Talk:Soldier at a Game of Chess

Architectonic

This word, which appears in the opening section, leads to a dab page. Can we narrow it down somehow and/or refine the intended meaning? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:50, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

original research?

An editor tagged the top of the article for wp:OR. Could the concern be explained here? And, for the short time the article is in DYK on the main page, could we keep it off. --doncram 13:41, 8 May 2015 (UTC) Also, I see the DYK review discussion did not mention any OR concern. It does mention sources being off-line, and having to accept by wp:AGF that the sources were used accurately. If that is the only concern, that maybe the sources were misused, as estimated by an editor without access to the sources (like me), then the tagging is not justified, IMHO. --doncram 13:47, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps User:Nikkimaria could explain their concerns a little. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:53, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Offline sources are not a concern - it's the inclusion of extensive unsourced analysis. For example, "interplay of transparencies typical of Metzinger's earlier works" - according to whom? " It is unclear whether or not Metzinger formed part of the 24th regiment, but he certainly would have seen wounded soldiers from the 24th" - Metzinger is not mentioned in the cited source. "It is interesting to compare..." - MOS:OPED. These are the sorts of issues that prompted the tagging. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:21, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

(ec) Nikkimaria restored the tag and by edit summary indicated they will respond here soon. I want to avoid edit-warring but may revert that, i.e. re-remove the tag, which is so far unexplained. Nikkimaria, please do not re-add. I think it is fair to consider the untagged article as the default version, until there is a consensus here that it should be tagged, and further that it should be tagged while it is a prominent, great, illustrated, top DYK on the main page of Wikipedia. --doncram 14:25, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

(ec) Can you please tag the precise section instead of the whole article? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:29, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I quite agree with Gerda. Marking individual sentences would be very useful. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:39, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

(ec) :Okay, Nikkimaria, could you please use an in-line tag or two, instead, calling for sourcing. I questioned/thought about that sentence myself about the painter "would have seen wounded soldiers from the 24th", when I read it. But there may be sourcing available to establish that for sure, and also it is not misleading the reader that the view is a speculation. Your fine point is that it should be someone else's speculation, not Wikipedia's.

Right now, while the article is a prominent, great, illustrated, top DYK on the main page of Wikipedia, your own speculation that there does not exist sourcing for that point, should not be marring the article and jolting the largish number of potential readers arriving via the DYK.

Your concern about OR is noted, here. One negative consequence of the article being marred by tag, is that potential readers behind a good percentage of the hits will choose to browse away and not read it. One hope expressed in the DYK nomination discussion was that the DYK exposure would bring "crystal cubism" (a red-link now) more to the fore, and attract interest leading to good coverage of that movement into Wikipedia.

Can you please not interfere with that, for the moment, and use an inline tag or two instead, or, better, raise your specific concerns here on the Talk page for discussion here instead. Some may be resolved by consensus that no change in the article is needed, others may be resolved by addition of a source. --doncram 14:41, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

You could use inline template {{Citation needed}}, instead. E.g. "cn:May 2015" --doncram 14:46, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Er, no. We don't refrain from tagging issues just because an article is at DYK, and this article's issues are not IMO limited to a couple of sentences or a single section - the broader tag is more appropriate given the current situation. One potential benefit of the tag is that readers will note that the article could be improved, and may even contribute to that process. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:10, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I guess it depends if you want to flag to as many readers as possible that improvement is needed. Or to direct attention to the actual sentences that need attention? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:15, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

If imrovement is wanted, details need to be pointed out. A global tag raises mistrust, in this article and by implication in Wikipedia. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:27, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

As well it should, as it turns out: I've just found some significant close paraphrasing, bordering on copyvio. This source, this source, possibly others. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:51, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

"Too close paraphrasing" would be a problem, but sheesh it should not be regarded as a trumping issue. If at least one editor believes there is too close paraphrasing, then it can/should be addressed. It does not justify tagging the article as copyvio, say. Note even when there are long passages copied exactly from some source, it is not always bad...there could be permission from original author, for example. --doncram 15:59, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

There could be permission, but absent evidence of said permission we are legally required to assume that there is not. So yes, near-verbatim copying from a copyrighted source is absolutely a trumping issue. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:10, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

In a DupDet tool link you provided below, you made the mistake of searching for 2-word strings. If you ran DupDet using those settings, "Soldier at a Game of Chess" and many other phrases would be detected, and red lights might flash, but titles and many other 2-word phrases are not copyvio.

You need to show specific passages as they appear in this Wikipedia and as they appear in one of those sources. --doncram 16:54, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

In the first source identified, the offending passage would be

Soldier at a Game of Chess next to X-ray Composite based on Jean Metzinger's “Soldier at a Game of Chess” / On the left is Soldier at a Game of Chess (c 1915–16) by Jean Metzinger (oil on canvas, gift of John L Strauss, Jr in memory of his father, John L Strauss); on the right is X-ray Composite based on Jean Metzinger's “Soldier at a Game of Chess” by Adam Schwertner, Stephen Thomas, and Brian Callender, digitally assembled radiographic scans, superimposed on an image of the painting (radiographic images provided by the Department of Radiology at the University of Chicago Medical Center).

The duplication detected is nonsense. It must have detected overlapping use of phrases like "Soldier at a Game of Chess" and "University of Chicago Medical Center". On this basis I entirely dismiss all negative allegations made. --doncram 17:17, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Before "entirely dismiss[ing] all negative allegations made", perhaps it would be helpful to look more closely at the actual text rather than simply an automated tool. See below. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:37, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Which is more important right now while it is a very salient DYK:

1. a) bringing potential readers' attention to the fact that Wikipedia editors disagree among themselves about their own articles, and perhaps that Wikipedia should not be trusted, etc.
2. b) educating them about one issue in article-writing, that articles may contain "original research" as Wikipedia editors define that term, or articles contain passages that are "too closely paraphrased" according to the view of some/many Wikipedia editors.
3. c) bringing their attention a great read for them to enjoy (i surely enjoyed reading it, as far as i got before i went off on a tangent link... i did read almost all of it) and to contemplate the idea of Crystal cubism (it has me interested, for one).

