Talk:Gina Bold

Not stuckist?

Why are so many references to Bold being a Stuckist being removed here? Is she one of them? Does the press/art media consider her one? Lawrence Cohen § t/e 19:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The references are being removed because Gina Bold's official representative at Wikipedia is removing them all. He seems to have been given free licence to censor all mention of the Stuckists from her page. Is this right? The "Dictionary of Artists in Britain Since 1945" and the "National Museums Liverpool" book on the Stuckists have been deleted as references, and along with them all the material that they state. Talk about revisionism. She started painting seriously with the stuckists at the Stuckism Gallery in 2002, actually with Charles Thompson, and exhibited for two years there. She got a good space on the first wall of the gallery. I didn't. Oh yes, she took part in Stuckist demonstrations outside the Tate Gallery and the White Cube gallery, but that photo's been censored from the artilce aswell. Check out the other side of the story (note the archived pages with her in): http://www.stuckism.com/Bold/indexHS.html

Oh, and the top painting is the best one.

Yours Hamand —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamand (talk • contribs) 14:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

This is troubling. He was allowed to make some edits that had been discussed with User:JzG on our OTRS system. I have no knowledge about the specifics of that private correspondance. It is very important that the article satisfies WP:NPOV as well as WP:BLP. We do not censor articles if there are reliable sources and this is part of my concerns here and the reason I want a debate about these edits. I would very much appreciate if more people would help out here as there is potential for a real conflict here, something I want to avoid. I'm taking a small break but I'll be back. The truth here is that JzG is the only person who knows exactly what is going on so I'll need to get in touch with him when I return. I'll wait for a few more people to weigh in on the image issue but thanks for getting that debate started as well. EconomicsGuy (talk) 14:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's the version I'm talking about: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gina_Bold&oldid=204539778 That's all true. It's not just the Stuckists saying it's true - it 's in books published by 3rd parties of considerable standing. There's no reason to delete any of that. If it's not got enough about what she's done since falling out with the Stuckists (end of 2003), that's probably down to the date of publication of those books. So why not add more to bring it up to date with the Easy Living article and the Arlington House residency, expand it, not censor it. It's also up to her to provide more earlier biographical information if she thinks that's not covered properly. But anything of note started with the Stuckists anyway. That's what put her on the record in the public domain in the art world.

Yours Hamand —Preceding comment added by Hamand (talk • contribs) 16:30, 2 May 2008

I had a brief look at the available sources for this artist. Some do indeed claim an association with the Stuckist movement. This has been excised from her personal biography - for whatever reason.

If there is a reliable and verifiable source for material it can be included in the article. In fact, in an encyclopaedic entry, it should be. The article is not 'owned' by the artist and should present a neutral point of view, but equally no information should be stated about a living person that is not verifiable - so, for the Stuckist association, I would prefer to see material from an independent source - say, a national newspaper and national galleries.

I have reported the matter at Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Hopefully, this will allow someone with greater experience on biographies to look into the matter. HTH Kbthompson (talk) 20:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Images

I've fixed the license and added a preliminary fair use rationale. This article is too short to have two fair use images. Fair use images must have individual rationales for use in the article and decoration is explicitly not a valid rationale. In other words one of them needs to go. Thoughts on which one is most important? EconomicsGuy (talk) 11:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

There's a review of "Inner Dealer" on 3ammagazine.com:

"Inner Dealer depicts simultaneously the division and union of external and internal relationship through the classic images of a bleeding heart and a dual face, where the urge to understand, articulate and resolve the stated dilemma manifests as birds, embodying conflicting modes of knowledge, confusion, enquiry, indifference, patience and aggression, while the need to make sense is thwarted by the seeming lack of awareness that that the only means of holding onto the heart is also the cause of its pain, and is self-inflicted, though there is an alternative explanation that this is a conscious choice, suffered for love. Like all effective symbolism, it is specific in defining principles, while leaving those principles open to personal interpretation, which can change over time to reflect different tangents to an archetypal condition. The busyness of the painting keeps the eye in unpredictable motion, with enough clear space to avoid claustrophobia and able to return easily to the central motifs, realised in accomplished colouration based on modified primaries of blue, yellow and red. The exquisite variation of hues throughout the painting cannot be appreciated properly in a reproduction, nor the differences in texture, where the blue background is a smoother layer and the bird feathers applied heavily. The rhythm and complexity of forms takes place with masterful ease."

Reference: http://www.3ammagazine.com/3am/stuck-inn-iii/

It's mentioned here as well: http://www.heyokamagazine.com/HEYOKA.8.PAINTINGS.GinaBold.htm

The portrait ones don't get such a good write-up.

