Talk:David Horvitz

Reason for deletion of images from Commons

I took out the reason for deletion of the images since I don't think it's all that clear (see here, but note that we can't use our own deletion discussions as a reliable source -- as far as I know -- someone please let me know if there's a precedent). The whole section really needs more third-party coverage; it's hard to write articles about things that happened on Wikipedia itself without having that. I commented in more detail on my user talk page in response to the article creator's question. Antandrus (talk) 23:19, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Basjanaderyoutube.png Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Basjanaderyoutube.png, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests - No timestamp given What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 05:08, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Pinocchio taken down by security.ogv Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Pinocchio taken down by security.ogv, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests - No timestamp given What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 05:08, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Content removed by IP

A section was blanked by an IP and unsourced content was removed. I'm parking the diff here in case it is useful.[1] -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:48, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Attempting NPOV revision

Hello all, I am attempting an NPOV revision of this entry on my sandbox here: User:Theredproject/sandbox. Horvitz is a notable artist. I think that part of the problem is that he makes some of his work on or about Wikipedia, which has brought out the deletionists. Also, he has a large fanbase, and it seems like some of them have missed the forest, but wrote about few trees. Going to cut some of those trees back, and plant some seedlings. Please hit me up here, or on my talk page if you are interested in jumping in to the revision. --Theredproject (talk) 17:26, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I made the revision. --Theredproject (talk) 21:05, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for you efforts to clean up the article. I made some additional edits to further remove off topic and fluffy content. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:49, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I'd list to assist artist David Horvitz in trying to delete his Wikipedia page properly, please help

Hello, my name is Joe, and I'm an intern and have helped David Horvitz on many of his Wikipedia based projects. His newest endeavor is to attempt to delete his own Wikipedia page.

I want to be able to help him and accomplish that. I'm new to the whol Wiki editing/deleting and I've accidentally thought deleting the content would bring on a deletion, but it brought on moderators claiming me as an abuser and vandal, which is incorrect.

I want to be able delete the page properly and it's public knowledge that the artist wants this to happen, if you can help me with this and provide me the information to do so according to Wikipedia's rules and regulations, I'd greatly appreciate it.

I've attached a link from ArtInfo that mentions this project of his to delete his own Wikipedia page. Any help would be great! [2] |timestamp = 20130913141016

NOTE:I moved this unsigned comment (above) to its proper location and removed the improper use of the template. Meanwhile the AfD discussion is here. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:54, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Watch and learn.--Nowa (talk) 23:08, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 December 2013

178.19.208.178 (talk) 18:37, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. LittleMountain5 19:08, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Notability

Notwithstanding the prior "I want my page deleted" request, after reviewing the references, I can only find a single reliable secondary source (LA Times article). Are there more?--Nowa (talk) 23:11, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree it was a very questionable AfD discussion (and outcome), with people getting side-tracked with a number of tangential issues. There was almost a bloody-mindedness that, if someone wanted their wiki page deleted, the community at any cost wasn't going to allow it. Sionk (talk) 23:16, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, to avoid a more serious AfD, I'll try to find more references.--Nowa (talk) 23:28, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Per the recent discussion here [3], a new AfD has been on my back burner. If you can build credibility, Nowa, terrific. Otherwise this is a decent candidate for another deletion discussion. JNW (talk) 23:30, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks. Any thoughts on where to look? Art really isn't my thing.--Nowa (talk) 01:59, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
• I think we have notability covered. Three independent additional references have been added.--Nowa (talk) 18:03, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Undeletion request for File:26_pelican.jpg on Wikimedia Commons

I've put in an undeletion request for File:26_pelican.jpg originally posted by David Horvitz on Wikimedia Commons. The entry is here The image has become notable per Artist Conquers Wikipedia, One Image at a Time and it would contribute to this article. The image was put in the public domain per the original upload by David Horvitz. Interested users are invited to comment on the undeletion request--Nowa (talk) 20:55, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 March 2014

Horvitz was born in 1972 not 1981:

http://www.kunsthalcharlottenborg.dk/exhibition/view/104?lang=eng 86.42.251.189 (talk) 14:00, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

 Not done - This reference says he was born in 1981, this one says 1982, and your reference says 1972.
Given Mr Horvitz' previous interaction with Wikipedia, until we have a definite date, I think we should be cautious. - Arjayay (talk) 15:45, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

