Talk:Thomas Hirschhorn

Addition of External Links

I would like to add an external link to this page. It would be to a short 3 minute documentry made with the artist, Thomas Hirschhorn in which he explains some of the infulences and motivations behind his contemporary practice. I think that it would compliment the article.Amy.jackson-bruce (talk) 13:40, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I have added a link to a video in which the artist shows and talks about his contribution to the Swiss Pavilion at the Venice Biennale 2011. I have also linked to the Wikipage for the Venice Biennale, so that interested readers can find out more about this event. T.Broch (talk) 14:09, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Thomas Hirschhorn. 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://archive.is/20080429185239/http://blog.cmoa.org/CI08/2008/02/thomas-hirschhorn.php to http://blog.cmoa.org/CI08/2008/02/thomas-hirschhorn.php

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) 17:04, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Bibliography

Hello Drmies,

I made an enrichment of the bibliography, but you reverse it. I don't see in what way a bibliography is considered as a "resume" document. Academic research is based on detailed and large bibliographies. All these references are potential sources, and constitute a basis to improve this article (a work I just begun). I built this bibliography consulting many of these books, and by matching their own bibliographies. I don't see what the difference is between the few previous references in the article (Thomas Hirschhorn: Establishing a Critical Corpus, Thomas Hirschhorn: Deleuze Monument ...) and the ones I added. If it can be improved and corrected, please specify me how. Thank you very much for your collaboration. Kindest regards, Un Ptyx (talk) 13:10, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

• Hi Un Ptyx. Our articles are not really for that kind of reader; we're not doing academic work here. Huge bibliographies are not very helpful to the reader, and unless they're cited in the article one may well ask what the point is. The article needs more citations for its content, and more cited content, and that's where the first part of your bibliography can be helpful. The second part was a list of the subject's writings (I assume), and that's really resume material. We don't want articles to be resumes. The catalogues easily fall under resume info also, and then there's the "General publications", whose titles really do not give the reader any clue why they are listed and what relevance they have for the article. Your additions basically doubled the article without adding any text, or providing any clear link between text and bibliography other than "it's by or about the subject". The way forward, toward article improvement, is to use titles from your list to write encyclopedic content, and then add that title to the article's list of references. But adding a bibliography first, in article space, that's just either dead wood for the reader to scroll through, or it's turning the article into a resume. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 14:24, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Hello Drmies, thank you for your detailed reply. We visibly don't share the same conception of what a good article should aim at regarding references and their extent; but my views doesn't matter much. I understand that in an article at this point of progress, a large bibliography seems pointless to you. I will come back to that part later during the general enrichment of the other parts. Thank you, Un Ptyx (talk) 15:05, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
    • Un Ptyx, that may be so, but I do have a bit of experience on the English wiki, in article writing including at FA level. BTW I saw that the French version really mirrored the one here--with a lack of properly verified content. Again, that's where progress can and should be made. Drmies (talk) 15:44, 17 May 2023 (UTC)