. Sure, it's there - I was aware of the incest of which he was guilty, and am as appalled as anyone to hear that this amounted to abuse of young children. I was unaware of the bestiality. However, if you dig deep enough into the lives of many historical personages, my guess is that you will find more of the same. Are they, too, to be 'outed' in the same way? I'm not an apologist for Gill, but perhaps his mistake was to be open about his activities and to record it in writing.

So, mention it by all means, but without the quote from Gill's diary, and at the end of the article, before the quotation section. The answer is F. Agendum 23:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• That would appear to be a C as well as an F thenJohnbod 01:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Well if you are looking for a good breakdown of what can be found in MacCarthy's book, quotes and content, [and I've checked a lot of it and it's what the link says is there] as well as a great example of how (opinion) the article on Gill should NOT read, check out:

http://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/j006htGill_Morality2_Odou.htm Enjoy. Carptrash 01:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The current version seems fine except for the degree of expurgation. If you're going to excise so much of the dairy quote about his daughter as to make it unintelligible, you might as well leave it out. Also, the opening "According to" makes it sound as if somebody might debate this, while I know of nobody who contradicts MacCarthy's assertions. Thomas Phinney 07:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, thanks John – that's a C as well as an F Agendum 08:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

"A deeply religious man, Eric Gill published numerous essays on the relationship between art and religion." This type of statement is ubiquitous in all I have read about Gill and his professed devotion to religion is almost as prominent as discussion of his artwork. The despicable acts he committed need to be given the same prominence. Other contributors have said that it would be possible to find odious acts in other biographies if we dug deep enough but that is not the point. Gill had the conceit to put it all in his diaries and we therefore have documentary evidence from his own hand that the acts were committed. Many (including me) view him as a repulsive individual whose acts far outweigh any artistic merit he may have had, others see him simply as a talented artist. If the article is going to present a balanced view it has to provide the available evidence of both aspects to allow others to draw their conclusions. I'm firmly for a D. NBeddoe 20:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I absolutely disagree, NBeddoe.

Let me be clear – I too, find the description of his acts unbelievably repulsive to read and I agree that they call into question how real his Catholic faith could have been in truth. However, the article is about Gill the typographer, sculptor and artist, and it is these things for which he is justly world-famous. It is not our job to disclose details about the intimate personal lives of subjects of our articles if they are not relevant to the main point of the piece, just as it is not our job to question his faith. If these things are mentioned, it should be almost as a footnote.

If I may say this with respect, for I know your beliefs are very strongly held, I think you are riding a hobby horse. Your comments are POV. – Agendum 00:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Why should the article on Eric Gill be restricted to "Gill the typographer, sculptor and artist"? That's not the title of the article. Your assertion appears to be based on the point of view that aspects of the artist's life that might be construed as morally reprehensible are not notable. That's doubly POV: you're implicitly accepting the moral judgement, and suggesting that the facts on which it's based should be self-censored. I sympathise with your perspective. I love the Stations at Westminster, and have two Gill reproductions on my walls at home. The man made notable contributions to early 20th art and social thought. Unfortunately, that's led devotees of Gill, his art and ideas and the communities of which he was a part to obscure the whole man. We should have no part in that moral cowardice. Countersubject 14:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

It would be easy to get side tracked into a discussion of all the horrors perpetrated in the name of religion by people who were themselves religious, folks tortured, massive massacres, hundreds burned at the stake, well, you know that stuff, so to doubt Gill's sincerity about religion because of the really relatively minor acts that he engaged in seems . . ... silly. Should we tear his Stations of the Cross off the walls of Westminister Cathedral because his morals were different than ours? Have you ever noticed that it is the people who claim to be the most repulsed by certain acts that are the very ones who focus the most attention on them? I've always assumed this is because . . ....... never mind. Carptrash

"really relatively minor acts". Give a man enough rope ... Countersubject 08:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Now we get down to the root of Carptrash's arguments. I take it he will be amending the Wikipedia entry on paedophilia to descibe it as a "minor act". If that's not a POV then I don't know what is. All I am arguing for is that we tell people what he did, use his own words to describe it and leave it to them to decide what moral judgement to make. NBeddoe 10:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I say minor act because hundreds of people did not die horrible deaths due to them. Minor because, as MacCarthy says, the three Gill daughters grew up, so far as we can see, to be contented and well adjusted married women. Isn't that what really matters in these cases? Not so much what happened but how did the people involved react or respond to it? Well, I gotta go now and re-write the article on pedophilia. Carptrash 14:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

the three Gill daughters grew up, so far as we can see, to be contented and well adjusted married women. Oh, that's alright then. Countersubject