 Done Done Done Three equally reliable secondary sources? Three birth dates.--Nowa (talk) 22:28, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

A conversation regarding this person

A conversation regarding this person is underway at: User_talk:Binksternet#Backside_of_Beachgoer_.E2.80.93_a_strange_little_wiki_tale

IMHO Horvitz is Wikipedia:Gaming the system via sockpuppets and disruptive behavior. a (2nd nomination) on the AfD to remove this page altogether might be in order. This "accomplishment" that crafted his notoriety was via his Wikipedia:Gaming the system and maintaining this page could persuade others to follow the same path of manipulation with the objective of creating self-serving notoriety. talk→ WPPilot  14:14, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

As the first AfD last September resulted in a snow keep, I advise against a second AfD. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:01, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

It was just a concept. talk→ WPPilot  21:23, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

ANI Notice

This notice should have been placed on the user's page not here
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:37, 5 July 2014 (UTC) Me??!! A discussion about ME on the ANI notice board???? Well then, I better go take a look.--Nowa (talk) 01:47, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Image representative of work

There are a number of images that are representative of Horovitz's work, but they've all been banned from commons. See this discussion related to Mood Disorder Any suggestions on how to get a representative image in this article? It seems silly to have an encyclopedia article about an artist and not show any of his/her work.--Nowa (talk) 11:52, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

My understanding of it all was that the act of posting photos on Wikipedia was the art engagement, not the photos themselves. Not sure how you'd illustrate that! Sionk (talk) 12:46, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Good point. Artnet uses this image as representative of "Wikipedia as the art engagement". Here is the context. See item 8. Can we use said image under a Fair Use rationale?--Nowa (talk) 00:37, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

No.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:48, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Inclusion of spouse name

I have recommended we include the name of David Horvitz's spouse in the article. Here is the proposed edit. I believe this edit is consistent with WP:BLPNAME. Rather than get in an edit war with other users, however, I would like to leave it to the rest of the community to reach consensus.--Nowa (talk) 12:48, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

I can't see anything controversial about this, it's absolutely common to add (well sourced) personal background info to biographical articles. Sionk (talk) 13:07, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

I only regret that due to his bizarre concepts and history of destructive and disruptive editing and posting, it is difficult or impossible to find the usual biographical information about the subject and be confident that it is correct; the birthdate question is a prime example. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:20, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm simply doubting that if it's even the right person. There's no telling with this guy.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:44, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, that is too true. "Well sourced" are the operative words (I'm a bit concerned overall that the article relies on Horvitz's online CVs). This article about Francie Bishop Good says her husband is Florida-based and chairman of the board of the Fort Lauderdale Museum of Art, while there's no evidence of a Fort lauderdale connection for 'our' elusive David Horvitz. Sionk (talk) 15:38, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not convinced it's the same Horvitz and would expect to see some pretty clearcut evidence that it was first. The David Horvitz of this article does not sound like the David W. Horvitz who is the chair of the board of Musueum of Art|Fort Lauderdale (and to have had an auditorium named after him too). The City and Shore article doesn't refer to Ms. Good's hsuband as "artist David Horvitz", it says he is influential in the local art scene. Risker (talk) 16:57, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

On reflection, I'm pretty sure it is not the same David Horvitz. The one this article is about seems to be a West Coast guy, whereas the Ms. Good's husband is obviously a long time Florida guy. Risker (talk) 18:09, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the observation that this might be a different David Horvitz. I Googled their names together and came up with this picture. Clearly not the subject of this article. So unless I’ve missed something, I’m withdrawing my suggestion to add this spouse to the bio info.--Nowa (talk) 17:35, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Suitable Image

I have recommended that we include the following image as a notable example of the subject's work. Other editors have objected. I leave it up to the community to reach consensus on whether or not to include it.--Nowa (talk) 21:34, 17 July 2014 (UTC) 300px|left|thumb|Example of a Horvitz Wikipedia photograph showing "...the juxtaposition of subject matter (e.g., a monument, historical site, or otherwise) and Horvitz’s own body (often only partially visible)." Image is notable per David Horvitz:Room 129, Fillip Journal, 2 June 2011