I vote "a" [much later: I meant "c", back then doncram 13:39, 11 June 2015 (UTC)] and think that is the consensus of editors commenting here on Talk page so far. Do please let us consider the untagged article as the default one, and agree to disagree for now about the urgency of any under-supported points in the article.

What is the urgency of tagging this article, rather than tagging, say, Femme au miroir, another article mainly written by same contributor, about another painting by same artist? I hereby speculate that the other article has some problems. Let's go address that one, instead, now.

I do want to concede to Nikkimaria, that this article does raise legitimate concern. It may be a bigger question than for just this article. What voice should Wikipedia articles about art be written in... when is it justified to use Wikipedia's voice in expressing an interpretation? E.g. to say that Guernica is a negative expression about war or some aspect of it, rather than a positive expression, and rather than being about something entirely unrelated like being about travel by railroad through rural England. I would be okay with Wikipedia's voice saying that Guernica expresses something negative rather than positive. Okay, just checked, the lede is:

Guernica is a mural-sized oil painting on canvas by Spanish artist Pablo Picasso completed by June 1937.[1] The painting, which uses a palette of gray, black, and white, is known as one of the most moving and powerful anti-war paintings in history.[2]

So Wikipedia as an author refrained from saying that the painting expresses something anti-war; it used the construction "is known as" being anti-war, instead. Personally i don't think the "is known as" is required. I would be okay with those sentences being stated by Wikipedia, as factual, without the "is known as" and without requiring specific sourcing. Wikipedia can speak in the voice of the overwhelmingly prevalent view, IMHO. What do others think. --doncram 15:59, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Funny you should mention Femme au miroir...as it turns out, large sections of this article were copied from there as well. That probably makes this ineligible for DYK.

I agree with you that "a" is important (though I would phrase it differently), but that would lead us to tag the article (to bring readers' attention to the issues) rather than not tag the issue. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:10, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

[Much later: I meant "c" as option I preferred, back then, which I think would have been understood, but maybe not. doncram 13:39, 11 June 2015 (UTC)]

If you feel so strongly about issues of WP:OR, copyvio and copying from another article, perhaps you should consider proposing that the entry at DYK should be pulled? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:23, 8 May 2015 (UTC) .... or maybe it's fallen off already?

The "duplication" detected at that link given is not valid. That is a mis-application of a Wikipedia tool, "DupDet", http://tools.wmflabs.org/dupdet/ . It compares this Wikipedia article Soldier_at_a_Game_of_Chess to another Wikipedia article Femme_au_miroir.

Any duplication would not be a copyright issue at all. And the application was run with the tool's default settings, looking for a 2 word string that has at least 13 characters. Of course there are many overlaps, e.g. for any source used twice, or for any mention of painting titles, etc. --doncram 16:44, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Well that's an easy mistake to make. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:55, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I think you may have misunderstood. Duplication between Wikipedia articles could quite easily be a copyright issue, per WP:CWW, given the lack of correct attribution. However, it can also make an article ineligible for DYK, particularly when the duplication is extensive. I haven't checked whether that's the case here, as the article is already ineligible for DYK for external copyvio. It's just unfortunate that this issue wasn't caught sooner. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:07, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Nikkimaria's allegations of external copyvio appear to be entirely false. Please see now-bolded "The duplication detected is nonsense" refutation by me, above. --doncram 17:22, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Nikkimaria is right about attribution - there is a need to add complete-waste-of-time bureaucratic colourful and informative tags to show from where material has been copied (or even close paraphrased, it seems). Martinevans123 (talk) 17:28, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Coldcreation: I've obtained a copy of the Green 1987 source, but can't find any mention of this particular work, at least not on the pages given - could you provide more specific pagination and/or quotes from that book about this work? I did find some of the general background (such as wartime), though it has some issues with paraphrasing. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:57, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I will do so as soon as I have access to my books, which should be at the outset of next week. Issues of paraphrasing will also be addressed. Coldcreation (talk) 06:19, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Close paraphrasing/copyvio

Article:

The exhibition was a three-venue exhibition at the University of Chicago that brought to light the interdependence between representations of human anatomy of biomedicine's imaging technology and imaginings in the creative arts. Visitors encountered whole-body images of the human vascular system from Govert Bidloo's 1685 anatomical atlas, Anatomia Humani Corporis, a man-shaped map of rivers and tributaries, or trees feathering out from a central trunk—with a heart at its core. A digital composite generated for the exhibition of an eye and pen (and cadaver) was made out of data-sourced from CT angiograms. Both are medical representations of the anatomy of the vascular system, yet their context in the exhibition gives the allure of artworks.

Source:

Imaging/Imagining the Human Body in Anatomical Representation is an unusual three-venue exhibition at the University of Chicago in which representations of human anatomy reveal the interdependence of biomedicine's imaging technology and art's creative imaginings. One of the visitor's first encounters is with a pair of whole-body images of the human vascular system. The first image is from Govard Bidloo's 1685 anatomical atlas, Anatomia Humani Corporis, a man-shaped map of rivers and their tributaries, or maybe the tracings of leafless winter trees feathering out from a central trunk—except that in the centre of the trunk we find a heart. Beside it is a second image, similar yet different: a digital composite generated for the exhibition, made not by the old technologies of eye and pen (and cadaver) but instead data-sourced from CT angiograms. Both are medical representations of the anatomy of the vascular system, yet their context here, reproduced larger than life and hung in a gallery, makes them both also works of art.

