Jump to content

Talk:War artist

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fair use rationale for Image:WPholding at kap-yong 72.jpg

[edit]

Image:WPholding at kap-yong 72.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 07:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New file File:Maurice William Greiffenhagen by Maurice William Greiffenhagen.jpg

[edit]

Recently the file File:Maurice William Greiffenhagen by Maurice William Greiffenhagen.jpg (right) was uploaded and it appears to be relevant to this article and not currently used by it. If you're interested and think it would be a useful addition, please feel free to include it. It's a selfportrait. Dcoetzee 07:02, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute definition of war artist

[edit]

The current introduction runs as follows:

A war artist, also known as a combat artist, captures the experience of war in an artistic manner whilst based in the battlefield. Unlike war poets, a war artist is almost always acting in an official capacity.

On what is this based? I have an interest in POW art and many such works are of importance but were created in captivity in a voluntary, or only semi-official, capacity eg soldiers who happened to be artists would record POW life after capture. Sometimes this would be on a self-appointed basis, otherwise it would be on the instruction of a senior officer. Such works have been: used in war crime trials; placed in museums (such as the Imperial War Museum); subsequently sold for considerable sums (such as the works of Jack Bridger Chalker).

I would welcome input before editing the introduction. Tomintoul (talk) 14:33, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We have a definition here of "War Art":
  • (1) by artists officially commissioned either to spend varying periods of wartime under fire or to be present at nearly every kind of military activity, in order to record them; or
  • (2) by servicemen-artists responding to powerful inner urges to depict direct war experience; or
  • (3) by sensitive onlookers; or
  • (4) by a combination of all of these.
Searching Google Books[1] brings up the same thing, War Art is art by people involved in war in some manner. I am also wondering if this article should be moved to "War Art", articles should be about the thing or the person? Ohioartdude2 (talk) 23:42, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

There are many artists here who are unreferenced, let alone having their own entry. Should they be deleted?Tomintoul (talk) 09:53, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be some reference at the top of the sections but, yeah, lists should probably be list existent articles, and there is Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lists). I have seen discussions about too many red links and this may be considered borderline. I would tend toward leaving them so someone can flesh them out or delete them, depending on what refs exist. Ohioartdude2 (talk) 16:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with the redlinks is that these are all supposed to be "famous" war artists - at a minimum, artists should be sufficiently notable to have their own Wikipedia article to qualify. If redlinks are eliminated, it is obviously without prejudice for someone to create an article later on and to re-insert the artist's name on this list. I would suggest that they ought to be deleted, as otherwise the section runs afoul of WP:V and WP:OR. As an added point, I would reword the title to "Notable war artists" (which more accurately describes what is intended than the word "famous"). --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:46, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What about moving the red links to the talk page? Decision-making about any one of the red links might benefit from further discussion? Compare, for example,
Could a strategy like this prove helpful in improving the quality and scope of this article? --Tenmei (talk) 03:40, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree: move all redlinks to talk page pending proof of notability.Tomintoul (talk) 10:51, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dynamic lists

[edit]

It seems OTT to have a dynamic list note under each sub heading: surely one note at the top would suffice?? Tomintoul (talk) 10:57, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In response to this comment, all dynamic list templates were removed. However, today I added templates in the American, Australian, British and Canadian sections. Are they not necessary? unhelpful? --Tenmei (talk) 21:07, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Status: notability?

[edit]

Does it make sense to limit new additions to this list? Is it appropriate at this stage of the article's development to initiate a standard limiting names on this select list to

(a) those who already have Wikipedia articles
and
(b) those who are notable for something other than having depicted war in art -- see, e.g., US Navy Cross edit history?

