Talk:Augustus John

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
	This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group.

	This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start	Class: This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.

Contents 1 Vandalism 2 Third opinion 3 Another opinion 4 Restructuring of page

[edit] Vandalism

Unilateral and unannounced removal of valuable non-spam links to an article is an act of vandalism unless a consensus has beem reached through discussion, or at least some attempt to reach consensus has been made. Niether conditions apply in this case, therefore the valuable links have been restored.Peter morrell 06:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

• A desire for conscientious editing has been misinterpreted as vandalism, which is defined as a "change in content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia". The intent was quite the opposite. Rather, it was, and is, to avoid repetition and include information of the best quality. To that end, please note that of the remaining images, the portrait of Yeats and both portraits of Lawrence are already represented on the links to the Tate and the NPG. The portrait of David Lloyd George is of poor quality, and the study for "Moses and the Brazen Serpent", while serving as an indication of John's youthful brilliance, is not a work of his finest level--many more of those (seven or eight pages' worth) are included in the museum links. Several other images that I deleted are of fine works of prominent individuals; again, my rationale was that links had already been provided to more than seventy works, and that these provide ample and encyclopedic representation of John's finest drawings and paintings. JNW 12:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree and it appears that since August, 95% of your wiki activity has been focused solely on the negative process of removing links, which you do not seem to justify, and many of which are perfectly OK as they are. Considering the time folks spend in finding decent links, a process that generally enhances articles, I would suggest that the links in question are better left unless they genuinely are spam links. Even the so-called spam-link you removed from the Augustus John article is a good link because, although it is a pub, he lived neary for a while and it acknowledges some aspects of his life. Therefore, many may not construe it strictly as spam but of interest to readers of the article. Perhaps you can suggest a compromise plan? thank you Peter morrell 13:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

• Your characterization of my activity is not accurate, and since we are encouraged to act in good faith, I must assume that you just did not research my activity carefully: I have most actively removed links only in the last twenty four hours. Prior to that, my editing was confined to corrections regarding spelling, syntax, vandalism, and information--a study of my contributions page makes this clear. Editors are, of course, at liberty to re-connect links that they feel are deleted in error, and I realize that there are those who will disagree with my choices (often such links are replete with both information about artists, and commercial advertising), and sometimes with good reason.

To assert vandalism is to maintain a 'deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia', which, if untrue, is a more damaging action than my deletions, and might be forwarded to another forum--if a consensus of objective and experienced editors find my corrections overzealous, I will respect that. But, since this is the discussion page for Augustus John, this probably is not the best place to either assert or deny such claims.

That your links are made in good faith I do not doubt; as much is suggested by your rich enhancement of the biographical information. Regarding the pub, I suggest it could reside under a 'trivia' heading; including it as a link actually trivializes the subject. Such is my point regarding the links, and their inclination toward a scrapbook format. That is why editing is necessary. As for a compromise plan, I think it would be great to include several of John's finest works in the body of the article, a more resonant visual solution, anyway. JNW 14:03, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, sure I would welcome any visual additions to articles, please go ahead; such would be examples of positive editing, rather than the negative style you seem to prefer...as previously stated. 'Vandalism' in this case means slashing 12-15 items from the links page, which you must admit is a severe approach that was unannounced, unilateral and unnegotiated: no discussion preceeded your actions. And then to find you have been doing this all over wikipedia for the last 3 months, well, its a bit rich, surely even you can see that? Maybe the word 'vandalism' was a bit strong, but I have to justify a revert of changes made and I think I have amply justified that position. Maybe you can now justify what you have been doing for the last 3 months? I would suggest that the sheer scale of your activities is certainly bordeline vandalism, even though you think it is valid editing. it is a tad overzealous, question is has it improved the articles? probably not. please feel free to approach other editors about this matter. I would welcome their scrutiny of your track record. Peter morrell 14:45, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