This kind of issue will not be caught by most automated tools, because it is not strictly verbatim; however, it is still very closely paraphrased, enough to be a copyright concern. "The advent of advanced imaging technology now allows us to see structures and processes that were inaccessible to the eye, taking away the artist's "hand" and reducing the role of subjective imagination." "the advent of advanced imaging technology now allows us to see structures and processes that were long inaccessible to the eye, taking away the artist’s “hand” and reducing the role of subjective imagination" is verbatim - again a copyright issue. These examples are sufficient to demonstrate a very clear problem here, but they are only examples: one need only read this source in tandem with the article to note additional problems. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:37, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

There is room for improvement probably, including editing to make phrasing more different and crediting the source being relied upon. It does not require you to mar whole sections of the article while it is linked from main page.

Your continual attacks are wp:POINTY and bad in other ways right now, all while the article is prominently linked from the main page. Another fault is that you inserted citation needed tags into the lede, which doesn't need sourcing. I made request for you to be blocked at wp:ANI. This has cost hours of time trying to undo what you are doing all the more intently. I don't have time for this. --doncram 17:51, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

You will recall that I said above that a whole-article tag makes far more sense than more specific tagging of individual issues; surely we can agree that the latter approach is far more "marring"? The lead does not need citations insofar as it is a summary; however, when information is introduced in the lead that does not appear in the article itself (such as the bit about the press), that does need either citing or removing. Rather than trying to undo what I am doing, perhaps we could work on fixing the problems? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:56, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

The most significant problem with regards to external copyvio/paraphrasing is the Imaging/Imagining section. This section is also problematic for other reasons, so we could kill several birds with one stone by condensing it significantly. Would anyone object to me doing that? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:46, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I've now done this, taking care of the worst of the copyright problems. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:58, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the reasonable approach to fix a problem when you see it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:06, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

ps: "kill several birds" - I found the article provoking thoughts about art and war and their relation, worthy to be presented on our Main page, certainly open to trimming and rewording, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:10, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

And some of the problem has been restored - Coldcreation, that image does not qualify for the "unique historic image" tag as presented. Also, per WP:Copyright FAQ, direct translations are of potential copyright concern, and haven't been addressed in the other section you detagged. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:49, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

The X-ray composite is a unique historic image. To my knowledge, never before has such an endeavor been undertaken, and been presented in a museum exhibition side by side with a work of art from which it was derived. Part of the translation is a sentence from French Wiki, the other from La Marne et la Grande Guerre dans les collections photographiques et cinématographiques de l’ECPAD. Not a direct translation. Perfectly acceptable. Coldcreation (talk) 21:02, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Has no-one invented translation-or-very-close-paraphrasing inter-wiki attribution tags yet?! Martinevans123 (talk) 21:15, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

The "unique historic image" tag has specific requirements not met here, whether the image itself is unique and historic or not. What sentence is from the French Wiki, and from which article? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:35, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

See Sainte-Menehould, section Première Guerre mondiale. "From January 1915, St. Menehould was the command post of the IIIe armée française under General Maurice Sarrail. The city suffered its first bombing campaign by canon the same year. Thereafter, aircraft and zeppelins took over the skies. In September 1915 the successful counter-offensive moved the front closer to the German border." L'Histoire, consulté le 24 janvier 2011]. That's where the ref points to a page now under reconstruction.

Le 15 septembre, à la suite d'une contre-offensive, les Allemands quittent la ville qui devient « ville de guerre ». À partir du mois de janvier 1915, Sainte-Menehould est le poste de commandement de la IIIe armée du général Sarrail. La ville subit son premier bombardement au canon le 26 avril 1915. Par la suite, des avions et des zeppelins prennent le relais. En septembre 1915, l'offensive en Champagne éloigne le front. Coldcreation (talk) 22:30, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

relatedness

Now an editor, the one who added the OR tag, has removed an entire section, "Related works" on basis that the editor don't see proof that the works are related. That is wp:POINTY or other bad things right now. I will restore it at least once. The appropriate default for any disagreement here, IMO, is the section being in.

Maybe after discussion the section title should be revised, and maybe it would be better, for each item in the section to get documented that at least one source views the item to be related. That could be called for by making the request, raising the issue here. That could be called for by inserting in-line tag on items whose relatedness is seriously questioned. It is not urgent and appropriate to remove the entire section! --doncram 16:02, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

This section doesn't make sense as framed. On what basis are we determining that certain works are related to this one if we don't have sources making that determination? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:28, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I thought there was another comment here, but maybe not.There was a link to the output of a duplicate detector tool here. I notice within that output, this passage:related works edit jean metzinger 1912 at the cycle race track au vã©lodrome oil and sand on canvas 130 4 x 97 1 cm peggy guggenheim collection venice jean metzinger (30 words, 167 characters)}". For this passage there could be no plagiarism, no overly close quoting, because the overlapping sequence of words is the multi-word title of a painting.) That source uses the word "related". Maybe it is one that says various paintings are related. The duplication detection run was between two wikipedia articles, which no doubt have many similarities. But there is no information in that duplication link which is relevant about "relatedness". --doncram 16:25, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Bravo

Very interesting article, thank you.

(Just between ourselves, the official title of the painting is a mistranslation. As well as game of chess, jeu d'échecs can mean chessboard, instruments du jeu, which is clearly what we see. The title should be Soldier at/with a Chessboard. Not y/our problem, I know).

Amicalement, Awien (talk) 17:51, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Sadly, official titles are rather often a mistranslation, including some German World Heritage sites, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:33, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, not sure why it isn't called "Soldier at the Chessboard" or even just "Soldier Playing Chess". Except that he seems to be just arranging his own pieces - in the mode of a general placing his solders on the battlefield, without any notion of what the enemy might be doing. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:38, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Outspoken pacifist?