A press release does not confer notability. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:49, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

we are not going to host any of his bad quality disruptive photos on this article nor should they be included on the commons just because they fell through the cracks.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:30, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

i second Ryulong. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:52, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Thirded. Especially given the question of whether Horvitz himself can actually release the copyright to the image given it's not an image that he could have personally shot. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:51, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Ooh, good point. Unless he had it on a timer. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:37, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I considered it, but not this one. No moron would leave a Canon 40D sitting around in Vancouver for even a second. While many of Horvitz's images were clearly timered, this isn't one of them. Plus it's at a height and has composition consistent with a photo someone actually took. No, Horvitz didn't use a timer or remote switch on this one. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:53, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

The Commons user ID "Fillipmagazine" is given as the uploader for this and some others, all of them targeted for deletion, of course. By an amazing coincidence, that's the so-called magazine that Nowa is trying to claim as conferring notability on these vanity pictures. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:32, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Tagging to stultify

I'm being tag-teamed by a pair of meatpuppets who continue to place a "BLPSOURCES" tag on this article. This is a stub of an article that discusses only the most basic information about this man, and yet it has 12 sources. I realize neither of them can be bothered to actually improve the article, but they will need to point out exactly which sentence(s) still need a reference. Otherwise, the tag will be removed again, as it will be proven pointless. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:41, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Neither red pen nor myself are meat puppets of anybody. I think you need to learn what that term means before you start accusing people of being them. The sourcing on this page is poor because the sources are poor.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:11, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

You are most certainly meat puppets for each other. You are editing in tandem, turning the three-revert rule into the six-revert rule. There is nothing but the most basic information about this man in the article; there is nothing "contentious" whatsoever. While better sourcing is always nice, there is nothing in this article AFAIK that even requires a sentence to be tagged, let alone the entire article. I'll ask again: which statement in this article needs a source? Joefromrandb (talk) 06:26, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

What a load of bull and a massive lack of assuming good faith. Red Pen and I independently decided you were wrong in removing the tag from this page. We know nothing about this person and most of the article relies on his art installations that may or may not even be suitable for determining notability.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:56, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Let's stop the accusations and get back to discussion content. Generally the article is well sourced. If there are concerns about specific sentences I think the reader and WP project would be better served by 'citation needed' tags instead of a BLP-sources banner. This would also ID, for editors who want to improve the article, the precise sentences that need verification and citations. Could we change to that format, please?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:01, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Next time, perhaps read through the citations instead of just seeing how many there are. Citations need to be from reliable secondary sources. Citations one to seven are blogs; citation 8 contains the following info about the artist and a small, charming show of work by David Horvitz, featuring the 47 brass hand bells in a piece titled, “Let Us Keep Our Own Noon.” They will be put to use on May 24 and June 1 at local noon (12:52 p.m.) when the sun is directly over the museum. Otherwise, they hang silent and dainty above the long stairway between the third and fourth floors. Citation 9 reads Featuring new projects by: Anne Colvin and Stuart Krimko; Colter Jacobsen and Dodie Bellamy with Publication Studio; Nonsite Collective; Matt Lipps and Nona Caspers; RJ Muna and Guillermo Gómez-Peña with La Pocha Nostra; and David Horvitz with Zach Houston and Ed Steck. Citation 10 was written by Horvitz himself. Citation 11 contains only the following info on this subject . David Horvitz’s Southern-most Inhabited Island of Japan (Hateruma… Public Domain) (2010) is a compilation of Wikipedia articles that plots the course of an image of Hateruma from its own entry through ‘airport’, ‘shrink wrap’ and, ultimately, ‘public domain’, after Horvitz himself travelled to the Japanese island, and contributed his own photos to the island’s entry. The exhibition’s strengths were located at these intersections between common use and individualized experience, and Horvitz’s humble installation stood as evidence that, like the Internet, the ideas could perpetuate beyond any object in itself. Citation 12 is also a blog, the only mention of the subject reads: For the festival, Rhizome has teamed up with artist David Horvitz to present "Mail Nothing to the Tate Modern. This project invites anyone to track and mail empty packages to the Tate Modern, where they will be displayed unopened in the Rhizome space. The website for Mail Nothing to the Tate Modern will display the movement of all these packages, creating a "mental picture of the vast global infrastructure of shipping." Visit the website Mail Nothing to the Tate Modern for instructions about participating in this exhibition -- all packages must be received by May 10th or 11th.

