![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The following Wikipedia contributors may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. |
![]() | Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent. |
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Lacyew.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 14:45, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
As a person with an interest in art history I have problems with this page: it is utterly incoherent, and it is totally inaccurate. For example, there is a less than subtle attempt to exclude the founding member, Michael Baldwin, and the current member, Mel Ramsden. This is merely to serve as an example of the absurdities which are, unfortunately, persistent throughout the article (there are countless and less trivial examples)... I hope they will be addressed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.9.233.89 ( talk) 00:47, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
IMO, the referenced and wiki'ed version is superior. There's been no mention of the sources for the current, and no communication from the new accounts who changed it so I'm going to revert. Syrthiss ( talk) 12:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
This is an encyclopedia article. References good. Dumping exhaustive lists of exhibitions/awards etc. and removing references bad.-- Ethicoaestheticist ( talk) 20:28, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Ethicoaestheticist: I am already tired of trying to correct your text. I have no desire to list its absurd misapprehensions, omissions and oversights. It is simultaneously provincial and tendentious. In a word: goofy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dgpjlggvtp ( talk • contribs) 11:36, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
I would like to wade in with an opinion on this confusion, even if it is two years too late. The entire article reads like a discussion of Australian cricket in the thirties which is desperate to ignore Donald Bradman; it's like a description of quantum mechanics acknowledging Enrico Fermi as important as Paul Dirac. I'm not comparing Art Language's contribution to that of quantum mechanics or cricket. Nor am I comparing Michael Baldwin, Mel Ramsden and Charles Harrison to Paul Dirac. Rather (if this isn't too big a word for you) it was a metaphor, serving to highlight the absurd skew in the article. The thinly veiled - and moderately juvenile - attempts to radicalize and politicize the ex-members reeks of a desperate need to make them sound more important than they really are. I'm sorry for whoever you are, but please stop editing this article, and find a more constructive way to make yourself feel important, and please contain your slightly priapic relationship with Jerry Saltz's crtiticism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.71.15 ( talk) 00:31, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Syrthiss: could you please tell me how to go about making serious, constructive changes to this article? Do I really need to list the problems one by one, or can I provide a new, more accurate text? While I am willing, if I absolutely have to, to go through each of the problems with you, there are so many that we are likely to be here for a very long time indeed. It seems odd to me that you would view a text as in some way 'superior' or appropriate - or indeed more coherently encyclopedic - simply because it was posted on here first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blanchot ( talk • contribs) 11:40, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Art & Language. 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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:58, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
"Starting at the beginning of the 1970s, individuals such as Ian Burn, Michael Corris, Preston Heller, Graham Howard, Joseph Kosuth, Andrew Menard, Terry Smith and from Coventry Philip Pilkington and David Rushton joined the group."
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect A&l. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. signed, Rosguill talk 23:36, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
I am proposing to merge the current article with the one on the magazine, Art-Language. Both articles have a lot of overlap in contents, even using the same image. The difference between the two (& vs -) is a bit too subtle for me, and also for the average reader, I assume. Merging the two will provide for a more complete and coherent article than the current two. -- Randykitty ( talk) 12:17, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 05:22, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Maintenance tags were boldly removed without resolving the underlying issues. The tags were then restored and were removed again in an edit-war manner without starting a discussion here nor resolving the issues; additionally more unsourced material was added.
The tags were as follows:
COI: the article has been heavily edited by single purpose editors, editors who never responded to COI inquiries nor made a disclosure, editors adding COPYVIO material, SPA editor adding huge listings of works held by the collector and who owns the museum whose primary function is to house Art & Language’s works, edits made by several commercial galleries that represent A&L, etc.
Citations needed for verification: there are multiple claims, statements, and “facts” throughout the article, including multiple paragraphs, lists of artists and collections without proper sourcing.
Excessive detail: this is obvious per the two issues above.
The maintenance tags will be restored. Please do not remove them again without resolving the issues. Netherzone ( talk) 00:29, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Large blocks of unsourced content regarding living persons have been unsourced for many years, therefore indicating original research WP:OR and/or not complying with WP:NPOV. BLP violations since much of these unsourced additions concern living persons;. Self-sourced content. Maintenance tag for citations for verification repeatedly removed rather than resolving the problems in the article. Netherzone ( talk) 23:53, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
L'Origine du monde, please stop removing the COI maintenance tag without resolving the issuesit has been removed three times now. The last time you did so, you stated that there was no justification for it, this is incorrect. The COI issues are not resolved, the justification is above on this talk page stating COI: the article has been heavily edited by single purpose editors, editors who never responded to COI inquiries nor made a disclosure, editors adding COPYVIO material, SPA editor adding huge listings of works held by the collector and who owns the museum whose primary function is to house Art & Language’s works, edits made by several commercial galleries that represent A&L, etc.