In a context informed by practices which seem to have worked out well at Navy Cross, all new additions who aren't already featured in an article could be re-redirected to this talk page section with the following edit history explanation:

redlink/artist name must be known for something other than depicting war -- see "Status: Notability" on talk page

The redlinks of those whose names were added, but who do not have an article yet are listed below:

Notable American war artists

[edit]
This is a dynamic list and may never be able to satisfy particular standards for completeness. You can help by adding missing items with reliable sources.
Notes
  1. ^ US Public Broadcasting Service (PBS). They Drew Fire: Combat Artists of World War II, Franklin Boggs. 1st broadcast, May 2000.
  2. ^ PBS. They Drew Fire, Manuel Bromberg.
  3. ^ PBS. They Drew Fire, Richard Gibney.
  4. ^ PBS. They Drew Fire, Robert Greenhalgh.
  5. ^ PBS. They Drew Fire, Edward Reep.
  6. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z Brown University Library, American war artists
  7. ^ Harrington, Peter, "The 1943 War Art Program," Army History, No. 55, Spring-Summer 2002, pp. 4-19.

Notable Australian war artists

[edit]
This is a dynamic list and may never be able to satisfy particular standards for completeness. You can help by adding missing items with reliable sources.
Notes
  1. ^ a b c Australian War Memorial (AWM): First World War, official artists
  2. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u AWM: Second World War, official artists
  3. ^ Australian Department of Defence; 5 March 2011
  4. ^ a b c d e AWM: Conflicts 1945 to today, official artists
  5. ^ Canadian War Museum (CWM), Herbert Badham
  6. ^ CWM, Charles Bush
  7. ^ CWM, Colin Colahan
  8. ^ CWM, Sybil Craig
  9. ^ CWM, Lyndon Dadswell
  10. ^ CWM, Sheila Hawkins
  11. ^ CWM, Francis Lymburner
  12. ^ CWM, Eric Thake

Notable British war artists

[edit]
This is a dynamic list and may never be able to satisfy particular standards for completeness. You can help by adding missing items with reliable sources.
Notes
  1. ^ Canadian War Museum (CWM), Paul Bullard
  2. ^ CWM, Leslie Cole
  3. ^ Harrison, David. "War artist Arabella Dorman paints Iraq," Telegraph (London). May 2, 2009.
  4. ^ CWM, Anthony Gross
  5. ^ a b c British Ministry of Defence (MOD), War artists
  6. ^ CWM, Elsie Hewland
  7. ^ a b MOD, Battles
  8. ^ CWM, Cedric Kennedy
  9. ^ CWM, Edwin La Dell
  10. ^ CWM, Rodrigo Moynihan
  11. ^ CWM, George Plante
  12. ^ CWM, Leonard Rosoman
  13. ^ CWM, A. R. Thomson
  14. ^ CWM, Matvyn Wright

Notable Canadian war artists

[edit]
This is a dynamic list and may never be able to satisfy particular standards for completeness. You can help by adding missing items with reliable sources.
Notes
  1. ^ Library and Archives Canada (LAC), Thomas Harold Beament
  2. ^ LAC, Bruno Jacob Bobak
  3. ^ CWM, Richard Eurich
  4. ^ LAC, Francis Michael Forster
  5. ^ CWM, Charles Goldhamer
  6. ^ LAC, Paul Alexander Goranson
  7. ^ CWM, Lawren Phillips Harris
  8. ^ CWM, E.J. Hughes; Art History Archive: E.J. Hughes
  9. ^ CWM, T. R. MacDonald
  10. ^ CWM, Moses Reinblatt

Notable French war artists

[edit]
This is a dynamic list and may never be able to satisfy particular standards for completeness. You can help by adding missing items with reliable sources.

Notable German war artists

[edit]
This is a dynamic list and may never be able to satisfy particular standards for completeness. You can help by adding missing items with reliable sources.
Notes
  1. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z aa ab WW2Talk, German Official War Artists, citing German War Art 1939-45 by William Yenne.
  2. ^ Archives New Zealand (Archives NZ), Wilhelm Wessel; Wessel bio notes

Notable New Zealand war artists

[edit]
This is a dynamic list and may never be able to satisfy particular standards for completeness. You can help by adding missing items with reliable sources.
Notes
  1. ^ Archives NZ, Edmund Butler
  2. ^ a b Archives NZ, What is war art
  3. ^ Archives NZ, Nugent Welch
  4. ^ Archives NZ, Jack Crippen
  5. ^ Archives NZ, Allan Barns-Graham
  6. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z aa ab ac ad ae af ag ah ai aj ak al am an ao ap aq ar as at au av aw ax ay az ba bb bc bd be bf bg bh bi bj bk bl bm bn bo bp bq br bs bt bu Archives NZ, War Art, Artist biographies
  7. ^ Gray, Anne. "Moore-Jones, Horace Millichamp 1867/1868? - 1922," Dictionary of New Zealand Biography.