Blogs in reputable publications can be considered reliable sources. Likewise primary sources are also acceptable depending on the context and predominance of their use. If you have an issue on a specific source then it also can be given an inline tag such as 'better source' or 'primary source-inline' etc. Alternately you could research a new source or start a start at thread here on the talk page to gain consensus to remove the source and the text. There are many options besides tagging the top of the article.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:51, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I think the ref-improve tag needs to go back for the foregoing reasons. Counting "look, 12 references" when none of them are biographical from reliable sources is not a valid reason to remove the ref-improve tag because the references to this artists work are not very substantial. Ellin Beltz (talk) 23:48, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Whether to keep the "ref-improve" tag might be a secondary issue. Is this person notable under WP:BASIC ("A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.") or WP:ARTIST? --Edcolins (talk) 08:51, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

It was AfD'd in 2013 and the result was 'keep' (see top of page) so you may want to read that AfD before renominating the article again.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:40, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I know. My point is: If David Horvitz is notable, there should be some reliable references out there, those should be inserted, and the "ref-improve" tag should be removed. I have inserted one additional reference (from The Huffington Post). Is it enough to remove the tag? (See also WP:OVERTAGGING.) --Edcolins (talk) 17:55, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

One tag is not overtagging. And the AFD was a bad faith nom created by a sockpuppet or whatever.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:51, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Even one tag can lead to overtagging, if the tag isn't useful. But that does not answer my question: "I have inserted one additional reference (from The Huffington Post). Is it enough to remove the tag?" Cheers, --Edcolins (talk) 19:23, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

One tag is the bare minimum of tagging though.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:38, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I have expanded the article, added more references [4], and removed the "refimproveblp" tag... --Edcolins (talk) 22:09, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Notability tag

Ryulong, re your edit summary here, it is clear that, during the Afd, at least five of us thought that he was notable:

• "Keep , sufficiently notable artist. (...) DGG"
• "Keep (...) We are creating a free encyclopedia with millions of articles about notable topics. This is one of them. Cullen"
• "Keep, (...) Horvitz is notable under Wikipedia's WP:GNG, (...) Tbhotch"
• "Keep (...) He is clearly notable. (...) Theredproject"
• "Obvious keep. (...) If Horvitz was not notable, I'd happily !vote for delete but it appears he just passes WP:GNG. (...) freshacconci"

Later, in 2014, The Huffington Post explicitly stated that he is renowned "for his work in the virtual sphere." I am removing the tag for now. --Edcolins (talk) 13:03, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

As I've told you like 4 times now, that old AFD was a disruptive nomination by a meatpuppet of the subject of the article in a vague attempt to get the article deleted. And consensus can change. Also that Huffpo piece mentions his name and nothing else about him. That's not proof of notability. Restore the tag.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:33, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Although the old AfD may initially have been a "disruptive" nomination, there were still at least five opinions expressing that he was notable. Anyway, in the meantime, additional sources have been inserted, including –most recently– one from Monopol and another from Mousse Magazine, both reliable sources in my opinion. Both address "the topic directly and in detail" per WP:GNG. Add to this the other sources (Huff Post etc.), and, to me, it is clear that the subject of the article –and his work– has "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". A few days ago, I wasn't convinced of his notability but, after some research and some edits to the article, I changed my mind. --Edcolins (talk) 15:32, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

We still need to be able to tell when it's self-serving or not. Because a good portion of the sources on the article are simply links to art galleries describing the installations he's had, some of which he is directly involved with the art gallery itself (like Rhizome's website and such).—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:50, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

The Rhizome reference seems to comply with WP:ABOUTSELF. --Edcolins (talk) 16:12, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Many of the references previously seemed to comply with WP:ABOUTSELF rather than being third party. You've found some but WP:ARTIST may not be met afaik.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:15, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:ARTIST need not be met if WP:BASIC is. "People who meet the basic criteria may be considered notable without meeting the additional criteria below" (from WP:BASIC). --Edcolins (talk) 19:34, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

• There is no reason for the notability tag when multiple editors have already stated the article is notable. Consensus is clear. Same situation over at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Eren_Yeager right now. When multiple people say its notable, then you can't just ignore that and tag it for notability. If you sincerely believe something isn't notable, send it to the AFD, and accept consensus of those who stated it was notable. Dream Focus 08:58, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

