Talk:Jim Ricks

Questions

• Hello everyone, just wanted to let you know I am working on making this article better and appreciate any help. I am fairly new to this Wikipedia (I have been a contributor on multiple ones) and I want to help write about contemporary art and artist and so I wanted to edit this page and make it better (I saw the banners that say it needs improving and wanted to help get rid of them). So please help me make this article better. Genericname23 (talk) 00:25, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Does anyone know how to remove the banners? Genericname23 (talk) 13:46, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the banner that it needs an objective point of view, I have removed it because I rewrote the article (I believe that as a researcher of contemporary art I am objective). In the instructions it says that it can be removed if the issue has been adequately addressed and resolved (Help: Maintenance template removal - When to remove) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Genericname23 (talk • contribs) 17:09, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

The issue remains that, despite your recent changes, the majority of the article's content was written by a suspected undisclosed paid editor. Indeed, the fact that the image used in the article [2] was provided directly by the subject supports this conclusion.--SamHolt6 (talk) 15:14, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi SamHolt6 in regards to the photo I think there may be some confusion as the photo was added by myself with direct permission. It is taken from the In Search of the Truth website (http://insearchofthetruth.net/about/). Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 20:39, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

I am also wondering about the banners as I believe the citation style used is fairly normal, no? Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 20:41, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

SamHolt6 I can confirm that the photo on this page was uploaded by Hesperian Nguyen with permission. To address your primary concern, if a rewrite is needed to distance this page from the 'suspect' editor we welcome any style guides which may be useful although I can assure most of the information on this page is based on my CV and my bio (of which variations have appeared throughout the years in galleries and press). Thank you, Therealjimricks (talk) 20:52, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

I have been rewriting the article, so it has an objective point of view. There is a lot of sources, so it's not just information from CV, it's information from the listed sources. So, SamHolt6 (talk) please, advise me with what is wrong with the article and does every single word need to be rewritten for the banners to be removed (which is ridiculous). You can help with improving this page and advising users that want to edit this article on how to do it. Genericname23 (talk) 21:06, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

• Hi, we're having trouble removing this 'UDP' banner because a more senior member keeps reinstating it (please see above). The article has been gone over with a fine toothed comb and no one is even sure if it was paid for at any time. The point here is that this isn't a black and white issue (after researching on wiki) and that the problem (if there is a problem(!)) is between a suspected paid poster and our senior member, not with the page. Recent comments seem to be ignored. Please help. Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 23:18, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

The article was created 26 September by NeedaAnsari00, who claims to be an engineer from/in India. SAME DAY, Herperian Nguyen started massive number of edits to article. On 9 December, Genericname23 started editing, and has been a frequent editor to the exclusion of almost anything else. G was separately accused of being a sock on another article, dismissed accusation, but a cloud remains. Hard to believe that three people from far corners of the word fascinated with Jim Ricks. Who admits above being in contact with HN. Not seeing fire, but smelling smoke. At minimum, I concur with the UDP and COI banners. David notMD (talk) 02:02, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

David notMD I freely admit I am volunteering (and learning about Wiki) for Ricks's global project: In Search of the Truth. He previously posted on SamHolt6's page that they are trying to fill out the pages of its members and has worked with volunteers to do so, according to wiki's standards, and also in different languages. In any case, I don't think you've appropriately addressed my points above only describing your reasons for suspicion. Also, I'm sorry for the 'massive number of edits to article' as I really am new to this, although learning fast. Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 14:24, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

You statement justifies keeping the COI banner, and you have correctly stated your COI on your User page. Leaves unanswered why NeedaAnsari00 created the article in the first place. Hence my agreement with keeping the UDP banner. As to what belongs or does not belong in a article, I am always against those that look like a CV dump.David notMD (talk) 14:54, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Noting also (I did not see it in @David notMD:)'s summary above) that I was contacted by Jim Ricks (or someone purporting to be Ricks) on my talk page at User_talk:SamHolt6#Conflict_of_Interest/Paid. The editor made it clear in their comment that this article was "set up by and is being maintained by a group of people volunteering for my project", more or less confirming the COI nature of NeedaAnsari00's account (see Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#NeedaAnsari00 for more on this editor), who was also given permission to use the image in the current infobox by Ricks.--SamHolt6 (talk) 14:56, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

David notMD SamHolt6 Regarding acceptability of my reverting Group shows: it looks to me neither of you are qualified to evaluate what is a significant group show or not e.g. To remove a show from the Imperial War Museum in London is just ignorant and reckless. *edit Please see this archived interview on the tv channel: Russia Today https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mv0yTjhzV0Y in which Ricks's work in the Imperial War Museum group show was selected amongst numerous famous artists (Ai Weiwei, Coco Fusco, Jake and Dinos Chapman, Grayson Perry, Gerhard Richter, Jenny Holzer, Mona Hatoum, etc., etc.) be discussed! Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 15:19, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