Notable Russian war artists

[edit]
This is a dynamic list and may never be able to satisfy particular standards for completeness. You can help by adding missing items with reliable sources.

When any of the above-listed redlink names turn blue, we will know that transferring these names to the talk page was a worthwhile exercise. If none turn blue, then we will have learned that this was a waste of time and effort. --Tenmei (talk) 15:40, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not a waste because potentially unnotable references will have been removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomintoul (talk • contribs) 11:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Official war artists

[edit]

The introduction needs to be re-worked; and the focus of the article needs to be clarified. If we conceive of this article to be about artists who depict war as a subject, then Pablo Picasso's Guernica would be on-topic. In my view, "The Death of General Wolfe" by Benjamin West would be on-topic as well. In the context of this article, it is irrelevant that Picasso did not fight in Spain. Similarly, it doesn't matter that West's The Death of Wolfe and Emmanuel Leutze's Washington Crossing the Delaware are historically wrong in many ways. What matters is that the artists who created these icons of popular culture are depicting the topic of war. Is this uncritical POV appropriate for this article?

IMO, artists who depict the reality of war are only one element of a very complex topic. In other words, the 20th-century evolution of the artist-in-uniform is only a "modern" aspect of a more complicated story. The "official" war artists are valid subjects; and there is sufficient information to support related articles. The lists of official war artists and information about them could be developed more fully in these distinct articles. If something like this develops, then brief summary paragraphs with hyperlinks will need to remain in an overview article.

I'm not sure that these projected titles are best?

Sources: Canadian War Museum (CWM), "Australia, Britain and Canada in the Second World War," 2005. + Library and Archives Canada (LAC)
Note: Representative artists which are listed in the Canadian section of the article about the War artist and in Canadian official war artists were selected using two criteria: (1) post-nominals and (2) inclusion in an exhibit of war artists at the Art Gallery of Ontario (AGO), "Canvas of War: Masterpieces from the Canadian War Museum," October 2001-January 2002. This may not be the best rationale, but it was at least consistent with WP:V and WP:RS. --Tenmei (talk) 18:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sources: Imperial War Museum (IWM) + National Archives (UK)+ CWM, "Australia, Britain and Canada in the Second World War," 2005.
Note: Representative artists which are listed in the British section of the article about the War artist and in British official war artists were selected using two criteria: (1) post-nominals and (2) inclusion in MoD Art Collection, including MoD war artists and MoD battles. This may not be the best rationale, but it was at least consistent with WP:V and WP:RS. --Tenmei (talk) 18:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sources: Australian War Memorial (AWM) + CWM, "Australia, Britain and Canada in the Second World War," 2005.
Note: Representative artists which are listed in the British section of the article about the War artist and in Australian official war artists were selected using two criteria: (1) post-nominals and (2) inclusion in Brandon, Laura and Canadian War Museum. (2008). Art and War.. I used the Brandon book because her essay was among the three featured commentaries at CWM, "Australia, Britain and Canada in the Second World War," 2005. This may not be the best rationale, but it was at least consistent with WP:V and WP:RS. --Tenmei (talk) 18:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sources: Naval History & Heritage Command (NHHC) + U.S. Army Center of Military History (CMH)

This is not an urgent issue, but it does seem reasonable to invite comments and suggestions. --Tenmei (talk) 08:01, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Non-Canadian war artists?

[edit]

Question: In the unique context of this article, should we identify the Anglo-American Benjamin West as a "Canadian war artist" because he painted The Death of General Wolfe? Should we describe Augustus John and Alfred Bastien as "Non-Canadian war artists" despite the fact that their significant combat experience was with Canadian troops? --Tenmei (talk) 19:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Non-"war artists"?