  The AFD was from last year and consensus can change. I've had people ask me if he's really notable when all I've been doing is making sure that this website and the commons are free of his unclear copyrighted photos.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:52, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

The AFD from last year and consensus seems to have changed, frankly speaking. I have also mentioned this on commons, if the community supports this guys game of crafting notability via manipulation of a community and bragging about it loud enough to make the accomplishment an art exhibit, this page could be redirected to the "Horvitz System" so as to provide a template to other unskilled artists so as to allow them to gain notability overnight via the same manipulation. I, for one would vote to remove the page should it be listed on the AFD and after that last round of discoveries made regarding sock puppets and users that seemed to have too much interest in this matter, the sooner the AFD listing is made the sooner this issue is no longer a topic that wastes everyone's energy as it is now. This was just discovered: Special:Contributions/Undoingproperty how many of his accounts are in the system? talk→ WPPilot  05:07, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Public Access and banning from Wikipedia

I need a second on this.--Nowa (talk) 18:51, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

On July 12, 2014, David Hovitz and his editor-avatars were banned from Wikipedia. This was the culmination of a three year of conflict were Wikipedia editors “hunted down and deleted” his images of the California shoreline after he repeatedly uploaded them. David used this conflict to develop an ongoing multimedia work called Public Access (2011- ). Public Access has been a series of performative gestures, digital images, the Internet, print publications (there have been at least two, inclusive of screen grabs from Wikipedia discussion forums), and a gallery exhibition at Blum & Poe in 2014. Natilee Harren, art reviewer for Artforum stays his work “brilliantly illuminates the friction between …. Wikipedia’s promise of an open-access knowledge commons versus the aggressive policing that often goes on behind the code.” Public Access has become the piece for which David is most well known even though it only existed for a short time. Before all of the Wikipedia images were deleted, however, Horvitz printed them out, bound them, and covertly implanted the bound books in the history sections of local libraries along the California Coast.

References

The primary source in here that says he's been banned is behind a paywall. Everything else here is already in the article.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:01, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

The introductory sentence, which is not behind the paywall, reads: On July 12, the day that David Horvitz’s first solo show at Blum & Poe opened, the artist and his numerous editor-avatars were banned from contributing to Wikipedia.--Nowa (talk) 21:32, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

So you want to use just the pre-paywall sentence as a source? I don't think that jives with WP:RS.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:22, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

No, I was just pointing out the pre-paywall sentence so you could see that the article was about his being banned. The above draft is based on the entire article.--Nowa (talk) 23:13, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

There is a very strong pushback against people who exploit Wikipedia's open-door policy for spam and self-aggrandizement. When Horvitz wins a major award and an independent source writes about the significance of the art and the award, a small addition to this article will be warranted. Johnuniq (talk) 23:18, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

If you are really concerned about the welfare of Wikipedia, then you will defend the editing guidelines of Wikipedia even if you don't like the subject. That builds trust in the encyclopedia's content.--Nowa (talk) 00:20, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

excessive detail. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:59, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

As TRPoD notes, articles do not record excessive detail, and as I noted, the issue is not of sufficient significance until the recognition conferred by something like an award occurs. Johnuniq (talk) 01:13, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

@TRPoD: How so? Which particular details are you concerned about?--Nowa (talk) 14:14, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: Can you show me in WP:BLP where it says that “something like an award” is required to mention an event in an article? I appreciate that you would like to see that, but I don’t see how that is consistent with Wikipedia guidelines.--Nowa (talk) 14:14, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE answers both your questions. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:09, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Not really.--Nowa (talk) 22:50, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

We dont give a 6 sentence paragraph to an item that has only received minor coverage in respect to the rest of the coverage of the subject. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:18, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree, but I'm not sure which "item" or "subject" you are referring to.--Nowa (talk) 02:10, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Similarly, it is unclear what point you are making. Johnuniq (talk) 03:35, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps. But actually, I think the point's been made. Thank you.--Nowa (talk) 13:21, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Suitable reference for Wikipedia Reader