Curiously I can see nothing at his own article. But I found "avowed pacifist" at Christiies (Lot Notes). Martinevans123 (talk) 19:47, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Found the same, but am afraid that will be called "unreliable source". I am sure they didn't invent it but have no access to printed material. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:26, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Maybe User:Coldcreation can help, if they have access to printed sources. Surprised that we've not seen CC lately! Martinevans123 (talk) 20:37, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

This is all very interesting Martinevans123. And thanks for thinking about me. I've been enjoying the festivities here in Paris in celebration of Victory in Europe Day (le 8 mai 1945). I will try to address all the issues discussed above and below, but it will not be easy for the nest few days. Plus, I'm kind of far from my books right now. I'm pretty sure the issue of Metzinger as an outspoken pacifist was mentioned in Christopher Green, Cubism and its Enemies, Modern Movements and Reaction in French Art, 1916–1928, Yale University Press, New Haven and London, 1987 (to be confirmed). I had seen the lot notes in the Christie's link and a similar phrase (that he "loathed the military") is mentioned in The Art of JAMA: Covers and Essays from The Journal of the American Medical Association, Volume 3, M. Therese Southgate, Oxford University Press, Mar 17, 2011, first published in JAMA, 26 May 1993. Though it may have been mentioned in Daniel Robbins, Joann Moser, Jean Metzinger in Retrospect, The University of Iowa Museum of Art, J. Paul Getty Trust, University of Washington Press 1985. That too I will confirm shortly. The irony and family association (mentioned in the article, and below) is in part from the JAMA article. In any case, there are modifications that need to be made, and will be made, to the Soldier at a Game of Chess article. Coldcreation (talk) 22:33, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Nicolas Metzinger

• His life data do not really change things, imo, - so I don't see why an "unreliable source" providing some isn't better than no information. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:26, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

• In this case I would say no information would be better, actually - we shouldn't be stating that his family connections are "ironic", and we don't have sourcing connecting who his family was to either his views on war or this painting in particular. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:38, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

• I tried to drop the life data and the irony, - readers who don't see the irony without being pointed out can't be helped. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:51, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

24 regiment losses

• The severe losses of the 24 regiment on 25 May 1915 are mentioned in the linked French article. AGF? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:26, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

• The issue there is not the fact of the severe losses, but the earlier part of that sentence - whether Metzinger was or was not part of the regiment and did or did not see them. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:38, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

• Perhaps I have a language problem, to me the earlier part says "It is unclear whether or not Metzinger formed part of the 24th regiment", - true, no? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:46, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

• "It is unclear whether or not Metzinger formed part of the 24th regiment, but he certainly would have seen wounded soldiers from the 24th" - how do we know this? Are there sources saying it's unclear but he would have seen them either way? The source given does not mention him so we can't tell from it a) whether it is known whether or not he was in the regiment, or b) whether he would have seen wounded soldiers. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:52, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

• Late here, I'm tired, but my logic tells me that we don't need a source for that it is UNCLEAR if he was part of 24. IF he was he would have seen what is reported in French. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:04, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

X-ray composite image

The X-ray composite based on Jean Metzinger's Soldier at a Game of Chess is a derivative work, according to the U.S. Copyright Act of 1976, Section 101, based upon a pre-existing art reproduction, transformed, and adapted, which, as a whole, represents the original work of authorship signed J. Metzinger (lower right). This derivative work, composed by Adam Schwertner, Stephen Thomas, and Brian Callender, is subject to the same copyright laws as the original work of art. Coldcreation (talk) 05:57, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

No, that's not correct: the copyright status of a derivative work with elements of originality, as in this case, is dependent on both the copyright of the original work and the copyright of the author(s) of the derived work. From WP:CFAQ#Derivative works: "Taking a work in the public domain and modifying it in a significant way creates a new copyright on the resulting work". It would only have the same copyright status as the original if the changes were insignificant and unoriginal - for example, simply scanning or photographing the original 2D work does not create a new copyright under US law. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:36, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

From the link above: A derivative work is something that is "based on or derived from" another work. The X-ray composite is a derivative work "based on and derived from" the work of Metzinger. The overall composition is identical. The chessboard, the chess pieces, the background structure, the soldier's shadow, and the the artists signature are identical to the original work of art. The authors of the composite themselves (along with the Smart Museum of Art and the University of Chicago), have acknowledged that this image is "based on" Metzinger's painting. In cases such as those you refer to, the new work must be significantly different from the original in order for a new copyright to apply. In the case under study here, all that was modified was the soldier, i.e., X-ray images were superimposed on top of certain parts of the original work. The X-ray composite image is most certainly a derivative work based on Soldier at a Game of Chess. Coldcreation (talk) 11:59, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

We've already agreed that it's a derivative work, but it has sufficient originality from the original to qualify for a new copyright on top of the original. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:12, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. Perhaps other editors will voice their opinions either way: Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2015 May 15. Coldcreation (talk) 12:36, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

c. 1915-1916 and JAMA

In accord with the Smart Museum of Art, University of Chicago, Soldier at a Game of Chess was painted c. 1915-1916. Another way of writing this date is c. 1915-16. This is standard practice in the field of art. What is not standard practice is to write 1915 or 1916. One of the reasons for not writing dates as such is that often artists begin a painting in October, November of December, and continue working on the painting into the following year (e.g., January, February, etc.). Metzinger's work may very well have begun in 1915, and may have been finished in 1916. For this reason, it is incorrect to write 1915 or 1916. For this reason Alakzi, your revert has to be undone for a second time. Your revert regarding the quote by Therese Southgate is also uncalled for. You claim the quote has nothing to do with the painting. That is obviously incorrect. It has everything to do with the painting. Metzinger, the artist, was a medical orderly in the war at the time (1915), medicine, like art, was a calling for him, just as stated in the quote. Before becoming an artist he (or his mother) had ambitions of becoming a medical doctor. This is likely one of the reasons this painting was chosen to be reproduce on the cover of the journal JAMA, and later on the cover JAMA III. Furthermore, this quote relates to the exhibition Imaging/Imagining, where once again, Metzinger's painting was associated, not just with art, or war, but with the practice of medicine. Coldcreation (talk) 18:25, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I know that painters can work on a painting for longer than a day; however, though all of the sources I've looked at claim that it was painted during his deployment, they can't agree on whether that was in 1915 or 1916. "Circa" means approximately - nobody's said that it might've been painted earlier than 1915 or later than 1916. A date range without "c." would imply that it took him all of two years to paint it. It has everything to do with the painting ... That connection is not stated. We'd be doing a disservice to our readers to be framing the text in a context that may or may not have been intended. Alakzi (talk) 18:34, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Coldcreation regarding the date. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:36, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