• While I do not agree with your assessment as to my not having improved articles, I think that interesting questions are raised here, especially regarding perceptions of 'positive' and 'negative' editing, and I will seek further input on this article and on the more general issue. Thank you, JNW 15:06, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Not sure if you have exactly 'savaged' articles, as that would require greater scrutiny, but my point is this: I have always tried on wiki to enhance every article I have looked at, either by adding categories, links or quotation material and references, wherever possible, and at the same time trying to do the minimum damage to the article as I found it. An examination of my track record will bear this claim out. I call that making a positive contribution; however, some people are very precious and proprietorial about their work, I try not to be and so when you removed my links I wasn't hopping mad, for example, I just thought is this positive, does this enhance this article? and was it a justified change? my answer was no to those questions. It doen't really matter how many links an article has if they enhance the article...surely? you are right it is about perception but I think what i have said is a valid appraisal of this issue. Thanks also for being so civil, its often not that way. Peter morrell 15:47, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

• Savaged, no. My intention is to improve articles, too, although often I seek to do so by trimming what I think are extraneous materials, usually redundancies of text. However, even though I thought I was doing something productive, I can well understand your interpreting my edits here as being harsh--goodness knows, I tend to wince when someone edits me. Even if my edits serve a purpose, it is not my wish to hurt others' feelings, and so, right or wrong, I feel a bit embarrassed if I have been heavy-handed. And since I think a lot of John's work was beautiful, it strikes me as a bit odd to be playing devil's advocate in seeking to trim the number of reproductions. You have given me much to think about. Thank you, JNW 16:44, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

thanks again for being so civil which is much appreciated. I have suggested below that we have a cooling off period to mull over points made, if you agree this is a good idea? thanks again Peter morrell 17:14, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Third opinion

I came here as a result of a plea on Wikipedia:Third opinion. Here is my third opinion:

• Redundant links pointing to essentially the same content should be removed. In the case of having a link to a collection of works, versus a link to an individual work, the link to the individual work should be retained if, somehow, it has greater value than the same work found in the collection. "Greater value" can mean a higher resolution image, or more detailed notes about the work. Otherwise, the link to an individual work should be removed.
• The purpose of an "External links" section in an article is not to create a comprehensive list of related information elsewhere, but rather a concise list of links that illuminate the content of the article.
• In my opinion, then, each link should be gone over carefully and judged on its own merits how valuable it is compared to the link to the collection. This will undoubtedly result in the deletion of some, but perhaps not all, the links under contention.

-Amatulic 16:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that a list of links is or should be concise...who says that? and why? what's wrong with being comprehensive? however, I agree that the links should be retained that are the best and maybe the poorer ones sacrificed for the sake of some brevity...so broadly I can agree with the main thrust of what you said. In this specific case user JNW has humbly taken on board my comments and feels impelled to think over the points I made, in which case maybe we need to take stock and mull this over before we make an further changes, just to see how we feel in a day or two about the points we each made. This is what I would suggest. Peter morrell 17:12, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Amatulic. Regarding conciseness of exernal link sections, Wikipedia is not a web directory., and "External links should be used sparingly and kept to a minimum." . I do not think that it was justified to characterize the removal of external links as vandalism. -- Chondrite 17:54, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Another opinion

I feel somewhat responsible for this contretemps, since I recently thanked JNW for his work in removing excess links from a couple of artists' biographies on my watch list, and that may have inspired him to perform more such removals -- as indeed I had hoped it would. I think anyone who has prepared a piece of writing for publication or a paper for a class will recognize that removing material is often an improvement. Unfortunately it's a form of editing that too often gets neglected on Wikipedia, in part because it tends to be a thankless task. That thanklessness is vividly illustrated on this page, where an editor has been accused of vandalism and subjected to attacks on his editing history just for trying to clean up a list of external links -- a good-faith edit for which he clearly stated his reasons in two edit summaries. Even if JNW was too bold on this page -- which I don't agree is the case -- I'm dismayed to see him accused of having a "negative" style for his very positive contributions in removing unneeded material from Wikipedia.

I hope there will be no further attempts to bring users' edit histories into this discussion. As Chondrite pointed out, the management of external link sections is covered by Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and -- contrary to Peter morrell's comments on JNW's talk page -- I see no reason why subject-matter expertise should be required to comment.

Regarding the specific image links that were removed, not only do many of them duplicate images that can be found through to museum links, but -- although I'm sure this was not intentional -- linking directly to images on other sites seems like a bit of an end run around copyright. It is also seen as "bandwidth theft" by some webmasters, who may choose to block or redirect such links. If there is a good case for using these images to illustrate the article, then they can be copied to Wikipedia; if not, then I don't think we should link directly to the images either. I certainly support the idea of placing some images of John's art directly on the page with appropriate fair use rationales -- or public domain tags, for any that can be demonstrated to have been published before 1923.