[edit]

At present, the lists are divided by nationality and the sub-divided chronologically by historical war; however, this is not the only way in which this subject may be parsed. The following are some examples of other ways to examine this subject:

The wealth of reliable sources which are revealed by googling "war artist" is support for a strategy of creating sub-articles which focus exclusively on "official" war artists of the First World War, the Second Word War and subsequent "post-war" conflicts. These men and women traveled toward danger and combat armed primarily with a sketch-pad and secondarily with a gun. This overview article then becomes about the artists who are properly excluded from those new articles. For example,

This is a work in progress. --Tenmei (talk) 19:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article is currently two things. It is a topic "War artist", is a list article "List of war artists". The refs I see define "War Art", not "War Artist". This may be the crux of the problem with this article --- it has the wrong title. "War Art" can be definable by reference. Who is a "War Artist" is a variable overlapping and lengthy topic. The way to handle overlapping lists of material with slightly differing definitions is by WP:LIST, i.e. we should handle this through the list system, not a single article. What is probably needed is to move this article to "War art", that has a definable limited definition. "War art" should contain a "List of lists". Each list can be specific and overlapping under WP:LIST re: List of official war artists by country, List of civilian artists who have depicted war contemporaneously which may overlap with List of civilian battlefield artists, etc. Ohioartdude2 (talk) 17:27, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the definition of war artist!

[edit]

My view is that a true war artist is involved in the actual conflict in some way and present at the events they record. This is irrespective of whether they were appointed by the state (or others) or worked of their own volition. For example, I would not consider Picasso a war artist simply because he painted about war (no matter how great or famous the actual work).Tomintoul (talk) 08:01, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is also a problem with the term 'official', as inherent in this is an acceptance of the authority of the body that confers such status.Tomintoul (talk) 08:06, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we can go by personal definitions. There has to be some solid definition references or we don't even have an article, we just have WP:SYNTH (It could be a case for moving this entire article to List of artists who have depicted war - what it currently seems to be). Above at Talk:War artist#Dispute definition of war artist there is what seems to be one def. More are needed. Direct experience/reaction by contemporary soldiers or civilians seems to be the overall criteria. So Picasso would be a "War Artist" under that def, Leutze would fall more under the definition of a "history painter", he has no direct experience. I would also note that the current opening ref "About the Imperial War Museum"[2] does not mention or define "War artist" by name so is a bit of a stretch to support an intro def. Ohioartdude2 (talk) 15:50, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
BTW the headings "Notable XXXX war artists" is redundant. It should just have headings like "Australian war artists" etc. If they are in Wikipedia they are notable. If this article has solid references per: "War artist is a valid Wikipedia article topic" - then they should be listed here, they are not here because they are notable in some way. Ohioartdude2 (talk) 16:41, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes -- "notable" and "war artist" are redundant in each section heading; but it was a reasonable emphasis in an earlier stage of development. As you can see, the duplicative section headings are now more concise. --Tenmei (talk) 19:31, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notable vs Official War Artists

[edit]

There is a distinction between 'Official War Artist' and 'Notable War Artist', although I am not convinced the definition of the former is widely agreed.