SamHolt6 It looks to me the photo was uploaded from the project website. While I don't know the user NeedaAnsari00 I do know it's almost 2019 and people use images found the internet. I changed the permissions because basically it is Ricks's photo and he gave me direct permission as a volunteer for the project. Hardly think this is *proof* of anything. Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 16:21, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Ok, though I will note that it is inadvisable to edit details on images uploaded by other editors; the image also lacks proper attribution, but that is a WM Commons issue. Neither of these point assuange my suspicions about NeedaAnsari00, as COI/UDP editors often use images without attribution by claiming they are their own work. As far as the content reverts, keep in mind that you are a COI editor and as such you must comply with WP:COI; so far in this saga your edits to this article have been productive, but make no mistake that, if another, neutral editor feels content is trivial or WP:UNDUE (as happened here [3]), you are not within your rights to revert them on the article; rather, you should make your case here. You are also encouraged (again, per WP:COI) to refrain from editing the article in general.--SamHolt6 (talk) 22:42, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

SamHolt6Ok. You have stated variously that it is possible for a COI editor to make edits, that it is inadvisable, and that they flat out shouldn't. You need to understand that you are also moving the goalposts. Happy to learn the rules, so long as the rules are clear.

P.S. 'neutral editor' ≠ expert. Please advise where I might chime in on that conversation especially as it applies to contemporary art. Thanks Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 14:31, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

I'll take the opportunity to clarify, as I understand how new editors can be confused by COI policy. To begin, an editor with a conflict of interest is able to edit an article, but per COI policy is strongly encouraged to instead request changes be made on the relevant article's talkpage. If an editor's change is reverted, then they must discuss the edit on the article's talk page per WP:BRD, a key process on Wikipedia. If no consensus is reached between the editors (WP:NOCON), the edit is reverted; this is true for all editors, but COI editors in particular must abide by this process. COI editor are also prohibited from preventing other, neutral editors from removing content from articles; they can still object to changes on the article's talk page, or ask the editor why they removed the content. You can see these various processes in action on this article; You have been editing the article for some time without requesting other editors implement changes, and yet no one has seen the need to revert you as your edits have by-and-large been productive. However, as soon as another, neutral editor removed content and you reverted them, I stepped in to ensure policy was being followed, and now this enforcement has resulted in a discussion below.--SamHolt6 (talk) 07:31, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi SamHolt6, ok, thanks, that's all pretty well understood. I was/am exasperated by edits that appear to be overly hasty. Although I didn't include this ref originally I wanted to note another example: "one page by Ricks in an on-line magazine does NOT belong in his Bibliography listing". Yes it is an online archive, but it is actually a contribution to long running print magazine in Ireland that plays with the artistic possibilities of a print in a curated magazine format (as I understand). An edit like this doesn't really 'weigh' the contribution or the publication. This is an example for the point, but contemporary art is something sort of tricky and subtle. Ok, so one other example is the Art Workers poster: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_babies. I mean yeah it's only a poster but it is also a work of art that doesn't have individual value. It's value is it's idea.

While I am on *this* page with a purpose, I think there are *a lot* of contemporary and conceptual artists who should be on Wiki. Not that I'm super qualified, but I hope to start adding some in the new year. I find it a little addicted tbh and I want to get a working group together. I know there are Wiki marathons, so maybe I'll look into organizing this (haha please advise if this is acceptable!)

My point is that if there isn't a nuanced understanding of contemporary and conceptual art then edits, deletions, rejections will be made unfairly; That perhaps the understanding of what makes an artist well know needs to go well beyond a New York Times mention; that artists who aren't big sellers in NYC or London or Dubai still have value.

Ok anyway. Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 15:33, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

People do not "...use images found on the internet" HERE. And while it is a photo of Ricks, the only person who can approve the photo's use is the photographer. As for me not being qualified, my User page is about my day job and one of my hobbies (history), but I am also on the Board of Directors of an art institute. Yes, there were headliners (Ai Weiwei, etc.) in that group show, but Ricks' inclusion does not add to his notability by association. No group shows. David notMD (talk) 01:30, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

@David notMD

"Let's NOT have a ref which is only about promoting the sale of a poster by Ricks" is in fact a link to a noted center for contemporary art in Northern Ireland which also happens to be the PUBLISHER. The link provides more detail about the context and the text itself: a conversation between Ricks, an academic Declan Long and a curator.

"the article does NOT need two references just to confirm that Ricks curated a show back in 2011; the first ref is sufficient" My understanding is that references are proofs, they say 'this' is true. More proofs seemed to be a positive not a negative. I am trying to help and am working from a list of references I collected. But from the art perspective, I think your attempt to dismiss a show simply because of the date completely ignores the possibility this show was significant.

