Talk:Albert Tucker (artist)

Bert missing a wife?

This page needs to be based on more than Janine Burke's book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.188.147.73 (talk) 11:07, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you show yourself??

This page is not based Janine Burke's books. It is based on catalogues from Lauraine Diggins Fine Art, a commercial art gallery. It is is inaccurate. If it were based on the scholarly research of an an art historian whose PhD was on Tucker it might not be s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.220.7.35 (talk) 06:57, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

any chance the above contributor could provide some better sources, and corrections for the innacuracies with suitable references? the point of Wikipedia, is that anyone perceiving errors and bias can instantly correct the record themselves.Garyvines (talk) 07:30, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

why would I bother showing myself? This is a classic wikipedia failure mode. It wasn't until 2011 (a year after my comment) that someone added a reference to Barbara Bilcock who Bert was married to for 30-odd years. Now the article says twice that he married her, has had endless trivial corrections made but still manages to be wrong. As to better sources, original research in the guise of direct knowledge is not acceptable here 110.33.141.152 (talk) 11:46, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I would encourage you to include verifiable sources. It is not a matter of disputing direct knowledge, but being able to demonstrate where it comes from - so someone else can look up the source and check it is correct. This is normal historical method, and need not be a reason for argument. If the article is inaccurate, then correct it and show where the reader can go to find the original source. Garyvines (talk) 22:56, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I am afraid you are missing the point. The article is internally inconsistent, there is no point in adding sources to it, Burke's book is enough to clear up the inconsistency and is already referenced. The problem is an absence of actual proof reading that has gone undetected for years now, compounded by editorial practices that eventually destroy the coherence of an article (assuming that is started out coherent). Simple sloppiness, a lack of thoroughness (and yes, I am being annoying by not telling you what it is). For a different example, look at the bibliography for DT Suzuki. A writer with a 42 volume collected works, who Amazon finds 44 titles by currently in print, has a bibliography 20 books in length seemingly in order of the author's idea of importance to the West? That bibliography reflects the concerns/obsessions of the author, not the needs of the article, not any kind of concern for "encyclopedic" quality. For Tucker, there are a few books that might be used in constructing an article on the man (the admission above that the content came from a dealer's biographical notes is frankly appalling and the idiotic appeal to authority above by referring to Burke's PhD is simply offensive). Wikipedia fetishises facts as though they are in some sense automatically worthy and value-free, but coherence of presentation loses out badly inside the Wikipedia bubble, it gets shredded by ersatz neutrality, mindless grammar fiddling and the inherent sloppiness I mentioned. This article (a quite short thing) has been edited a couple of hundred times since 2005. How can you edit something this short 200 times and end with this? Now, as to the answer to your other question under the other heading, you are right, its not him at all, but the answer is original research, not neutral and probably most importantly, not on the net. The last quote in the article is however relevant and somewhat revealing. 110.33.136.8 (talk) 09:39, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I agree with everything you say. I did a bit on the Tucker article because I am interested in his couple of pictures and photographs from Fisherman's Bend - which is my are of research. I don't know anything about Tucker or the modern art movement in Melbourne in the mid 20th century, and I am also pretty bad with grammar and syntax, so I leave these things to others. the beauty and flaw of Wikipedia is that anyone can edit it, so the complaints that it is inaccurate, badly written or whatever problem can be immediately addressed by those that want to. So if it matters, then why not have a go, - some relevant template guides:

Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top.
The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). All the best and good luck wikipediaing. Garyvines (talk) 21:02, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I did another copyedit, and hopefully sorted some of the inconsistency and point of view issues.Garyvines (talk) 21:30, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

NPOV

If you're going to say this artist is "perceptive", "brilliiant" and "pivotal" you need to include reliable sources that say this. Edward321 (talk) 14:39, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

• I edited out the above extravagant adjectives, but note the tone of the article is very emotive. I find it hard to believe tuckers life and work could be so onesidedly depressive, angry and outraged. I suspect the article is confusing the artistic interpretations of his work with the temperment of the person.Garyvines (talk) 00:39, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Albert Tucker (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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130412142253/http://www.heide.com.au/assets/files/Education/HeideEdResourceMakingHistory12.pdf to http://www.heide.com.au/assets/files/Education/HeideEdResourceMakingHistory12.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130623060900/http://www.contemporaryartsociety.org.au/about_us/history/history.html to http://www.contemporaryartsociety.org.au/about_us/history/history.html

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) 12:26, 1 January 2018 (UTC)