And I tend to agree with Alakzi at least on the second issue (I have no strong opinion on the date). The quote has to do with Southgate's philosophy, not Metzinger or his painting; speculating that he would agree with it or that this may have influenced her choice of his work is not appropriate without sourcing. This is another example of this article's tendency towards original research. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:06, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

This is a talk page, not an article. Coldcreation (talk) 19:37, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Yep, and you've restored the quote to the article - it shouldn't be there unless you can include and source further details linking it to this particular work, and that doesn't appear to be possible. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:51, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

From Jean Metzinger: Following the early death of his father, Eugène François Metzinger, Jean pursued interests in mathematics, music and painting, though his mother, a music professor by the name of Eugénie Louise Argoud, had ambitions of his becoming a medical doctor. (Source: Jean Metzinger, 1883-1956: exposition, Nantes, École des beaux-arts, Atelier sur l'herbe, 4 au 26 janvier 1985). I will find more on this topic and add the relevant details, if any, to the article. Coldcreation (talk) 20:10, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't think you're quite understanding me: even with sourcing that he had an interest in medicine, combining those sorts of details with this quote in this context constitutes synthesis. We would want to see something connecting Southgate's philosophy more directly with this particular work and/or the decision to use it. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:42, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Thus the if any above. Let's be perfectly clear: By virtue of the fact that this very painting by Metzinger was chosen for the cover of JAMA (and subsequently for the cover of JAMA III), the philosophy of those who chose it is essential to the article, as it helps the reader understand the impetus that lurks behind such a decision making process: just as it would had the painting been included in an exhibition. Coldcreation (talk) 21:09, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

That is true if and only if you can find a source linking that particular philosophy to the selection of this particular image. Without that, we don't know the impetus behind the decision - it may be the philosophy, or it may be something else entirely - and should not try to draw implications. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:17, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Images

Some of the images in this article should be removed. Specifically:

1. The comparison between this work, Portrait of Josette Gris, and Seated Woman. The cited source does not include this comparison, and as far as I've been able to tell, no other source directly compares these images. Thus, this comparison should be removed as original research.
2. At least the second and preferably both of the JAMA images. At the moment, these images serve only to demonstrate that the work appeared on the cover, a detail that can adequately be conveyed by text alone. Thus, we cannot justify including a non-free image for that purpose.
3. The X-ray composite. We've finally agreed, after the PUF discussion linked above, that this image is non-free. The fair-use rationale it now includes has several errors (eg. "to illustrate an article on the person") and does not, in combination with the accompanying text, adequately fulfill the requirements of the historic images tag.
4. Related images. The inclusion of this gallery is rather nebulous. The work that is the topic of this article is, as far as I can tell, not mentioned in the source cited for this section. It purports to be a gallery of images that are in some way related to Crystal Cubism, which is not the direct topic of this article, and correspondingly the images shown have a tenuous connection to this work. Further, some of the images shown are also not mentioned in the cited source, and are linked only by being by creators whose other works may or may not be linked in some way to Crystal Cubism. Finally, there is no clear criteria by which these particular images and not others that could be said to meet that very vague definition of "relatedness" were selected for inclusion. Because of all these reasons, this gallery provides little value to this article, and does not meet WP:IG. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:51, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Why not correct the factual errors? I think one of the JAMA images adds impact. I'd agree that the gallery should be trimmed. I'm genuinely surprised there'e no source to be found for the comparison with 'Portrait of Josette Gris and Seated Woman. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:30, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Because correcting said errors would not be sufficient to justify the inclusion of the image. I did look for such a source and did not find one - if you happen to know of any, by all means present it. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:50, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

The images should remain in this article. Specifically:
1. Metzinger-Gris comparison: Compiling associated facts from independent sources is essential to writing encyclopedic content. The comparison of conflicting facts and opinion is not original research, nor is pitting conflicting facts and opinion one against the other, provided the characterization of the conflict is reliably sourced. In this case, readers are left to draw their own conclusions after seeing related facts juxtaposed. In Green 1987, on the topic of Crystal Cubism, the author compares the work of Gris and Metzinger on numerous occasions. This is not only because the two exchanged correspondence during the war, or because the two were closely associated (close friends) once Metzinger was demobilized, or because they both signed contracts with the same gallery (Rosenberg's l'Effort Moderne) in 1916, it is because the works of these two artists, more so than any other combination (e.g., Rivera - Severini, or Herbin - Gleizes) painted in a style which is almost identical. Just as the works of Braque and Picasso between 1910 and 1912 are practically indistinguishable, many of the works by Gris and Metzinger are practically indistinguishable between 1915 and 1918. Highlighting the fact the Green does not explicitly compare Soldier at a Game of Chess with Gris' Portrait of Josette Gris, and Seated Woman, and thus should be removed from the article, is akin to a fallacy of selective attention: pointing to an individual painting, while ignoring a significant portion of related paintings. Artists often painted in series (works that relate to one another), rather than producing one work (one-of-a-kind) and moving on to another that is considerably different. Soldier at a Game of Chess is a painting that forms part of a series of works (one of the first in the series). So too are the works of Gris part of a series. The comparison here serves the reader in that it exemplifies not only the similarities between the work of Gris and Metzinger, but, too, the differences (without drawing conclusions). Removing the 3-image composite would provide a disservice to the reader. Coldcreation (talk) 05:51, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

