Talk:Gardner's Art Through the Ages

I have taken the SPAM accusation to the book's discussion page: [[1]]

Respectfully, --Art4em (talk) 06:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

To elaborate on my edit summary.... While my concerns about spam remain, there are other reasons for removing the material from this article that are not relevant to the speedy deletion discussion at talk:Drawing Upon Art: Workbook for Gardner's Art Through The Ages (LG Williams). In particular, this article is about "Gardner's Art Through the Ages". This is therefore not the place for an elaborate treatment (half the article!) of "Drawing Upon Art", by an unrelated author. Furthermore, this is particularly the case when, for the moment at least, "Drawing Upon Art" has a detailed article all of its own. If you are genuinely interested in improving this article, rather than promoting your own, my suggestion is that you would make a far more valuable contribution if you were to spend some time building upon this article to improve its quality and comprehensiveness. You might even see fit to use "Drawing Upon Art" as a reference! Debate (talk) 09:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, as I saw that the article was a 'stub' I attempted to give the article some girth -- so I have removed any 'elaborate' treatment on its behalf. Therefore, I hope this very minor addition is to your satisifaction. Thank you for your input and explanation, Respectfully --Art4em (talk) 17:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

theres a new edition, 2008. has van gogh's starry night on the cover. just an fyi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.21.137.228 (talk) 08:29, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Dubious Tags

Promoting "Drawing Upon Art: Workbook for Gardner's Art Through The Ages" on this page adds nothing to the article and is essentially advertising (see WP:Spam). There are also verifiability (see WP:V) problems. The book appears to be, at best, a self published work. The only references that can be found to support its existence are the author's own. The article states that the work is to be published by Cengage in April 2008. It is now May 2008 and there is still no evidence that the book exists, nor are any reliable sources available to support its existence. To date, no university or public library catalogue I have searched returns any reference to the book and the Cengage website makes no mention of it. I must say, however, that although I would remain dubious about the reference remaining in this article, if anyone can find a public or university library with the item in its holdings, or a reference direct from Cengage, I would feel a little more comfortable. Debate (talk) 07:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Let me address the following:

1: Adds nothing? The workbook is directly linked to the book, hence the one sentence is worthy or merit and is very 'notable'. ACCUSATION IS FALSE.

2. Advertising? If notable information is advertisting, then all information is advertising. Since I do believe information is pertinent the ACCUSATION IS FALSE.

3. Verifiable problems? Yes, this is true, however, I expect this to be remedied by Cengage and Amazon.com very soon.  :) No worries here.

4. Self-Published? I am sure that LG Williams would love to own Cengage Publishing! ACCUSATION IS FALSE.

However, I am very concerned about Debate's uncomfortably! For heaven's sake! Please, I am more than happy to have the sentence deleted until it is on Cengage's website or on university bookstore shelf near Debate. Yes, indeed, get comfortable till its necessary to wipe away ones ones false accusations and wrong assumptions. Just please, don't delete the article or discussion record, I'll let you know when its loaded on their webpages. No worries here...my pleasure --Art4em (talk) 07:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Cool. Per consensus, references to "Drawing Upon Art" in this article will be deleted until the work appears on the Cengage website. As a record of the deleted material will still be available via the history tab it can be reinstated relatively easily as required. While I still have concerns that references to the work in this article could be interpreted as advertising, in the spirit of compromise I won't raise any further objection to its inclusion once evidence of its publication by Cengage, or any other notable publisher, is available. Art4em's conciliatory gesture is noted and appreciated. Debate (talk) 12:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Book Information Per Your Request -- Thank you. Your Wiki spirit is duly noted and appreciated. Please Copy entire link due to wiki / url character conflict: http://b2bcatalog.cengage.com/answersplus/lpext.dll?f=XMLHitList&qf=DCQuery&ht=catalog.xml&d=&sf=item&p=&po=&q=[field,ISBN:0495572365]&list=ProductIsbnIssnFormatted&xsl=productdescription.xsl&p1=0-495-57236-5 --Art4em (talk) 20:21, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

There are dozens of books related to Gardner's Art Through the Ages. See, for example, numerous examples by Fred S Kleiner. It is not necessary or desirable to include extensive commentary on each derivative work, let alone to cover the workbook for a derivative work in more detail than Gardner's Art Through the Ages is itself covered. If one is interested in genuinely improving this article, the article would certainly benefit from more detailed commentary on the significance and influence of the original work. On the other hand, introducing promotional references to peripheral products does not contribute significantly to a reader's understanding of the topic, and undermines the credibility of Wikipedia as a serious encyclopedia. See WP:PROMOTION and numerous other Wikipedia policies and guidelines. AngoraFish 木 12:24, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Your comments are utterly banal and wholly generalized. Moreover, these cut and paste blanket statements out of line and character with the discussions above which have been followed to the letter. Your continued hostility only proves you biased actions and motives. Please excuse your actions from the discussion. --Art4em (talk) 19:46, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Your comments violate another Wikipedia policy, that on civility. AngoraFish 木 21:51, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Changes to the article

When making big changes to an article, it is best to do so as multiple edits with edit summaries explaining the reasons for each change. Please bear in mind that reliable sources for descriptions of a product generally do not include promotional material from merchants selling that product. WP:RS explains what to look for. Stephen B Streater (talk) 22:40, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Help:Show_preview implies it's best not to do multiple edits -- is there a policy/guideline elsewhere that contradicts this? Gerardw (talk) 22:53, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Deletion Is Not Wiki Policy

Please forgive my love for irony. This 'article' as you call it was initially captioned as "please add content" way back when. I decided to do just that.

