User talk:Avoselok
do not add unsourced material please
[edit]Hi Avoselok Please do not add material to articles without providing a source. If you keep adding a long list of exhibitions to Carlos Motta (artist) you will be reverted, then sanctioned for edit warring, and eventually blocked from editing. Please read WP:REFBEGIN before continuing. Also, if you copied the list from https://carlosmotta.com/resumebio/, that's a copyright violation, and those MUST be removed. If you have questions about this, please ask on this page, Vexations (talk) 21:24, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Vexations, please explain how my attempt to expend an artist's page by using legitimate sources violates Wikipedia's rules? Many artists have a list of their exhibitions added to their pages. I used his official website as a resource.
Vexations, please explain how my attempt to expend an artist's page by using legitimate sources violates Wikipedia's rules? Many artists have a list of their exhibitions added to their pages; in fact, I even followed the temple. As a source, I used the artist’s official website.
Avoselok (talk) 02:54, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Avoselok Wikipedia doesn't have any firm rules. We have policies and guidelines that have been established by consensus. One of the most important policies is Verifiability. Whenever you add a statement to an article, you are responsible for providing citations. Those citations should be to independent, reliable sources. Motta is not an independent, reliable source and should be avoided. The same is true for press releases and announcements. We're looking for secondary, independent sources. Almost none of the sources currently used in the article satisfy those criteria, (eleplant.art is usable) but such sources do exist: [1] and [2] for example. I'm not sure what temple you followed. Do you mean a template? Are you participating in an edit-a-thon where you were given a template? With regards to other articles that have unsourced listings of exhibitions: Yes, they do exist, but they shouldn't. We have an essay about such bad examples called Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. The kind of article you should use as an example is a good or featured article and if you took a look at those, you would see that they almost never have such lists, not even with sources. We're an encyclopedia, not a hosting site for resumes and CVs. Good or featured articles on a contemporary artists are unfortunately a bit difficult to find and there aren't very many, but Louise Nevelson and Wintjiya Napaltjarri are decent examples. Vexations (talk) 14:15, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
A list of selected exhibitions is a factual information that is not based on opinions of any sort, and it is integral and essential to have it on a page of an artist for researchers to access. This information is based on facts that were found in reliable sources. Avoselok (talk) 14:50, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Avoselok, it's OK if you don't want help, but in my experience of 14 years here, an adversarial approach is, without exception, not successful. Please read Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Independent sources. You'll find that
- https://www.guggenheim.org/map-artist/carlos-motta does not exist
- https://elephant.art/pain-im-used-art-world-embraced-sm/ is an independent, reliable source
- https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/05/13/arts/design/art-galleries-nyc.html is an independent, reliable source
- https://www.worldcat.org/issn/0362-4331
- https://ocula.com/art-galleries/ppow-gallery/exhibitions/carlos-motta-conatus/ is a primary source (it's a post by P.P.O.W.)
- https://momaps1.org/exhibitions/view/297 is a dead link
- https://icaphila.org/exhibitions/carlos-motta-the-good-life/ doesn't have an author, but is probably written by a curator
- https://www.guggenheim.org/artwork/artist/carlos-motta doesn't have an author, but is probably written by a curator
- http://www.banrepcultural.org/coleccion-de-arte-banco-de-la-republica/artista/carlos-motta is not independent, and not a reliable source, but usable for simple claim about being in the collection. Since this is not a notable collection, however, it is not clear why it should be listed.
- http://www.newmuseum.org/exhibitions/view/carlos-motta-we-who-feel-differently is not independent
- https://carlosmotta.com/project/gender-talents-a-special-address-tate-modern-2013/ is a primary source
- https://www.ppowgallery.com/artist/carlos-motta/work is not independent
- https://www.galeriavermelho.com.br/artista/10888/carlos-motta is not independent
- https://www.gallerybarcelona.com/carlos-motta/ looks like a press release, not written by editorial staff, therefor primary
- http://carlosmotta.com/ is a primary source
- https://www.ppowgallery.com/exhibition/6151/press-release a press release, a primary source
- http://carlosmotta.com/resumebio/ is a primary source
- https://www.stedelijk.nl/en/exhibitions/carlos-motta-the-crossing was probably partly written by a curator but to see how this includes material that is Motta's own statement about himself, do a search for "Carlos Motta is a multi-disciplinary artist whose work draws upon political history in an attempt to create counter narratives that recognize suppressed histories, communities, and identities." and notice how many different websites use the exact same phrase. That's not an independent source. Now as I've mentioned above, independent, reliable sources do exist. Please use those instead.
- Lastly: We are not a repository of facts. Unless an independent, reliable source writes about something, it is not due for inclusion. A list of exhibitions is not integral and essential to an encyclopedia. The consensus at good and featured articles is against them. Some reference works do include them, like Benezit, others don't. We have no policy against them, and no policy that requires them. They do need to meet our verifiability criteria. Researchers generally don't use encyclopedias, except perhaps as a starting point. No researcher would ever use a list of exhibits assembled by random people on the internet. The artist, or their gallery is much better suited to maintaining such a list. Vexations (talk) 15:50, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Avoselok, you are invited to the Teahouse!
[edit]
|
Hi Avoselok! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:03, 21 October 2020 (UTC) |