Well, it is, isn't it? Isn't the larger problem with child abuse society's attitude to it, which adds to any actual harm done by stigmatising it? I'm not condoning or advocating it, but I am questioning whether in fact society magnifies the damage out of all proportion to whatever went on originally. I have heard (on Radio 4) one of Gill's daughters shrug off suggestions that she was damaged by the events described in McCarthy's book, and I suggest that part of the reason she came through it apparently unscathed is because she was not taught to treat it as some irredeemable horror. The issue is a lot more complex than the hang-em and flog-em brigade would have you believe, and in fact I say they are part of the problem. The fact is, by treating abusers as beyond the pale it is the abused who end up feeling guilty and damaged - two wrongs don't make a right. Food for thought, I hope. 203.87.74.230 (talk) 03:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

it's pretty common for sexually abused children to have basically blocked out the whole thing: they know it happened, but they have suppressed the emotions because as a child that's the only way to get through. they cannot leave, cannot stop it and so they learn to ignore it. deny it happened, deny feeling horribly violated. blocking out trauma's is a basic survival-instinct, to the point that some psychologists doubt the standard 'if you've just experienced a trauma you should talk about it and keep talking about it' is really the best way to go, might be better to allow people to bury painful memories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.160.127.10 (talk) 22:23, 23 August 2011 (UTC) Out of interest, what is the Wikipedia policy on the fact that articles (which may contain explicit references) may be read by minors or teenagers? I'm not making any judgement here – just asking the question. It is relevant, as my 16-year old was sitting next to me as I reviewed this correspondence earlier – I didn't feel comfortable doing so at that time, which is why I came back to it now. I'm not advocating censorship by this question, just asking. – Agendum 00:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I suppose it comes back to the discussion and poll above. On balance, I believe we should name the behaviour for what it was - incest, abuse, buggery and bestiality - and provide references to material that gives greater detail, without going into that detail in the article. In addition, the opposition of this behaviour and the religion he professed are sufficiently striking to be remarked, as is the historic reluctance of his devotees to acknowledge it. Countersubject 15:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Well okay, write away, but I am still interested if you feel/think that his religious works should be removed from their religious context and perhaps placed in a more secular setting. I mean, should churches and their property [i.e. cemeteries, rectories etc] contain works of someone who engaged in incest, abuse, buggery and bestiality? Carptrash 03:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC) PS I looked through a lot of wikipedia guidelines and could not discover an answer to Agendum's question.

No Michaelangelo?

• Re "so many questions, so few answers" - So few answers from you Carptrash to my poll above anyway.... Johnbod 03:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Whooooops. Sorry 'bout that. Well F for sure and then the amount and content of what is added is up to those who wish to add it. I'm not up for writing much but I'm a More is More kind of guy and feel that articles can always use expansion. So to answer your question without picking any more of those alphabet things [letters?], I'd like to see some brave soul just jump in and say what they feel needs to be said and then the rest of us can leap in with our red pens or whatever and have at it. I say, Let the games begin! Carptrash 05:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

the article as it stands now seems to be really downplaying the crimes this man committed. this is not someone 'from a different time', during his lifetime most people would have been just as grossed out as the modern public — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.160.127.10 (talk) 22:30, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Typical Wikipedia, the slime that controls its pages are trying to hide this man's horrendous acts. (by anon)

Not sure, what material would you like to see added beyond what is here already? PatGallacher (talk) 14:39, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

We literally start discussing it in the second sentence of the article... Blythwood (talk) 11:03, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

To the several Wikipedians who contrasted Gill's actions with his professed beliefs:-

Yet he is in accord with so many within the Hierarchy, who exhibit breathtaking hypocrisy upon the matter of their own sexual incontinence, which is non-consensual and conducted with those legally and morally incapable of consent; and yet condemn the consensual sexual proclivities of others, with a holier-than-thou moral relativism that beggars belief.

