User talk:Joojay/Archives/2021/March

Re: Victor Margolin

Hi Joojay, You query whether Margolin wrote the cited pun books. There was an anonymous edit: 12:57, 12 March 2021‎ 2804:7f4:3c80:5e2d:2401:19f9:34a3:3e28 talk‎ 9,029 bytes −152‎ Removed "The Little Pun Book" and "Peter Pauper’s Pun Book" from the Publications and contributions section, since they were written by Robert Margolin, a different person. which appears to be correct, and Margolin does not mention them on his home page: https://victor.people.uic.edu

You write that you believe he did work as a designer but I have not seen any reference to that, by Margolin or others (he may have worked in films and TV but not as a designer; he had no design training).

You have replaced the citation to an article in the Chicago Tribune. I had removed it because it is inaccessible behind a paywall and because the citing of (attributed) views doesn't seem to be appropriate for the lead paragraph (should be just facts?). The other citation you added is not appropriate either, I would say. It's to a SustainableIdeas blog which just says Margolin has been arguing for a “Social Model of Design”. He refered to “Isolated Voices” in Design Literature, in particular the voices of William Morris, Buckminster Fuller and Victor Papaneck. and then gives brief entries on Morris, Fuller and Papanek (nothing actually on Margolin). There is another 'AntiManifesto'page on the blog site: http://www.sustainableideas.it/2008/04/anti-manifesto/ which does report a lecture by Margolin and adds Margolin calls for a “social model” of design practice and addresses the questions of a new social agenda for designers, and re-orienting the project towards social needs. but doesn't otherwise give or cite the actual lecture content (there's no source for it on the referenced Archeworks site). I am not saying Margolin did not have such views, just that there doesn't seem to be much evidence.

So I would very respectfully like to ask that you remove the citations [2] and [3] that you added - and perhaps replace them with a citation to Margolin's home page, although that is cited elsewhere in the article. Designergene (talk) 14:50, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

@Designergene: Hello, I did not add back anything about Margolin being a designer or the sentence you had removed about his ideas, as I respected your decision to remove it. I have heard that he created a series of flat pack furniture designs that were in a MOMA exhibition, but I was not able to find anything. I am happy to remove the sustainableideas.it citation if you find it questionable but the Newspapers.com is a WP:RS and the Wikimedia Foundation provides it active for editors. If you want access check out the Wikipedia Library, you can request access too. We are allowed to use citations behind paywalls here, that would not be valid reason for removal. Margolin's self published website is not considered a reliable source for the sake of Wikipedia. Jooojay (talk) 15:15, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

I went through and added a few tags to the citations that need clean up (like his own profile website). I did some work on he Margolin article, but it needs more clean up in my opinion and I lost steam on this. This article has a history of COI edits because there was a lot of references and external links to his book publishers, specifically to Bloomsbury Publishing but not a lot about his ideas, that was why I added a note to the talk page. Jooojay (talk) 15:37, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks. Access to the Chicago Tribune article still seems to need me to set up a 'free trial', which I don't want to do. I do think that the citation of a newspaper article with the heading "Design Expert Sees Society, Not Just Style, At Core of Innovation" is (a) very weak evidence per se, (b) obscure in the context where it is placed - it does nothing to confirm the statement 'was an American design author, researcher, historian and educator', and (c) inappropriate in a lead paragraph as a simple statement of facts. I could remove it, but I respect the standards of your edits, and wouldn't want to start a trivial edit war! Designergene (talk) 17:03, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello again, as I see it right now, this article needs deep clean up still and more citations, not less citations. The Chicago Tribune article is an entire article only about Margolin and it verifies his role as a design author, historian and researcher. Removing it does nothing to improve the article and we should never be removing reliable citations for the sake of "it's a weak evidence". But I am happy to keep discussing it further, if it still bothers you. If you are able to join the Wikipedia Library, access to newspapers.com and this specific citation by the Chicago Tribune is literally a free service - as well as other sources like Oxford Biographies, ancestry.com, and ect. Jooojay (talk) 17:14, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