. Additionally, one of the main
Single Purpose Editors who added large amounts of unsourced content failed to ever respond to the COI notification on their user page, thus the COI issues are NOT resolved. If you examine the article history, you will see that I have extensively worked on the article, and have cleaned up some, but not all of the problems yet. The unsourced content added by the COI SPA involves living persons and is thus also a BLP violation. Please stop edit warring over the maintenance tag, and try to develop patience.
Netherzone (
talk)
22:20, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
I have already provided justifications several times on the Art & Language article talk page and in my edit summaries. Just because you don't agree with those justifications is not a reason for you to bludgeon the process. If you would kindly look through the article history (which I have also asked you to do more than once, but I will explain again), you will find that the most frequent editor, who has added scores of unsourced content, and who primarily only edits Art & Language, Château de Montsoreau-Museum of Contemporary Art where the permanent collection of Art & Language is held and where they had added a tremendous amount of puffery, Philippe Méaille the owner of the Art & Language collection and the president of the Chateau de Montsoreau museum which houses that collection, and whose other edits are to frequently add Art & Language content to other articles, as well as half of their article creations having to do with Art & Language, including the article on the building that houses the A&L collection (which was deleted four times before being accepted under another article name). As an experienced editor, that seems quite odd to me, and is clearly indicative of conflict of interest editing, or worse, UPE, undisclosed paid editing. And that they never responded to the message I left for them regarding COI, is a pattern I've seen before. There have also been numerous other single-purpose editors. I have already communicated this, please stop making demands for justification when I have already done so. The maintenance tags that you so vehemently object to are are a helpful way to alert the community that work is needed on a specific article. I will continue to clean. up the unsourced content and original research and the remainder of COI content, but I won't be doing it on your timeline as you are certainly not the boss of me. I have other priorities on the encyclopedia and in real life. As previously suggested, please try to cultivate patience. Thank you and goodbye.Netherzone ( talk) 21:29, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
You have removed it four times in a little over a week without resolving the issues. I have explained it will take time to go through several years of edits by connected editors. Do not remove the template again without fixing the issues. Netherzone ( talk) 20:14, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
surely the Artist's representative gallery deserves a link( WP:ELNO),
I do not understand your problem with lists of galleries or affiliated artists being added to this article years ago eby someone with an interest( WP:COI, WP:UPE). I have done nothing that merits issuing you an apology. There are no expert editors and every single one of us is qualified to provide an opinion on an article, it's contents and its sourcing. Your conduct, persistent interest in removing what you believe to be a "badge of shame", concern about the size makes me think yes, you have a conflict here. I'm going to be offline for several hours but will come back to this later today. Star Mississippi 18:15, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
" I do not understand your problem with lists of galleries or affiliated artists being added to this article years ago by someone with an interest, since your complaint seems to be about formatting and use of references, rather than the accuracy or notability of the information."- please explain your complaint. If you look at policy it clearly states that tags should not be used as a badge of shame. For many years the article had 3 tags pointing out the obvious, with repetition. I do not understand, or appreciate, why quoting wikipedia policy makes you suspect a COI, nor do I understand why thinking that the article is short and bad, and adding all the available images from wikicommons should make you suspect it. I have been editing subjects including art and terrorism for over 10 years. I have consistently asked for an understandable justification for maintaining the tag, and I think you owe me an apology because, rather than explain your reason for keeping the tag, you attack me. As far as I can understand you are an admin. ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ♥ Talk ♥ 18:29, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
I have turned the long list of artists into a short paragraph, and collapsed the list of collections that holds the work. Please can we now remove the tag, or explain to me why it is important that some of the collections that do hold the work are not properly referenced. ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ♥ Talk ♥ 21:42, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
" I do not understand your problem with lists of galleries or affiliated artists being added to this article years ago by someone with an interest, since your complaint seems to be about formatting and use of references, rather than the accuracy or notability of the information."- please explain your complaint. If you look at policy it clearly states that tags should not be used as a badge of shame. For many years the article had 3 tags pointing out the obvious, with repetition. I do not understand, or appreciate, why quoting wikipedia policy makes you suspect a COI, nor do I understand why thinking that the article is short and bad, and adding all the available images from wikicommons should make you suspect it. I have been editing subjects including art and terrorism for over 10 years. I have consistently asked for an understandable justification for maintaining the tag, and I think you owe me an apology because, rather than explain your reason for keeping the tag, you attack me. As far as I can understand you are an admin." ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ♥ Talk ♥ 00:21, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