The John Singer Sargent Gallery's page on Elisabeth Asquith looks like a valuable link, since it makes an interesting comparison to other artists' portraits of the same sitter; I would support including that instead of a link directly to the image.

I strongly support the removal of the links to individual images. —Celithemis 03:05, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I dislike the aggressive tone of this msg. Four ganging up against one is pure bullying which stands exactly and transparently for what it is; I could have easily contacted 4 or 5 wiki people who might have weighed-in to support me but that is not a fair approach. I do not respect the track record or opinions of this person either...what have they contributed here except to their own talk page? As already stated, 'vandalism' was maybe a slightly strong word, but in the context in which it was used and the explanation given it was valid. And it is certainly a form of vandalism to go round removing links without negiotiation in dozens of articles for over 3 months. I reject completely the so-called points made which predictably inspire me only to harden my case. It is up to JNW to decide his next course of action and I await his decision. Peter morrell 04:17, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

JNW did not contact me about this dispute; I noticed it through my watch list. The other two people who've commented here apparently did so after JNW asked for input from uninvolved parties on Wikipedia:Third Opinion, a course of action which you actually encouraged above. He has made no attempt to drum up support by selectively seeking out other editors who agree with him. Please don't blame him for my commenting here, which he did not ask for and had no control over.

I didn't mean to make you feel ganged up on, but please understand that this is not a private dispute between you and JNW. Other editors have every right to comment and to edit the page. I urge you to reconsider your actions in dismissing people based on their edit histories rather than engaging with the points made. The policy and guideline that Chondrite pointed to above would be important even if that had been his or her very first edit. —Celithemis 07:05, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

My comment about intimidation is that if 3 or 4 people, even for good reasons, all weigh into one other then that is bullying pure and simple because it can have an intimidating impact numerically on the one poor recipient! I did not feel that personally in actual fact but was making a general point about that type of action which can be perceived by some as intimidating. Nor did I specifically assume that he JNW had contacted you or others...let's get back to the main point please...I have fully justified in reasonable terms and several times now why I reverted the removal of links and why I felt that his editing policy is in my view negative or can be perceived as such. I stand by those comments even though I have acknowledged that the word vandalism might have been a tad too strong. What do you now suggest to resolve this matter amicably? which is afterall where we need to get to eventually after all this futile rambling around the issue to no specific purpose. What do you now suggest happens? Can we speak in terms of some practical actions now rather than more flannel? thank you Peter morrell 08:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

My concrete suggestion, still on the table, is to remove links that go directly to images, but add a link to the JSS gallery page -- and any other pages with useful content that these images come from. And, as I think we're actually all agreeing, move a few of the more important images onto the page. —Celithemis 08:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

OK that sounds an excellent idea...add the best images to the piece say 3 or 4 and then prune the links down to the best ones. I don't even know how to add a picture so will have to defer that task. go for it. thanks Peter morrell 08:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy to handle uploading and placing the images -- which ones should I grab? Maybe the Dylan Thomas, and the self-portrait -- which I found an image of here separate from the book cover? Is there anything else that would be especially useful to illustrate points in the text, or aspects of his work? —Celithemis 09:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I think his portraits of Yeats and T E Lawrence are very fine and maybe the Dylan Thomas one too...his potrait of two Jamaican girls is also superb. is that sufficient for you to choose? thanks Peter morrell 13:19, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I have now removed some of the links we agreed are superfluous...please go ahead and place some pics in the text and remove more links as appropriate. Hopefully this matter is now resolved. thanks Peter morrell 15:02, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, I went with three out of those that seemed like a good range of sitters and styles. Also, I added a link to the Natl Museum of Wales collection. It's an annoying link because most of their paintings don't have online images, but it does have text for some of them and it shows what's actually on display in the museum. (Their image of the Dylan Thomas is also larger than the old one, which was apparently flipped right-to-left.) —Celithemis 05:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Restructuring of page

I have restructured the page by moving some paragraphs and adding headings, all aimed at strengthening the chronological order, and with virtually no loss of text. Please compare to previous version. I think it reads better now, but I welcome feedback on this move, and, of course, feel free to revert if you believe any damage was done. JNW 01:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)