"People do not "...use images found on the internet" HERE. And while it is a photo of Ricks, the only person who can approve the photo's use is the photographer." You might check the conversation, because this is not what is being said. I am simply stating a fact: people take images from Google searches all the time. It seems pretty clear that is what happened, maybe no need to get conspiratorial. I understand it is sloppy (as it would be in academia), but I also understand that this kind of thing happens. I (this is the part I'm actually responsible for) contacted the photographer, credited her, and got her permission. Having done that, tell you what: I'll reupload the picture under my account.

"No group shows." Ok, understood, if this is a general rule. But to be absolutely clear: that isn't what you originally stated. You have moved the goalposts here. You originally stated: "group exhibitions in which one artist's work is a small part do not belong in "Selected exhibitions" which involves a total judgement call on your part or on editor's parts. (How does one evaluate how small or large an artists role is in a show?)

"inclusion does not add to his notability by association" is just false and false for all artists. Ignoring a museum show, with many highly noted and celebrated artists, which in turn got Ricks TV coverage is evidence of the artists notability. To say otherwise is misinformed and I still don't think you are fully qualified to be making judgement calls about contemporary art. Bios in general, sure, but no, not art despite your assertion you are on a board of a museum. Sorry.

However, having said ^^^^ that, I abide by rules, am learning *and* contributing here on Wiki, so give me a break and please refrain from using such a non-neutral tone in your edits and towards me. Thanks. Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 14:24, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Shorter

I cut about 25% of the length - stuff that was too much like lifted from a CV, or text not relevant or not supported by the refs. In my opinion the COI and UDP tags should remain until there are more major changes to the article (additions and deletions) by editors not involved in the original creation. David notMD (talk) 14:11, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Suggestions

I'd like to propose (in lieu of the convo on group shows), that the 1st paragraph replace:

"Ricks has had solo shows in the United States, Ireland and Mexico."

with

"His work has been exhibited in the United States, Mexico, and throughout Europe, including in the Imperial War Museum, London; Jack Shainman Gallery, New York; Ulster Museum, Belfast; Temple Bar Gallery and Studios, Dublin; Centre Culturel Irlandais, Paris; and that Royal Hibernian Academy, Dublin.

Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 15:16, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

I still say "No" but will defer to @SamHolt6: to make that decision. Or anyone else other than Genericname23 or Ricks. David notMD (talk) 23:57, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Concurring with the "no" above. Such a sentence is undue for the topic, and could be seen as an overly-promotional attempt to associate the subject with famous venues. Still, the sentence could be spruced up; I would support this; "Ricks has had solo shows at notable venues in the United States, Ireland and Mexico." or perhaps "Ricks' art has been shown at notable venues in the United States, Ireland, and Mexico." Keep it shorter and simpler for the lead, and note that a potential reader will be able to garner where Ricks has had showings later in the article. SamHolt6 (talk) 06:54, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

One thing I'm doing is looking at other contemporary artists here on wiki and following styles for consistency. This kind of listing of venues is standard. Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 14:31, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Asked twice and answered twice, by two different people. David notMD (talk) 18:32, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

David notMD I have no idea what your comment is referring to (since I asked once?!) and I don't understand you continuing to being antagonistic/snarky/condescending/hasty. And I'll add unhelpful in this case. Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 19:56, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

You proposed and my opinion was No. SamHolt6 concurred. You provided an additional reason and I replied tersely but not snarkily that you had now asked twice and gotten the same answer (no to your proposed changes) twice. David notMD (talk) 22:16, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

David notMD I didn't ask a second time, I suggested that your opinion may differ from best practice. Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 23:01, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Not sure what the next steps are in general, but just to continue with a really obvious(!) External Link: http://insearchofthetruth.net/ Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 01:50, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Ongoing

David notMD Artist is listed here: https://www.daydreamers.biz/copy-of-locations I'm going to put forward again that maybe you don't have the understanding of (or patience for) contemporary art needed to make such edits despite your lengthy and esteemed edit history. *sigh* Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 23:00, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia practice is See also is for significant mention of a person that does not have a good fit into the article proper. The other three, yes, Daydreamers, no. I did miss his name being listed among many. Still, no. David notMD (talk) 23:09, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Part of a public art project of note: https://forfreedoms.org/events/jim-ricks-in-search-of-the-truth/ Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 23:06, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Conceptual artists article

I added Jim Ricks to the list of artists at the Conceptual art article. David notMD (talk) 00:51, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Disclosed

Hi SamHolt6 looks like Ansari has disclosed paid pages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:NeedaAnsari00. What can we do here? --Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 15:27, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

@Hesperian Nguyen: excellent. The paid editor has not disclosed correctly (they has of yet not disclosed who paid them for which edits), but due to Rick's correspondence with me on my talk page this is a moot point. I will remove the UDP tag momentarily. SamHolt6 (talk) 23:40, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks SamHolt6. This has actually been a great learning experience. Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 13:48, 8 January 2019 (UTC)