However, this article is certainly about 'Notable' war artists and I am unclear why Tenmei has deleted some entries.Tomintoul (talk) 09:07, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please allow me to explain:
The selection standard may not be sufficiently nuanced. Perhaps this approach is only good enough as a first step? a move in a constructive direction?
This is only a plausible start. At present, each article has a hybrid text + list presentation. I would guess that both text and lists will expand further; and at some point, a number of list-only pages may be created, e.g., compare Russo-Japanese War#Military attachés and observers and Military attachés and observers in the Russo-Japanese War?
If this explanation is not clear enough, please allow me to try to explain again in different words. My sole objective is to help us move towards consensus. --Tenmei (talk) 19:56, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tenmei, your work so far is deeply impressive and puts my contribution in the shade. My query was why you had deleted some artists that had Wiki articles and were well referenced. I assume this was a temporary situation caused by work in progress, as all is now well as far as I am concerned.Tomintoul (talk) 20:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would interject that "notability" does not need to be defined. The "List" being made here in this context is a "list of Wikipedia articles". All subjects of Wikipedia articles are notable. So any artist that has a Wikipedia article and has created work from direct experience/reaction to war is a "War Artist" and belongs on this list as defined by this reference. That can be a very big list and un-obtainable re:too long a list (see WP:SALAT). We may want to do a 180 turn and define "War art", not the artist. That can be reliably referenced. Any artist article can "link on" via adding a link to Categories: War artists. (talk) 22:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If Ohioartdude2 is proposing an implicit either-or dichotomy, I can't agree.
  • Fact: There are valid reasons for an article about War art (as distinguished from the current article about Military art). In a context established by WP:V and WP:RS, the on-going online War Art project undertaken by Archives New Zealand validates this as a solid, on-point suggestion. Perhaps War art is a necessary Wikipedia topic?
  • Fact: There are persuasive, verifiable reasons for this article about War artists as distinguished from articles about "official war artists."
It seems to me that Ohioartdude2's suggestion is helpful and important because it encourages us to try to see these articles from a variety of perspectives. --Tenmei (talk) 00:57, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Using the online archives of the New Zealand War Art project has 3 problems when used as a guideline for a Wikipedia article; they are not a secondary source, they by definition limit their scope to to fit a national and curatorial guideline re: "pieces of war art, by artists formally commissioned by the New Zealand government, and other unofficial art works that were acquired by or donated to the collection"[3], and building an article based on what we see in a museum collection is building by original research. We have to cite reliable secondary sources for the basis of an article, and maybe check it against a tertiary source or two. So what do we have? A search of "War Art is" in google books[4] brings up many sources such as:
googling "a War Artist is" is a bit less fruitful[5]
This tertiary source quoting "The Oxford Companion to Military History"[6] gives us a definition:
  • War art is that which has been developed and executed (1) by artists officially commissioned either to spend varying periods of wartime under fire or to be present at nearly every kind of military activity, in order to record them; or (2) by servicemen-artists responding to powerful inner urges to depict direct war experience; or (3) by sensitive onlookers; or (4) by a combination of all of these.
So lots to build on. Ohioartdude2 (talk) 23:05, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed changes

[edit]

The article seems to need some changes to match it with reference so I propose (and will do) the following if there is no objection:

Ohioartdude2 (talk) 20:17, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ohioartdude2 -- Is it possible to respond to your proposal with "yes" and "no" at the same time?
In other words, do create the new articles you propose. Do expropriate whatever part of War artist you want, but leave the article as a stub. Yes, there is considerable overlapping in the projected article about War art and an overview aritcle about the artists who created War art. No, the conceptual distinction between an article about art and an article about artists is not unimportant or irrelevant.
In short, if you are proposing to turn war artist into a redirect page, I cannot concur. If you are not planning to eliminate war artist, retaining it only as a redirect to war art, I am happy to stand aside while something new unfolds.
Can you see how this makes sense? --Tenmei (talk) 20:30, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not convinced about these proposed changes. I like the recent improvements and making a change to 'War Art' introduces a wide range of new possibilities that are far too general. Tomintoul (talk) 22:54, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, both War art and War artist are valid. Both are necessary. Perhaps my point-of-view is better explained and illustrated by pointing to Toyohara Chikanobu#Genres?
I don't understand the basis for Tomintoul's caution. In contrast, I'm tentatively open to whatever edits Ohioartdude2 wants to make. We only stand to gain from the new perspective Ohioartdude2 introduces. I forsee no adverse consequences.
At best, a clearer consensus will emerge because of the investment of time and thought Ohioartdude2 offers. I welcome this re-evaluation as a timely opportunity. Why not?
At worst, this will become one of those lessons learned the hard way. Even if Ohioartdude2 eviscerates the article and if, for example, only two paragraphs remain — no problem. The current versions of War artist and this talk page are retained in the edit history. --Tenmei (talk) 01:19, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ohioartdude2 -- Please consider the following:
I wonder if other existing categories and articles in this subject-area may suggest tweaks in your thinking about War art? --Tenmei (talk) 03:51, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Moving the article to War art and redirecting War artist to it would follow Wikipedia policy and guidelines. Article titles need to be nouns (WP:ADJECTIVE), follow Pop artist, Conceptual artist, Video artist and see where it takes you. Reference is placing this topic at War art. It would not be ok to have War art and War artist unless you can prove they are two different topics by reference re: the Wikipedia policy on content forks. The current article is a very good List of official war artist article (after some trimming) - list articles do need a short referenced introduction explaining its content and setting its parameters. That is what you have here for all intents an purposes. So all I am proposing is matching reference re: copy paste this article into List of official war artist and create any other lists that seem appropriate, rename/move the main topic to War art (with the appropriate list of "lists" in "See also"), write an article at War art that matches reference, and re-direct War artist to War art. Ohioartdude2 (talk) 01:51, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've read this twice and still don't understand what you're talking about. I wiil re-read this tomorrow to see if I understand it differently. Perhaps if you explain it in different words, I will begin to grasp the point. If you are trying to argue that there is not a difference between an artist and his work, I still don't know what you expect to happen next?--Tenmei (talk) 02:43, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Taxonomy argument