User:Malerooster has asked for a reference to support the sentence “His work also includes "A Wikipedia Reader", a mind map of artists' browsing of Wikipedia.” I have been able to find the following 5. I tried dropping the Fillip and Rhizome references in, but User:TheRedPenOfDoom and User:Ryulong feel that they are not RS due to self publication. Are any of these suitable? If not, then I am happy with deleting the reference to Wikipedia Reader.--Nowa (talk) 23:25, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

• Tyler Coburn, “Search Terms”, Rhizome, 10 March 2008
• Josiah Huges, “David Horvitz: Giving it All Away”, XLR8R, 24 March 2009
• “Artistic experiments with Wikipedia content”, Greyscale Press, 13 September 2010
• Jeff Khonsary, “The Encyclopedia That Anyone Can Edit”, Fillip, No. 14, September 2011
• Kim Lokono “Crossing Brooklyn”, Brooklyn Museum Tumblr Blog, 23 October 2014

Names

Per WP:BLPNAME the names of children and spouses are only discussed in an article if they are necessary for a complete understanding of the subject. There is no reason to think that applies in this case. Further, if the only source for a detail is a dubious, the detail is unimportant and should not be in the article. Johnuniq (talk) 22:57, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Good point. Why then is there a "spouse(s)" field in the artists infobox?--Nowa (talk) 00:31, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

P.S. WP:BLPNAME seems to apply to names that are not public. That's not the case here. The names are clearly mentioned in the article--Nowa (talk) 00:33, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

P.P.S. Since when is the NY Post not a reliable RS? It's the 7th largest newspaper in the US.--Nowa (talk) 00:36, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

The spouse field is for articles like Barack Obama where his wife is known to the public and there is encyclopedic information that can be provided. Wikipedia does not mirror reports in news media—there are lots of facts reported that are not used in articles here. If there were no reliable source for a claim regarding a family member, the claim would have to be removed per WP:BLP. WP:BLPNAME is saying that, in addition, the qualification I mentioned above applies. Johnuniq (talk) 01:07, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

If you Google any one of the baby, the spouse or the subject of this article you will find more than enough reliable sources to verify that the wife is known to the public and there is encyclopedic information that can be provided. --Nowa (talk) 06:47, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I certainly wouldn't have known the Horwitz in the New York news article was the same as this Horwitz. David Horwitz seems a fairly minor artist on the scale of things (though meeting WP:GNG), so it would be unlikely to have public profiles of his family. Sionk (talk) 07:05, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

That's an excellent point. We've been confused in the past about the spouse of another David Horvitz who is active in the art world. We don't need to make that same mistake twice. However, this reference from Artnet News makes it clear that Zanna Gilbert is the wife of the subject of this article.--Nowa (talk) 14:15, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

So is there agreement or disagreement?--Nowa (talk) 11:58, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Te second article is not much better. Without personal knowledge, it wouldn't be possible to prove "the artist David Horvitz" is this Horvitz. The article, after all, is about Zanna Gilbert. Sionk (talk) 17:42, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

If you read to the bottom of the article you will see ample proof that the "David Horvitz" of the article is this Horvitz. Regarding the Artnews article being about Zanna Gilbert, that's not the question before us. The question is does this article provide sufficient proof that Zanna is his wife, that this information is public, and that it can therefore be mentioned in the "spouse" field of the bio box.--Nowa (talk) 19:54, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh fine, yes, silly me. FWIW yes, I agree that's ample proof. Sionk (talk) 21:06, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks--Nowa (talk) 21:17, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

This artist featured in mood disorder article

File:Mooddisorder.jpg

(text removed - see history for explanation Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:30, 16 June 2015 (UTC))

David Horvitz seems to be User:Specialtoyoutoyou, who uploaded a single picture of himself to Commons from where User:Idontknowtheworldtoday added it to the mood disorder article.

At WikiProject Medicine I said that this was a useful image and that Wikipedia could use more bland stock photography for medicine.

I know Wikipedia's WP:OUTING policy. I feel like I am compliant with it when I reveal this person's identity because this is part of an art project. David Horvitz is promoting Wikipedia's use of this image for an art project. The article says that he took the photo and had it placed into Wikipedia. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:48, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

It is clearly original research to identify an individual by a picture as having a mood/mental/emotional disorder and is running into WP:BLP issues as well. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:55, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

In addition to the subjects history of spam disruption through the insertion of his photos for reasons external to the project's goals of building an encyclopedia. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:45, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

TheRedPenOfDoom Could you please pause in removing this person's content until this is discussed? Can we discuss this here, or do you want to go elsewhere?