—Preceding comment added by Hamand (talk • contribs) 16:42, 2 May 2008

I've made a partial revert after reviewing the situation. Wikipedia is not Facebook - the subject does not have ownership over neutral sourced material. What more needs to be merged back in to the article? EconomicsGuy (talk) 07:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

That's Right...Gina Bold was never a stuckist

Gina knew Thomson but she never agreed with Stuckism. Thomson said she didn't have to believe in the group to hang paintings in the gallery. To read more about her early life visit www.ginabold.com

I doubt that Hamond has ever met or spoken to Gina Bold. She was already 43 at the time she met Thomson and had been doing creative work including painting well before she met him.

The comments written about Gina by Thomson are not factual. There doesn't seem to be any 3rd party information as Thomson was consulted for those publications.

The only time she has given comments on her art are 'The Camden New Journal' interview and the 'Born to be Bold' press release.

Ann Bukantas from the Walker Gallery agreed that Gina Bold was not a Stuckist which is why she withdrew her work from the gallery. It would be unfair for an artists sold work to be in a show promoting an art group without the artists consent.

Look back on past Stuckist shows. Gina was only ever listed as a guest artist.

She was never a member of the group. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.56.113.193 (talk) 02:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay now we are making progress. I don't see why the article shouldn't mention what you just wrote. A few lines stating that although her work was displayed at Stuckist shows she was only listed as a guest artist and does not self-identify as Stuckist. That would clear up the confusion and ensure that the article is in line with policy on neutral point of view. When she rarely comments on her work and she is listed as a participant in past Stuckist shows we need to explain what is going on. Simply removing that information is not okay. Basically what I'm asking for here is a paragraph that explains what you just wrote above. It puts her connection with the Stuckists into perspective and informs the reader about what is going on. Without it the reader is left to speculate about this rather than be informed. Such a paragraph would be a valuable addition to the article. I'm sensitive to the BLP concerns regarding sourcing but this needs to be explained in the article. From a policy point of view I'm actually far more concerned about the undue emphasis on her personal issues. I don't think the article should put so much emphasis on that. Though it may be important to understanding her career and work I think there is too much emphasis on it in the current version of the article. EconomicsGuy (talk) 04:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd second that sound advice. Unexplained removals, or edit warring will only lead to the article being protected. There must be a form of words that is acceptable and verifiable without constant revision. Thanks Kbthompson (talk) 21:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Libel edits

Is Keithmb no longer the authorised representative for Gina Bold as stated on Keithmb's discussion page as arranged with JZG? Is 62.56.113.193 now speaking for Gina Bold? 62.56.113.193 is making claims without providing any evidence for them. 62.56.113.193 is removing the same material that Keithmb removedand which was replaced by EconomicsGuy. In fact there are several numbered addresses doing this:

62.56.100.222

62.56.113.193

62.56.58.172

62.56.119.30

62.56.119.30 altered the article on 18th of March with a statement with defaming implications http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gina_Bold&diff=prev&oldid=199013888

Now 62.56.100.222 has made an even more libellous statement http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stuckism&diff=next&oldid=210675652 That's not the story I heard, but I'd better not repeat it here.

These two posts have been changed, but I still found them very easily, mainly because on the history page it's got a header. These things need to be deleted from public access completely. I've tried but it can't seem to be done. Someone must have access to the underlying data.

This user is disrupting every article they come across and using wikipedia to make libellous attacks. Can they be stopped from doing this?

No, I'm not saying who I am. I have no intention of having these kind of attacks directed at me, thank you very much. But I do know that Gina Bold showed in a lot of Stuckist shows and took part in Stuckist demonstrations, as well as telling other people in the group how the Stuckists should be promoted. Funny guest then.

Actually I can't find where the article ever said she was a stuckist. It said she was in Stuckist shows and demonstrations.

Hamond

You could put these forward at WP:CU; they are all registered to Demon Internet, so someone's ISP. If necessary this can be reported as abuse to Demon and the individual identified. HTH Kbthompson (talk) 20:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Stop revert warring

Stop reverting each other. Further revert warring will be met with full page protection and blocks of gradually increasing durations. Please read WP:3RR and WP:CONSENSUS and concentrate on drafting a new sourced section about her relationship with the Stuckists. Are we going to do this the easy way or the hard way? EconomicsGuy (talk) 04:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I can only reiterate this, a particularly dim view is taken where the article flip-flops between two versions - and always ends in protection. The talk page is for resolving these issues. A start was made (above) at saying Bold appeared in exhibitions as a contributing guest of the stuckists, rather than a full blown associate. Can this be worked into consensus for a draft statement with verifiable sources? Kbthompson (talk) 09:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)