Nuttyskin (talk) 14:41, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

You have ended this article honorifically, like a fluff piece. In the final evaluation he was a paedo not a pioneer to look up to. Are you guys called WikePaedo nowadays? 90.247.4.15 (talk) 13:11, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

No, but neither are we "Wokepedia" aiming to "cancel" Gill's acknowledged achievements because of his horrendous private life. Hopefully, the article balances both aspects of the life of this very complicated individual - given the lengthy discussions above, if it fails to do so it isn't for want of trying. If you have any improvements to suggest I'm sure that they will be considered on their merits. JezGrove (talk) 13:28, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Reliability of sources

news today (of an outraged citizen bringing his lump-hammer down on gill's 'ariel & prospero' on the outside of BH) brought me here. besides the gill diaries & the mccarthy book, were there any official records of this questionable activity? was he ever brought before the law to answer to these acts? is it not entirely possible that his diaries were fantasy, or exaggerated at least? & of the daughter's "shrugging off" on Radio 4- how can we be sure of an unseen shrug? possibly the woman was dealing with what she felt was an irrelevant or unseemly... prurient... line of questioning. I believe there's room in the article for a little more on this, but I don't think there's enough of a basis for its inclusion if we only have the diary & the mccarthy biog. to go on. I'm against there being a moral angle to this; in the context of a wikipedia page, I don't think it's appropriate. I believe that visitors to this article have a right to know that this part of gill's life is of historical significance, in that it has affected appraisals of his artistic work, but I don't think that quoting chunks of his diary or someone else's work based on same is sufficiently solid. for all we know, he was making it all up. his sons-in-law lived in the same house, after all.

duncanrmi (talk) 13:44, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

McCarthy's book is soundly researched and well worth a read (you can borrow it from Archive.org). Most of it is about his work, his [ordinary] domestic life, his politics and his religion. We have no reason to disbelieve her, or her verbatim quotes from his diary. It is simply not credible that he would invent what he has written there. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:45, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Proposal to change citations of McCarthy's books to use harvard referencing

Until I've started to add them using {{rp}}, most of the book citations in the article lack page numbers. Citations that look like ^[7]:123 are not terrible but it are rather inferior to 'normal' citations (e.g. ^[7]) that link to e.g. McCarthy 1989 p.123 (where "McCarthy 1989" is a link to her 1989 book; similar consideration would apply to the ODNB citation and likewise to any other source that has multiple calls). To see an example of this technique in use, see Calendar (New Style) Act 1750#References.

Given WP:CITEVAR, this is to ask if there are any objections to me making this change of citation style? It would apply to every source that is referenced more than twice.

Comments? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:31, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I object - page number citations are just pointless clutter IMHO, please leave the citations as they are. People can use the book's index if they are concerned about sourcing.14GTR (talk) 23:37, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Editors frequently demand page numbers, for verification. If the article had used harvard referencing from the outset, page numbers would have been provided as a matter of course. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 00:08, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Should we use a photo instead of a self-portrait?

Seeing as this is a biographical article about a real person and photos of him exist, would it not make more sense to use one of those in place of the self-portrait of him as the main image? Jeromebeckett (talk) 16:12, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Are there any out of copyright? (70 years after the photographer died). There is nothing at Commons, afaics. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:42, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Problem with the page numbers provided by the Archive.org search of the MacCarthy book

I have just spotted that the page numbers returned by the search facility on Archive.org are wrong. For example, the reference to the Countess of Huntingdon is given as page 25 when it is actually page 7. I don't have time tonight to review and correct these errors, but will do so tomorrow. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:56, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Done. The Archive.org page number adds 18 to the actual page number (probably cover, fly-leaf, frontispiece, introduction, acknowledgements etc.) --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:23, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Page number citations are expected when the source is a substantial book

@14GTR, WP:verifiability requires that text in articles should be verifiable. That means that citations have to be sufficiently detailed such that statements made in the article can easily be checked in the source, as explained at WP:PAGENUM. "Let them use the index" is not an appropriate response: indexes are not designed for that purpose. Consequently, it is difficult to understand your decision to remove {{page number needed}} and to delete page-numbers that have already been supplied. If you don't like the appearance of inline page numbers, I have already explained above how to avoid this and have volunteered to do the work. This article is already close to achieving wp:good article standard and it is only little details like this that can stand in the way.

You have been doing good work to improve the article, let's not fall out over a procedural issue. I will restore the page numbers and page request. I will also restore the simple explanation of academic sculptural practice at the time: I'm afraid that yours is too close a paraphrase of the source (and is undue for this article, which is about Gill, not about sculptural techniques). --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:54, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

No, you are wrong on both counts: Page numbers are not a requirement, visually make the article look awful and require more maintenance work then could ever be justified. Your editing has already generated one totally unneccessary page request tag. I regard this as far more than a mere 'procedural' issue. Regarding the sculptural technique your wording is the close paraphrasing of MacCarthy - I've described the technique entirely in my own words to explain the significance of what Gill was doing.14GTR (talk) 19:50, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

But WP:PAGENUM explicitly mandates page numbers, as I have explained above: you assert that I am wrong, but give no policy reason in support. Your answer essentially resolves to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Thousands of articles on WP use page numbers in one form or another. We will not achieve GA without it.