The picture in mood disorder has been used for 3 years and seems like a fine picture. You removed it and replaced it with nothing, and in my opinion, that harms that Wikipedia article. There is a spam issue to address but the spam here has been a net gain. Why do you think this picture should be removed from there? Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:00, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I think it should be removed and I outlined 3 specific reasons - all of them perfectly valid for removal. "its been there forever" is not an appropriate rebuttal to any of them. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:04, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

TheRedPenOfDoom

1. You say it is WP:OR. I fail to understand the claim. The photo is of a model and artist who intended to illustrate a mood disorder.
2. You say WP:BLP. The photo creator and model put the picture there themselves. That precludes this being a BLP violation.
3. You say this is WP:SPAM. Maybe, but it also improves the Wikipedia article, so it is a strange kind of spam. What is the policy on spam when keeping it helps Wikipedia and removing it harms Wikipedia? Why do you feel justified in removing it?

Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:10, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

BLP is not satisfied by "seems to be" -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:24, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I recommend this discussion be moved to talk:Mood_disorder since it is about the content of that article.--Nowa (talk) 21:55, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I can't see a problem with the image either. As Horvitz says, he (or "Specialtoyoutoyou") has created a stock image which has been uploaded for free use and is (unsurprisingly) being used freely on Wikipedia. Considering the photo is called "Mood disorder" (and does not identify a person) it seems wholly appropriate and unproblematic to use it for the Mood disorder article. Regardless of the title (or a redacted one) the picture shows an unidentifiable person with their head in their hands expressing some sort of despair. Whether artist David Horvitz claims it as part of his art practice is entirely up to him. In this instance it is a beneficial contribution. Sionk (talk) 22:38, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

1) It is bad for the encyclopedia to perpetuate bad pop psychology that sitting on a beach is a mood disorder. 2) It is bad for the encyclopedia to allow its purpose as an encyclopedia to be hijacked for self promotional conceptual art projects. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:54, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Nowa There are two unrelated issues here.

1. Is the subject of this article a candidate eligible to be illustrated in other Wikipedia articles?
2. if the subject of this article is a candidate for that purpose, then should any given Wikipedia article actually use any of the pictures shared by this artist?

Point 2 should be discussed in the Wikipedia article where the picture might be used, but point 1 would preclude point 2. If the person's art should not be used at all, then discussing whether it would improve any given Wikipedia article is out of order.

I think it is fair to discuss whether this person's article can be used in Wikipedia here, because this talk page is the place for discussing how the subject of the article should be presented on Wikipedia.

Right now I am not sure what to think. This is being discussed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Wikipedia_to_promote_stock_health_photography in the context of the extent to which these sorts of ambiguous illustrations should be used at all in Wikipedia. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:50, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I've commented at Talk:Mood_disorder and, on further reflection, my personal opinion would be that the picture doesn't obviously represent 'depression' or 'mania', the subjects of Mood disorder (the pictures of random people baring their teeth in the Happiness article aren't a great deal of use either, but that would be a discussion for another time and place).

As for David Horvitz, if he wants to refer to his contributions to Wikipedia to illustrate his art practice then so be it, as long as they are not disruptive to the aims of Wikipedia (as some of his earlier interventions were). Sionk (talk) 19:15, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on David Horvitz. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.sfcamerawork.org/exhibitions/exhibitions_AsYetUntitled.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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} 18:16, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on David Horvitz. 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/20131002134846/https://www.artbasel.com/-/media/ArtBasel/Documents/Basel_Maps/Art_Basel_in_Basel_2013_Floorplan.pdf to https://www.artbasel.com/-/media/ArtBasel/Documents/Basel_Maps/Art_Basel_in_Basel_2013_Floorplan.pdf

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 01:55, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Mood Disorder

I wonder if a photo of his published work 'Mood Disorder' could be added to Commons. It is claimed "© 2023 David Horvitz" but it seems to consist of Danish Wikipedia text and a photo that I gather was uploaded by him to Commons. Error (talk) 01:48, 11 December 2023 (UTC)