OK. I think it might be better positioned within the article at a more relevant point. I'll think about it. Designergene (talk) 17:44, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm going to add a bit on Margolin's 'social design' writing and move the citation from the lead to there. I hope that will be constructive and seem OK. Designergene (talk) 14:23, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

@Designergene: cool! Go for it! Jooojay (talk) 20:12, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thank you for dropping by on my talk page! Here's a kitten

JerseyGrrrl87 (talk) 05:34, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Edit mistakes for Justin Brice Guariglia page

Hello Jooojay - thank you for tending to this page Justin Brice Guariglia. I do believe you have made a number of mistakes in your edits. There are "primary sources" cited that you are marking as needing a better source - but you cannot get better than a primary source!

For example, he was given a fellowship at Brown University and the Brown University website, where it was announced, is cited. You cannot get a better source than the university that gave him the fellowship. You have done this 4 times for 4 primary sources. That is why I marked it in the edit notes. Also please see my edit notes. Also how this artist identifies, and what kind of work he makes. I've left some of your changes intact which are correct and accurate, but I've changed or undone that which is incorrect (the artist is not a "conceptual artist", and the artist identifies as an artist not as a photographer as you can see on his main public facing social media pages.ArtArtBaby (talk) 03:03, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

@ArtArtBaby: Please review all the notes on your own talk page, primary sources are not preferred by Wikipedia for biographies of living people, see WP:RS, WP:BLPPRIMARY, WP:BLP, WP:PSTS and WP:NOTRS. Jooojay (talk) 22:45, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

@ArtArtBaby: additionally citations do state that Guariglia is a conceptual artist, and since historically he was a photographer - that is also included in the lede. Are you somehow connected to the artist? Your edits seem like they might be personal? Jooojay (talk) 23:00, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