There is no substantial change to the article whatsoever, only an addition. Then, long afterward, as you can plainly see in the discussion and history, then the article was repeatedly vandalized (again and again) without comment or respect for the work of others, myself and the mediation/discussion, which by the way, proceeded in an orderly and respectful manner.

Now then, again, I do not need to remind such learned editors that "DELETION IS NOT WIKIPEDIA" policy, period. Consensus and mediation in deputes is the policy.

Meaning, the history shows a grave disservice (if not implement hypocritical agendas) the the discussion just coming in saying SPAM / VIOLATION / POLICY #69 / WHATEVER, when there has been an orderly progression and honoring of wiki-protocol.

If you have a new concern with the material that CLEARLY INFORMS THE ARTICLE please express your compromise and suggestions -- since deletion is not a wiki-policy. But then again, you can be another protagonist of The Cult of the Amateur by Andrew Keen.

--Art4em (talk) 23:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Editing is not vandalism. There's no consensus for the inclusion on the secondary book. You're welcome to post an WP:RFC if you think it would be helpful. Gerardw (talk) 03:32, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Nicely put! Until which time that there is learned discussion with people with knowledge of the subject you're welcome to post an WP:RFC if you think that would be helpful. Until then, allow me to develop the article. Appreciatively --Art4em (talk) 06:47, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

However, the onus is on you to justify the inclusion of the book in the article and for you to build consensus, and not to start an edit war about it. freshacconci talktalk 14:19, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

And since you are fond of Wiki policy, please read WP:COI per this. Wikipedia is not here for your self-promotional purposes. freshacconci talktalk 14:40, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. We don't need to mention this work. Johnbod (talk) 15:25, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Is there any problem with a brief mention along the lines of "Drawing Upon Art: A Workbook for Gardner's Art Through The Ages" by LG Williams is a student guide to the book"? We don't need the image, which is Fair Use anyway. It has a reputable publisher. Ty 01:15, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The main problem is that the material is predominantly promotional and not informational. Per the COI guideline, it is clear that this is a case where "advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia", demonstrated by the editor's complete disinterest over several years in adding anything other than details of his own workbook. I would submit that this is a classic case of the problems that WP:COI is intended to address. Note also the editor's repeated addition of his own promotional website as a link, not the Cengage website. AngoraFish 木 04:19, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Moreover, objective editing should always bear in mind the goal of working towards the hypothetical 'perfect article'. I would submit that any discussion to define the elements of what a perfect article on Gardiner's Art through the Ages might look like wouldn't even touch on the inclusion of an ephemeral workbook produced for a derivative work. Note that the workbook contains no substantial information on the topic - it is a peripheral teacher's resource.

Note that Cengage currently lists the following products as currently available with this title:

Gardner's Art through the Ages: A Concise History of Western Art,  2nd Edition 
Gardner's Art through the Ages: A Global History, Enhanced Edition (with ArtStudy Online and Timeline),  13th Edition 
Gardner's Art through the Ages: A Global History, Enhanced Edition, Volume I (with ArtStudy Online and Timeline),  13th Edition 
Gardner's Art through the Ages: A Global History, Enhanced Edition, Volume II (with ArtStudy Online and Timeline),  13th Edition 
Gardner's Art through the Ages: 4 Volume Backpack Edition,  13th Edition 
Gardner's Art through the Ages: Backpack Edition, Book A, Antiquity ,  13th Edition 
Gardner's Art through the Ages: Backpack Edition, Book B, The Middle Ages,  13th Edition 
Gardner's Art through the Ages: Backpack Edition, Book C, Renaissance and Baroque,  13th Edition 
Gardner's Art through the Ages: Backpack Edition, Book D, Modern Europe and America,  13th Edition 
Gardner's Art through the Ages: Non-Western Perspectives,  13th Edition 
Gardner's Art through the Ages: The Western Perspective,  13th Edition 
Gardner's Art through the Ages: The Western Perspective, Volume I,  13th Edition 
Gardner's Art through the Ages: The Western Perspective, Volume II,  13th Edition 
Gardner's Art Through the Ages: A Concise Global History,  2nd Edition 
Gardner's Art through the Ages: A Global History,  13th Edition 
Gardner's Art through the Ages: A Global History, Volume I,  13th Edition 
Gardner's Art through the Ages: A Global History, Volume II,  13th Edition 
Gardner's Art through the Ages: A Concise History of Western Art,  1st Edition 
Gardner's Art through the Ages: A Concise History,  1st Edition 
Gardner's Art through the Ages: Non-Western Perspectives,  12th Edition 

Although not a priority either, I would submit that all of the above would have a greater claim to inclusion in this article than an ephemeral 'workbook'. AngoraFish 木 04:19, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree these various formats should be mentioned, although I think they are mostly slices off the original, now it is so huge. Is anyone well-informed on the differences between them? Johnbod (talk) 12:26, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The sheer volume of iterations is certainly worthy of note. Presumably all of these have a particular constituency that the publisher is attempting to meet the needs of, with sales to match the effort. In this regard, the sole reference Wittenberg University - Art Department: Spring Semester 2002, is obviously manifestly inadequate, while arguably failing WP:RS and WP:OR. Tragically, textbooks aren't exactly a popular topic of scholarly research, making this article a difficult one to find good quality sources for. AngoraFish 木 14:00, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I take that back. JSTOR archives have the following reference http://www.jstor.org/pss/1320661. Tragically, JSTOR is no longer readily accessible to me. If anyone with access would be so kind as to email me a copy I'd be more than happy to try to pull the information into something more useful and substantial. AngoraFish 木 14:17, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Not being updated

Wasn't there an announcement a year or two ago that there would be no more updated editions? Does anyone have a link? Johnbod (talk) 17:51, 27 April 2015 (UTC)