You are drawing a direct comparison between three works that no source does - that is original research, and is very different from saying more generally that Metzinger's total body of work has similarities to Gris'. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:16, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Coldcreation, you claim that the comparison is supported by Green and by the letter to Gleizes. This work is, as far as I can tell, not mentioned in the cited Green book at all (please provide quotes and/or specific page numbers if you believe it is), and the letter states only that Metzinger believed his perspective was not like Gris'. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:43, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

The comparison between the works by both Metzinger and Gris executed during the First World War are made by most (if not all) art historians specialized in Cubism, in addition to the artists themselves. There are not only similarities, but differences as well; differences not only in color, composition and subject matter, but in the theoretical stances (Metzinger's letters to Gleizes highlight the theoretical divide). These differences, too, are pointed out by a multitude of historians. If Green specifically mentions Soldier at a Game of Chess or not, it is entirely irrelevant to the discussion. The fact that Green and others relate these artists war-time works to one another is sufficient enough reason to discuss the topic (of both similarities and differences between these artists war-time works) within an encyclopedic article on specific paintings of the period (the Crystal Cubist period in this case). Having said that, I will reword the body of text in more general fashion and include quotes by Green and others, citations and page numbers, to the section in question. This should remove any hint of original research within the context of comparisons (i.e., similarities and differences). Coldcreation (talk) 20:58, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

"If Green specifically mentions Soldier at a Game of Chess or not, it is entirely irrelevant to the discussion"? No, it's not, given that you claimed the text and image comparison you restored is supported by that source. There is a significant difference between general comparisons between the oeuvres of Metzinger and Gris - which should be dealt with in articles other than this one - and a specific comparison of these three particular works. If you can source the latter, we can include it; if you cannot, we should not. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:42, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

This is not a general comparisons between the oeuvres of Metzinger and Gris. It is a specific comparison between war-time works of the two artists. This article is not just about a painting, its technique and composition isolated within the bounds of its rectangular frame. It is about a painting that was created within a specific context, a particular timeframe, a relatively restrained milieu, by an artist whose entourage influenced and, especially, was influenced by a divers grouping of factors. Metzinger's milieu at the time included his close friend Juan Gris. Both artists (with Lipchitz and others), exchanged ideas and worked together in Paris and Beaulieu-lès-Loches. Excluding the comparison of their works in this article would be to turn a blind eye on established historical facts: notably, that despite theoretical or conceptual differences, the works by these artists (and practically all those who exhibited at L'Effort moderne) are strikingly similar. The new aesthetic unity associated with the underlying geometric structure of the oeuvres created by these artists is what would lead to the appellation Crystal Cubism. Metzinger and Gris (more so than others) were at the forefront, leaders of this second phase of Cubism (according to Green, Brooke, and especially according to Gleizes), precisely with works such as Soldier at a Game of Chess (but not exclusively). For these reasons, specific comparisons of works created by Metzinger and Gris are essential to the article. Coldcreation (talk) 03:30, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

"This is not a general comparisons between the oeuvres of Metzinger and Gris. It is a specific comparison between war-time works of the two artists" - yes, which is precisely why this is a problem, because we don't have the sourcing to support the specific comparison being made. Stating that their works generally are similar is simply not the same thing. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:04, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

We have the sourcing to support the specific comparison between the war-time work of Metzinger and Gris during this very specific period. Coldcreation (talk) 13:17, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Which is why we still include that after my edit, but not the even more specific comparison for which we do not have sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:19, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

We have sourcing: Moser, Green, Brooke, and Gleizes. If you would like, I can find more. Until then, please refrain from engaging in an edit war. Coldcreation (talk) 13:31, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

And again, that sourcing supports a comparison between the general war-time work (which is why I left that), but not the specific comparison of these three particular paintings. If you have sourcing that compares these three particular paintings (as opposed to something more general), please present it; if not, please refrain from restoring original research unsupported by sources. See WP:BURDEN. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:36, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

The burden to demonstrate verifiability is satisfied. The sources provided in the article directly support the comparison between wartime work of Metzinger, Gris (along with Lipchitz), specifically works dating between 1915 and 1917 (precisely the period these works were created), and more generally, between 1915 and 1920. Showing three works (painted between c.1915 and 1917) next to one another (i.e., the multiple image you've repeatedly removed) is perfectly in line with statements made in all of the sources presented in that section of the article. Coldcreation (talk) 13:58, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

No source you have presented compares these three works. Do you have any source that does? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:30, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

In Green, 1987, Chapter 2, section Gris, Lipchitz and Metzinger: crystal Cubism (pp. 25-47), the painting by Gris, titled Portrait of Josette Gris, is reproduced in a full page black and white plate (p. 27). This is the chapter that compares the wartime work of Gris and Metzinger. Gris' Seated Woman is mentioned in another source: Christopher Green, Christian Derouet, Karin von Maur, Whitechapel Art Gallery, Juan Gris: Whitechapel Art Gallery, London, 18 September -29 November 1992: Staatsgalerie Stuttgart, 18 December 1992 - 14 February 1993: Rijksmuseum Kröller-Müller, Otterlo, 6 March - 2 May 1993, Yale University Press, 1992, pp. 6, 22-60. Your insistence that a source must mention, precisely, Soldier at a Game of Chess, within the context of a comparison between the wartime works of these artists is unwarranted. Soldier at a Game of Chess is obviously a wartime work. Coldcreation (talk) 14:48, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

So, based on that sourcing, we say "Comparisons have been made between war-time works of Metzinger and Juan Gris". To do what you suggest would seem a textbook example of WP:SYNTH - wartime works generally have been compared + this is a wartime work != these specific works should be compared. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:57, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Not at all. There is no implication or conclusion in the article not explicitly stated by any of the sources. There are no conclusions drawn by the synthesis of parts of one source. All the reliable sources say more or less the same thing stated in the article. There is no synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion (hence no original research). There is only an excessively strict interpretation of the SYNTH policy on your part. Coldcreation (talk) 17:34, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

You present a direct comparison of works that are not directly compared by any source thus far presented. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:55, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