References

@Jooojay: I'm new to contributing to Wikipedia but I've been a user for many years. I noticed your edits because I'm currently writing a dissertation about this artist. While I'm not an expert on Mr. Guariglia's work I'm very knowledgable about him and his art practice. I have spoken with the artist multiple times, and have visited his exhibitions to write about him for the last 3 years, and I've also been using his Wiki page for research. You've listed the following primary sources as "better source needed": 1) The Brooklyn Rail. A secondary source and one of the oldest and most respected art publications in America. 2) Brown University website. An American Ivy League university website that awarded him the fellowship - how is this not credible? 3) Simons Foundation. A prestigious foundation that gave him the fellowship - this is their official website - how is this not credible? 4) Woodwell Climate Research Center. A Nobel Prize winning research center which appointed him this position. This is also an extremely credible source. My research on Wikipedia shows that Primary Sources of credible origin are perfectly acceptable. Furthermore, there are no additional sources for these fellowships - newspapers and magazines do not publicize such things. These all appear to be highly credible sources. Can you please reverse your notation on these 4 points? You are correct he is historically a photographer and still does photography but he identifies as an artist and most articles written about him speak about him as an artist first and foremost and I know he calls himself an artist - this is part of my research for my work. It appears you grabbed the first Google article that comes up which is the YBCA article which incorrectly identifies him as a "conceptual artist" - but his work is not conceptual - he makes physical objects. Please see these articles for your reference on how they refer to Mr. Guariglia: [[1]], [[2]]. Your note: "He was a freelance photographer for 20 years in Asia, before transitioning into an art practice in 2010." seems out of place in the lede which is why I removed it. It's an orphaned sentence with no context, it's just thrown into the lede haphazardly. In recent conversation with Mr. Guariglia he was appointed a faculty position at Pratt Institute. I found the school website announcement page. I added this into his Wiki page and cited the university, and have included in my dissertation, but you have removed it, two times already. Again, Pratt Institute is a very credible source - it's not some obscure website, it's a 150 year old college. Can you please leave that in place? Like you, my interest is accuracy and these are all factual edits with credible sources.ArtArtBaby (talk) 04:06, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I left you a conflict of interest notice based on this last conversation point. I have also left you many links that explain why we don't use primary sources (or interviews) in biographies of living people. Also please review conceptual art, it can still be about physical objects, "concept(s) or idea(s) involved in the work take precedence over traditional aesthetic, technical, and material concerns. Some works of conceptual art, sometimes called installations..." I would assume you would need to understand this, if your writing an art dissertation. Your concerns over the lead content can be further read at MOS:LEAD. Jooojay (talk) 10:06, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello - I'm not looking for an argument, but I'm puzzled by your aggressive erasure of facts. WP:BLPPRIMARY states "Avoid misuse of primary sources". It goes on to say: "Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses. Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies." Jooojay Where is the violation of this policy or the misuse of primary sources for these facts about fellowships and awards that you have now erased from this page?ArtArtBaby (talk) 18:57, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm writing a critical dissertation about the place Mr. Guariglia holds in the contemporary conversation of climate change in the art world today. My work and writing is definitely not a promotion for the artist nor is there any COI. Speaking with the artist, studying and writing about their work, and defending public and published facts about the artist is not a COI. I am not writing "fluff" or conjecture about the artist on Wikipedia. Please tell me which of these [[3]] conflicts of interest have I violated by correcting cited facts you have now removed. I was under the impression that the entire point of Wikipedia was to have a diversity of parties contribute information about subject matters which they are knowledgable about. I use Wikipedia a a major resource for much of my work. Many of the things you're deleting are facts that contribute to the general knowledge base of all artists. I'm also writing about Mr. Edward Burtynsky in relation to Mr. Guariglia, and none of his awards are backed by any citations, but they are facts which I can also prove with primary source citations. By your logic, these should be swiftly erased from Wikipedia. I ask that you please put these facts back into this biography.ArtArtBaby (talk) 18:57, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Regarding your quote about "conceptual art" you shared from the wikipedia definition -- " it can still be about physical objects, "concept(s) or idea(s) involved in the work take precedence over traditional aesthetic, technical, and material concerns. Some works of conceptual art, sometimes called installations..."" -- This is exactly correct, but you have cherry-picked text from the definition. You neglected to include the first part of that definition which is the most important component of that definition: "Conceptual art, also referred to as conceptualism, is art in which the concept(s) or idea(s) involved in the work take precedence over traditional aesthetic, technical, and material concerns." Thus Mr. Guariglia's practice makes him not not a conceptual artist as aesthetics, technical and material elements take precedence in his work. In my dissertation I credit to his photographic background which is driven by material processes. Mr. Guariglia is clearly not a conceptual artist because he puts precedence on ideas and concepts first in his art practice.ArtArtBaby (talk) 18:57, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

While I'm new to contributing, I'm not new to the platform and I have donated often during fundraising drives. I care about these points because I rely heavily of Wikipedia for the research in my work, and I must say that while your aggressive tack can be good for false or highly debatable information, erasing factual information, backed by non-contentious primary sources that is acceptable and within the bounds of Wikipedia rules, doesn't set a great precedent. It's also unclear what your goals are with these actions, and I hope it's just a misunderstanding but, but the erasure of these facts doesn't seem to help Wikipedia, nor any of the millions of users that use this website as a critical reference resource.ArtArtBaby (talk) 18:57, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)@ArtArtBaby: donating to Wikipedia gives no special status, rights or permissions in editing. In terms of content, it does not matter at all.--- Possibly (talk) 19:34, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

You have once again cherry-picked and responded to the only thing I mentioned which, and you are absolutely correct, has zero bearing on editing! You have refused to respond to the crucial case points I've made above which defend my position.ArtArtBaby (talk) 17:39, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

@ArtArtBaby: I have responded and you have continued to tell me, an experienced editor here that I am wrong. I don't have time for your personal attacks, best of luck to you and your dissertation. Jooojay (talk) 17:48, 27 March 2021 (UTC)