Talk:Stuckism in the United States

Pittsburgh Weekly

There is/was no Pittsburgh Weekly. The secondary document used in this article as a citation is inaccurate. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 06:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From a google search the correct title appears to be "In Pittsburgh Weekly",[1] an "alternative" paper which ceased operations in 2001, when it was bought by City Paper.[2] Tyrenius 12:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But that's not what the source says. We probably should not be using this PR document as a source for this. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 21:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The title's been abbreviated. I don't think that disqualifies it, any more than "Daily Telegraph" when the full title is "The Daily Telegraph". WP:CITE allows for a web page which mentions another source:

It is improper to copy a citation from an intermediate source without making clear that you saw only that intermediate source. For example, you might find some information on a web page which says it comes from a certain book. Unless you look at the book yourself to check that the information is there, your reference is really the web page, which is what you must cite. The credibility of your article rests on the credibility of the web page, as well as the book, and your article must make that clear. [3]

In the current case, it is made clear that it's not taken directly from the paper, as the link goes to the web site. The issue then is the reliability or otherwise of the site, which I have found to be very well researched and referenced with links that stand up. Some examples:[4][5] (those two pages document their campaign which led to the Tate gallery being found by the Charity Commission to have acted illegally) [6][7] and even negative coverage.[8][9] As you can see the group gets a large amount of press coverage. I find the site credible, so I don't have a problem with the reference in question. However, if you do still have reservations, then maybe you could find a way to check it out, as it's in your home town. There must be copies of the paper in a library or the City Paper archives. It's stated to be the first mention of the Stuckist movement in America, so wiki should record this. The references in question are:

(In) Pittsburgh Weekly (1 November 2000) "The new word in art is Stuckism. A Stuckist paints their life, mind and soul with no pretensions and no excuses." Susan Constanse show ‘Personal Thunderstorms’ (Pittsburgh Stuckists).

Pittsburgh City Paper (22 November 2000) "the international anti-movement Stuckism. It sticks up for authenticity and spirituality found in non-professional art against the conceptual star system" Susan Constanse show (Pittsburgh Stuckists).

Characterising the origin as a "PR document" gives a misleading impression of puff, whereas it is in fact just a list of press mentions. I've just noticed that one of the quotes is from the City Paper. Tyrenius 06:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The name of the publication that is quoted is INPGH weekly, which stopped publication a few years ago. The back issues of the weekly are archived at the main branch of the Carnegie Libary of Pittsburgh. In addition, a copy of the specific review is archived with my personal papers.--Susanlc 20:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

INPGH/In Pittsburgh Weekly on waybackmachine

INPGH results on waybackmachine.[10] Unfortunately the issue we're looking for doesn't seem to have been archived, but go to:
Back issues.[11]. Click "11.15.00 - 11.21.00: An Uncanny X-Mas Guide" to get:
Review of Susan Constanse show "Personal Thunderstorms" and Stuckism (2nd review on the page).[12]

Tyrenius 03:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've just received an email reply from an ex journalist on the paper:

As for the name: As I recall, it was first called In Pittsburgh Newsweekly, but later just In Pittsburgh Weekly. At the time you're talking about, (2000) it would have been In Pittsburgh Weekly.

Tyrenius 04:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all, I've been working here and there on some Stuckist-related pages (primarily A. Sea Herndon & The American Stuckist Manifesto & the backlash/opposition to him (specifically of interest: the distinction between politics vs. "spirituality" in Stuckism), both of which I am concurrently researching in my day job). A quick question or point for correction: chronologically Herndon's manifesto (2006) & the L.A. Stuckists response (2006) are not responded to (that I know of) by ASH until 2010-which is fine, but in reading the whole article, the next paragraph is dated 2009, & I feel like maybe I've jumped in midstream/disrupted the flow? Questions, comments, corrections appreciated. Arthistorian1999 (talk) 02:57, 12 April 2010 (UTC)Arthistorian1999[reply]