Yes, I agree that ^[7]:123 is typographically ugly but there are only two ways in Wikipedia that I know of to give page numbers: the ugly {{rp}} template or the {{sfn}}/{{sfnp}} templates. [These produce a conventional reference number, which links to a citation like McCarthy 1989 p.123 using sfn or McCarthy (1989) p.123 using sfnp, linking in turn to the book. On mousing over the reference number, the short form pops up, followed by the long form if held.] There is no maintenance work: once the page has been identified, that's it.

It hasn't generated "one totally unnecessary page request tag": I placed that tag because I can't find anywhere in the book that says Earlier in the year they had held long discussions with Rothenstein and other artists, including Augustus John and Ambrose McEvoy, about the formation of a quasi-religious brotherhood uniting artists, craft workers and priests. Would you prefer that I change the tag to {{failed verification}}? I'm not saying that it is not in the book, I just can't find it. The closest I've found is this on page 102.

In London, he was moving into high Bohemian circles. Gill's role at the centre of a grandiose idea for a New Religion, a new community of artists, was described a little rudely by Augustus John in retrospect:

At Eric Gill's instigation, Jacob Epstein, Ambrose McEvoy and I used to gather at my studio in the King's Road, Chelsea, to discuss the question of a New Religion. Gill's idea took the form of a Neo-Nietzschean cult of super-humanity under the sign of the Ithyphallus. Epstein, more simply, would be realised by the apotheosis of himself on a colossal scale, alone, and blowing his own trumpet. I was in favour of the rehabilitation of the Earth-Mother and Child, whose image installed in a covered waggon would be drawn by oxen and attended by dancing corybantes.

Art, Nietzsche, phallus worship: beneath the Chelsea rhetoric one sees again resurfacing Gill's old ideas of fusing work and worship and his visions of exile, the quasi-religious brotherhood, leading lives of quiet reason in defiance of the world.

On the sculptural technique, in all honesty this detail deserves no more than a footnote. Exactly how scaling and transference from the clay model was done is really too detailed for this article but if you really want your version to stand, I won't continue to argue as it is incidental. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:45, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I want to thank John Maynard Friedman for a huge amount of work on this article. I agree with him totally that citing specific page numbers is the right choice when a lot of the text is sourced from one book. Citing specific pages is definitely right because it ensures transparent verifiability and avoids mistakes. I did though wanted to say I really love sfn and recommend it. It feels cleaner with fewer numbers in the text. On recent articles I've written, including some very big ones and a newly-minted GA I've found it really easy to use and helpful. But this is a huge improvement on where the article was before. Blythwood (talk) 05:57, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Photo ofGill by Coster

Reluctantly, I have had to revert the change of pic from Gill's self portrait to the photo of Gill by Howard Coster. Coster died in 1959, copyright persists for 70 years so the photo is not out of copyright until 2030. The National Portrait Gallery CC BY-NC-ND license does not permit commercial use, which makes it incompatible with the Wikipedia license. I hoped that I might be mistaken so, before reverting, I checked with Wikipedia's resident copyrights maven, Diannaa. My question and her response is at user talk:Diannaa#Creative commons "Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0)" - can we use?. So we'll have to wait for another seven years before we can use it. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:22, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

No, you are wrong. CC BY-NC-ND 3.0 is compatable with fair use, and comparing a self-portrait drawing with a photography is not grounds for claiming otherwise.14GTR (talk) 21:29, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm afraid you have misunderstood 'fair use', specifically missing the part about 'reasonable alternatives'. As Diannaa explains: It's not okay to keep it as fair use either, since we have a compatibly licensed alternative File:Eric Gill - self portrait.jpg. Or for the long answer, read Wikipedia:Fair use overuse and wp:Non-free content. To protect Wikipedia against legal action, I have to revert again now. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 01:08, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Aiming to bring this discussion to an amicable conclusion, I have attached a footnote to the caption on the self-portrait that tells readers that a photograph exists and where they can find it. I guess that this is the best we can do for now, short of adding an {{update after}} 2029 tag? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:37, 30 January 2022 (UTC)