The article presents wartime works by Metzinger and Gris. Comparisons of their work from this period are made by all of the sources presented. Your claim of SYNTH is unwarranted. Please stop. Coldcreation (talk) 18:44, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

We've already established that the wartime oeuvres of the two are generally compared, and thus that the statement to that effect can be justified. However, that does not justify the direct comparison of these specific works, particularly when there is already another comparison between works by Metzinger and Gris (the checker/chessboards). Could you please explain why you feel it is necessary to include this particular comparison? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:32, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

The purpose of the multiple image (showing wartime works by Metzinger and Gris) is to increase readers' understanding of an important aspect of the article's subject matter, by directly depicting concepts described in the article. Excluding a visual comparison with accompanying text would omit a major facet of the topic: the visual criteria relating similarities between various wartime works of Gris and Metzinger, and the concise prose related to the milieu in which Metzinger was situated when this work was created. The multiple image represents the viewpoints of major art historians fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each work. These images are relevant to the topic in that they reflect the content of the sources, i.e., inline citations lead to sources which agree with what the article says and shows. Including these images and corresponding text neglects no major facts or details of the subject in context. Coldcreation (talk) 03:40, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

We already have a comparison of wartime works of Metzinger and Gris - the checker/chessboard images that follow this set. Why another, and why this particular set? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:10, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

The chessboard images are details of paintings that serve to show not just the stylistic similarities (or differences) between the wartime work of these artists but the similarities in the choice of subject-matter. The multiple image that shows three entire paintings is essential to the article because the underlying geometric structure of the works can be seen in full. It is precisely this geometric armature (rooted in the abstract) that, according the multiple sources, relates the wartime work of Gris and Metzinger (in addition to subject-matter). As mentioned above, art historian Christopher Green singled out these works as exemplary of wartime Crystal Cubism (See Green 1987, Chapter 2, Gris, Lipchitz and Metzinger: Crystal Cubism, pp. 25-47). For this reason, these works are reproduced in the article about one of Metzinger's wartime Crystal Cubist works (inline with the sources description of the works from this period). Coldcreation (talk) 12:23, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Except of course that Green did not single out this work as exemplary of anything. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:05, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Green and others single out the works of Metzinger created during the same period (1915-1917) as exemplary of Crystal Cubism. Coldcreation (talk) 16:12, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, we've established that. You could do an equivalent comparative image set in the articles for those works. But works created during the same period are not the same works. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:49, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

You would have been correct had the multiple image shown works of Picasso during the same period, within which he vacillated between classicism and Cubism. Metzinger and Gris did not do so until after the war. Therefore, works created during the same period are the same works (i.e., they constitute a concise series of wartime works dubbed Crystal Cubism, and are thus comparable).

Resolved

Coldcreation (talk) 08:45, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

If "works created during the same period are the same works" is the argument on which inclusion is based, it won't be "resolved" until the comparison is removed. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:09, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

That was your wording. Now mine, in sum: These works are shown next to each other (multiple image) because they are examples of wartime works created within close to a year of each other, by two artists who, according to multiple sources, were friends, had exhibited together since 1912 (Salon des Indépendants, followed by the Salon de la Section d'Or), who exchanged conceptual ideas since, and continued to do so during the war (not always agreeing theoretically), who's works are closely related aesthetically within not just the timeframe under review, but between the entire period ranging from 1912 to 1920, and who continued to exhibit at the same gallery (Galerie de l'Effort Moderne) both together in group shows and individually. Their works, at the time, were perceived as closely related, by critics, the general public and by fellow artists, and continue to be perceived as closely related (particularly those of the wartime Crystal Cubist phase) by major art historians to date. The issue appears to be resolved, despite your insistence that it is not. Coldcreation (talk) 13:35, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

The argument seems to be that, even if an encyclopaedia of art, edited by a respected authority in the field, groups the works of Gris and Metzinger together for the purposes of comparison, that isn't sufficient justification for them to be presented together here for purposes of comparison, regardless of whether or not they we works were contemporaneous. Rather any specific comparison, between specific works, needs to have been explicitly performed by that expert. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:56, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

The wartime works by Gris and Metzinger are included in this article to illustrate, visually, the viewpoints of major art historians. These images, together with the body of text, are relevant to the topic, as they reflect the content of the sources. There is agreement with what the article says and shows. That in itself is more than sufficient justification for the inclusion of the multiple image. The belief that these three specific works should be compared by a specialist in the field prior to their reproduction here is uncalled-for, non-imperative. Any number of works produced by these artists during this period would be sufficiently illustrative of the parallels between them (not just the parallel that associates the underlying geometric armature of the works, but the parallel that associates the artists themselves). The images along with the text constitute neither WP:SYNTH on the part of Wikipedia, nor wp:OR. Au contraire, they constitute a neutral point of view, WP:NPOV, representing fairly, proportionately, and without bias, the views published by the best and most reputable authoritative sources available on the topic. I rest my case. Coldcreation (talk) 15:44, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

The general point of parallels between these artists in this period is better treated in a different article. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:45, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

The specific parallels between Gris and Metzinger in this period are better treated right here. Coldcreation (talk) 16:53, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Not without sourcing specific to this work. This article isn't about the artists or the period generally. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:58, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

This article is about a painting of a specific period and the context within which the artist was immersed when it was created. Coldcreation (talk) 17:03, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I tend to agree. I find the idea of having a separate article on "A comparison between Gris and Metzinger 1912-1920" quite a strange one. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:35, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

No one is proposing such an article - Jean Metzinger and Crystal Cubism already exist as possibilities, and there are probably others. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:03, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Then perhaps Crystal Cubism would be a better place. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:10, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