[edit]

I'm still not sure that I understand, but whether intended or not, Ohioartdude2 does appear to be proposing a legitimate 17th century academic argument about expanding the article about Military art, which is construed as a sub-type of genre painting. Yes, war art can be classified as genre painting; but in the twentieth century, the ambit of war art has come to encompass the full range of art history genres.

The concept of the "hierarchy of genres" was compelling between the 17th and 19th centuries. It was strongest in France, where it was associated with the Académie française which held a central role in academic art. The traditional academic genres include:

It is entirely reasonable that someone with "art" in his username would hold views which are informed by an appreciation of academic art. In other words, I think I do now understand what Ohioartdude2 proposes and why. Paraphrasing Samuel van Hoogstraten, it appears that Ohioartdude2 conceives of war artists as the "common footmen in the Army of Art" rather than acknowledging the role or the men and women integrated within the fabric of modern military forces.

In part, Ohioartdude2's argument is persuasive. Accordingly, I have modified the redirect for War art. Instead of redirecting to War artist, the search term now redirects to Military art. Ohioartdude2's POV is one that Wikipedia endorses in this context.

In relation to the opinions about War artist and its several spin-offs, Ohioartdude2 is not wrong; however, his arguments are insufficient in my view. In this instance, the academic POV is disfavored -- see contemporary genre theories at Genre#Antecedent genres and Genre#Tyranny of genre. This is an instance of barking up the wrong tree.

Fortunately for us, WP:V simplifies the issue at hand. It bears repeating that "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." The validity of an article about the War artist is validated by the books which incorporate the term "war artist" in the title, e.g.,

  • Foot, Michael Richard Daniel. (1990). Art and War: Twentieth Century Warfare as Depicted by War Artists. London: Headline. 10-ISBN 0747202869/13-ISBN 9780747202868; OCLC 21407670
  • Harries, Meirion and Suzie Harries. (1983). The War Artists: British Official War Art of the Twentieth Century. London: Michael Joseph. 10-ISBN 071812314X/13-ISBN 9780718123147; OCLC 9888782
  • Haworth, Jennifer. (2007). The Art of War: New Zealand War Artists in the Field 1939-1945. Christchurch, New Zealand: Hazard Press. 13-ISBN 9781877393242/10-ISBN 187739324X; OCLC 174078159
  • Lanker, Brian, and Nicole Newnham (2000). They Drew Fire: Combat Artists of World War II. New York: TV Books. 10-ISBN 1575000857/13-ISBN 9781575000855; OCLC 43245885
  • Weber, John Paul (1979). The German War Artists. Columbia, South Carolina: Cerberus. 10-ISBN 0933590008/13-ISBN 9780933590007; OCLC 5727293

Over the course of the coming months, I will continue to re-visit what Ohioartdude2 has posted on this talk page. His words are timely and meaningful in the process of refining consensus about what this article is and is not. --Tenmei (talk) 15:49, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The "under construction" headnote was added as a way of acknowledging the reasonable points that have been put forward by Ohioartdude2. My guess is that it should probably remain in place until some kind of consensus develops about the focus and scope of this article, or if -- as Ohioartdude2 asserts -- this article should continue to exist. --Tenmei (talk) 19:16, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think your logic is sound to develop war artist as long as you make the article more than a list, i.e. include the social and cultural implication of "war artists" as a community, instead along with the history of the unit. I will certainly be willing to monitor your edits and can review the article as you feel it nears completion. Sadads (talk) 00:58, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article should "continue to exist", that is not the question. The question is "does it follow reference or is it original research?". Right now we have a myriad of references, none of which even state a basic definition and the current article is ignoring some very reliable secondary and tertiary sources that do provide a basic definition. That makes this article Wikipedia:Synthesis at this point and I am tagging it as such. Intro and basic definition references are the same as those used at Military art and have the same problem as noted by me at Talk:Military art#Problematic edits. Ohioartdude2 (talk) 22:18, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no sign of any consensus for renaming Kotniski (talk) 10:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


War artist → War art — Moving the article to War art and redirecting War artist to it seems to follow WP:ADJECTIVE, and other art historical articles follow this type of title re:Pop art, Conceptual art, Video art. Reliable secondary sources use "War art" as the definable topic Art and war By Laura Brandon, War paint: art, war, state and identity in Britain, 1939-1945 By Brian Foss. Check against tertiary source[7] (online quote from "The Oxford Companion to Military History"[8]) also places the topic at this name and defines it. Ohioartdude2 (talk) 16:46, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

[edit]
Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
  • Oppose - It should be split and their should be articles on both topics. War artists are a distinctive subculture in the military and the art communities, and have very different objectives then regular artists(alternative title for the article could be "Combat artist" to make it more distinct and utilize the titling gave by sources such as those of the article United States Army Art Program). War art can be done by both "war artists" and regular artists. Sadads (talk) 17:37, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment - You may want to provide references to the effect that these topics are different. Reliable sources I have found so far say the topics are the same and Wikipedia does not allow for content forks. I would note that the article United States Army Art Program seems to be a descriptive article based on observation of the title in documentation, not art historical reference, has no supporting references in its introduction, and the first document cited clearly states the topic as "War art"[9]. Ohioartdude2 (talk) 19:00, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, consider links found when you google search it, http://www.google.com/search?q=Combat+artist&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a, Sadads (talk) 19:11, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]
Any additional comments:

Published work incorporating term "war artist"

[edit]

WP:V simplifies the issue at hand. It bears repeating that "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true."

Is it not self-evident that the appropriateness of an article about the war artist is validated by the books which incorporate the term "war artist" in the title, e.g.,

I hope this short list helps to sharpen issues which may need further development. --Tenmei (talk) 16:57, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Orphaned references in War artist

[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of War artist's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Independent":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 12:29, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. It was my mistake. Thanks, AnomieBOT. Most impressive. Rubywine . talk 12:47, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on War artist. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:17, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Old problem, even worse now - no reliable sources define this article

[edit]

Revisiting this article there seem to be several problems:

  • all sources defining the topic have dried up (dead links). Its sourcing style is very unreliable - shortcut links to some websites instead of listing author, title, date, etc.

So we get a basic definition: "A war artist is an artist commissioned by a government or publication, or self motivated, to document war". Its described as an occupation, not a genre. Tagging and noting the problem for cleanup. Ohioartdude2 (talk) 20:40, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The definition is is even more complicated: senior officers might instruct others to record events. See Arthur Moon as an example.Tomintoul (talk) 12:23, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like that's a combination of government and self motivated. Ohioartdude2 (talk) 22:38, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are getting over-precise here. Is a narrow definition required? Add those refs by all means - it's no use just adding adding a tag. I've cleaned up by removing it, among other things. Johnbod (talk) 02:14, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Split proposal

[edit]

The section "War artists by nationality" takes up over three quarters of the article. It should be split into a separate article. JIP | Talk 23:50, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the split into a separate page.Gusfriend (talk) 04:23, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, as a large percentage of readers going to the title "War artist" will not find or know to go to another page for fuller information. Nationalities in war are an important part of each conflict, so war artists divided by nationalities (at the main 'War artist' page) covers that aspect of the events. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:00, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose but the large number of early military/naval artists who painted genre battles on land or sea, often wholly imaginary ones, and usually without ever having gone near an actual conflict, should be somewhere else. Johnbod (talk) 17:38, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think a separate page, List of war artists, adhering to the same standards as other such 'List of ...' artist pages would be an improvement.14GTR (talk) 07:14, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:War_artist&oldid=1198523439"