2. JAMA images: That Metzinger's painting was reproduced in JAMA is in itself remarkable, considering the fact that his work had been for a long time eclipsed by the work of Braque and Picasso (the latter is even mentioned in the journal). The fact that Metzinger's painting was chosen for the cover of The Art of JAMA III, amongst a multitude of other works that could have instead been chosen (e.g., Turner, Mondrian, Picasso, Munch), is also remarkable, as this image was favored by JAMA to provide the service of identifying and promoting the book both at the bookstore and online; thus exemplifying the importance of the work. Images need to be seen, not just discussed. For these reasons and others, the use of a non-free image is beneficial to JAMA, Wikipedia, and the reader. Coldcreation (talk) 06:13, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, yes "Images need to be seen, not just discussed" - but that's why we've got the article. I can see Nikkimaria's point - if we want to see the image we can just look to the top of the page? It's not as if we are discussing the quality of reproduction on the journal or book cover? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:51, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Good point, but it's interesting, more impacting, more direct, to see the actual painting reproduced in the journal, and on the cover of JAMA III, rather than just imagine it, or scroll up to the top of the page. This is perfectly acceptable vis a vis Wikipedia policy on non-free book covers, as well as fair use magazine covers or academic journal covers. I see no viable reason not to show both images. They are for the benefit of everyone. Coldcreation (talk) 10:50, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I must say I do tend to agree with you, although personally one or the other would be enough for me. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:54, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Our policy on non-free images requires that we a) minimize the use of non-free images, b) and use non-free media only if its absence would be detrimental to reader understanding. This usage meets neither requirement: it may be "interesting" to have both, but it's certainly not essential. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:16, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

They certainly improved my understanding. But then I'm quite dim. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:35, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

3. X-ray composite: The fair use rational has now been modified, ..."to illustrate an article on the painting in question". This image is of historical importance. Never before, to the best of my knowledge, has such a program been undertaken and used in comparison with an original painting, or exhibited next to a work upon which it is based in a museum. The image is used solely for educational purposes, and is necessary for cultural and historical purposes. While I concede that a free equivalent could reasonably be obtained or created to replace this media, it is much more valuable to show the version produced by medical doctors exhibited in the museum next to the actual painting. Coldcreation (talk) 06:27, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Since the exhibition was only last year, we have little on which to base a conclusion of "historical importance" - the article currently includes nothing to suggest that. As with point 2, the image is interesting but not necessary. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:16, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

As mentioned above, a free equivalent could reasonably be obtained or created to replace this media.  Done. Coldcreation (talk) 16:31, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Per discussion at WP:MCQ, that is not a viable option. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:49, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

It certainly is a viable option, per ongoing discussion at WP:MCQ. Coldcreation (talk) 17:06, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

That opinion has thus far not been shared. Can you explain how we reconcile "This image is of historical and cultural importance" with the notion that it can readily be replaced by a self-produced derivative? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:08, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Readily? Without hesitation and willingly for sure, but not with ease or without difficulty. It is not a matter of opinion. And your question is an unwarranted assumption fallacy, based on a premise (implicit or explicit) that is false. While it is true that the original composite is of of historical and cultural importance (based on the fact that it was exhibited at the Smart Museum of Art and constructed upon a 1915-16 painting, too, of historical significance), your implied notion (that if it were of historical importance, it could not be readily replaced by a self-produced derivative) does not apply in the given context. Example: The Mona Lisa is of historical and cultural importance, yet numerous self-produced derivatives and copies have been 'readily' made of it (e.g., L.H.O.O.Q. and Self Portrait as Mona Lisa).

Resolved

Coldcreation (talk) 04:38, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Those derivatives have cultural value of their own, but they don't replace the original. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:13, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Now that we're back to the non-free image, we're back to the image failing NFCC. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:58, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

4. Related images: As mentioned in the article, the style known as Crystal Cubism was ubiquitous to almost all of the artists under contract with Léonce Rosenberg—including Metzinger, Juan Gris, Jacques Lipchitz, Henry Laurens, Auguste Herbin, Joseph Csaky and Gino Severini—leading to the descriptive term. Green (1987) also includes Braque, Picasso, Blanchard, Rivera, Marcoussis, Gleizes, Archipenko in his analysis of the style. By showing works of the period by these various artists (just as does Green), the reader can compare the similarities and differences between each. Although, as suggested by Martinevans123, the gallery could be trimmed. It could include only one work by each artist, rather than one or two. Coldcreation (talk) 07:21, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

The obvious answer is to have a new article on Crystal Cubism, which includes a gallery of images that a WP:RS says are examples of the style. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:01, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm in the process of putting together an article on Crystal Cubism. Until then, this gallery is the best place to house these images. I will gladly move some of them once the other article is up and running. Coldcreation (talk) 10:50, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

That sounds like a very fair compromise. Look forward to seeing it. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:52, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

If and when such an article is created, the gallery can be retrieved from the edit history - but I would hope even that article would have a more focused approach to images than is demonstrated here, with sourcing to support each image as proposed by Martinevans123. But a general Crystal Cubism gallery, even a more focused one, is misplaced here. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:16, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: Quite frankly, I would much rather be spending my time addressing the issues of close paraphrasing already discussed, on the writing of more articles (already underway) and improving the general content at Wikipedia than having to defend the inclusion of images in this article. This repeated intervention by Nikkimaria, while valuable to a certain extent, is beginning to take on the appearance of stalking or at the very least WP:HARASS. Coldcreation (talk) 07:21, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Quite frankly, I would also rather be spending my time elsewhere - but this discussion, if fruitful, should improve the general content and the policy adherence of this article and others. No harassment is present or intended, so I apologize if you feel otherwise, but there are significant problems with your approach here and more generally - including but not limited to concerns with both text and image copyright as well as original research. I hope we can work collaboratively in ensuring that these problems do not persist. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:16, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I'm fairly confident that all of these issues will be worked out for the better. Before continuing with this discussion page, or the main article, I will now focus on the issue of cleaning up the problem of close paraphrasing in various articles. Coldcreation (talk) 15:38, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Soldier at a Game of Chess. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150418185838/http://iagoweb.com/wiki/game-genres to http://iagoweb.com/wiki/game-genres

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:04, 26 February 2016 (UTC)