This is true, and important, so I added it to the lede. I think their gallery's website is a reasonable source for this info. ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ♥ Talk ♥ 21:55, 4 March 2023 (UTC) [1] ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ♥ Talk ♥ 21:55, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
True and importantdoes not justify adding yet another commercial link. @ L'Origine du monde, WP:IDHT is not becoming of an editor of your tenure. @ Theroadislong and I both believe you're heavily invested in this article and yet you have not disclosed. Star Mississippi 14:59, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
By Nicola McCartney · 2018 ? ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ♥ Talk ♥ 10:14, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
Art & Language stands on its art historical importance as a key conceptual art collective of the late 20th century. Their Wikipedia article does not need to include a free advertisment for their gallery. The encyclopedic importance of their work is their art historical signifcance, that is why they are notable - what is important is their art historical value, not their market value or where to buy their work. To include a link to their commercial-market showplace is promotionalism. Netherzone ( talk) 17:04, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
Comment While there is nothing fundamentally wrong with mentioning gallery representation of a contemporary artist, any such inclusion should make sense within the context of the article and contribute to encyclopedic purpose as @ Netherzone had alluded to earlier. What worries me here is that ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ has pushed this inclusion without providing any further background, when in fact they could have put together some potentially valuable edits about exhibitions of Art&Language at Lisson held during the 1970s and 1980s to help expand the article. But inserting gallery name name into the article that already has commercial issues only because they represent the artist makes little sense, if any at all. It seems, L'Origine du monde, that you might need to do more research before making any more suggestions of this nature and you should seriously rethink the way you interact with other editors. The way you're arguing here is the opposite of WP:CONSENSUS and does not help make the article better. Ppt91 talk 02:50, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The following Wikipedia contributors may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. |
![]() | Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent. |
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Lacyew.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 14:45, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
As a person with an interest in art history I have problems with this page: it is utterly incoherent, and it is totally inaccurate. For example, there is a less than subtle attempt to exclude the founding member, Michael Baldwin, and the current member, Mel Ramsden. This is merely to serve as an example of the absurdities which are, unfortunately, persistent throughout the article (there are countless and less trivial examples)... I hope they will be addressed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.9.233.89 ( talk) 00:47, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
IMO, the referenced and wiki'ed version is superior. There's been no mention of the sources for the current, and no communication from the new accounts who changed it so I'm going to revert. Syrthiss ( talk) 12:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
This is an encyclopedia article. References good. Dumping exhaustive lists of exhibitions/awards etc. and removing references bad.-- Ethicoaestheticist ( talk) 20:28, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Ethicoaestheticist: I am already tired of trying to correct your text. I have no desire to list its absurd misapprehensions, omissions and oversights. It is simultaneously provincial and tendentious. In a word: goofy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dgpjlggvtp ( talk • contribs) 11:36, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
I would like to wade in with an opinion on this confusion, even if it is two years too late. The entire article reads like a discussion of Australian cricket in the thirties which is desperate to ignore Donald Bradman; it's like a description of quantum mechanics acknowledging Enrico Fermi as important as Paul Dirac. I'm not comparing Art Language's contribution to that of quantum mechanics or cricket. Nor am I comparing Michael Baldwin, Mel Ramsden and Charles Harrison to Paul Dirac. Rather (if this isn't too big a word for you) it was a metaphor, serving to highlight the absurd skew in the article. The thinly veiled - and moderately juvenile - attempts to radicalize and politicize the ex-members reeks of a desperate need to make them sound more important than they really are. I'm sorry for whoever you are, but please stop editing this article, and find a more constructive way to make yourself feel important, and please contain your slightly priapic relationship with Jerry Saltz's crtiticism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.71.15 ( talk) 00:31, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Syrthiss: could you please tell me how to go about making serious, constructive changes to this article? Do I really need to list the problems one by one, or can I provide a new, more accurate text? While I am willing, if I absolutely have to, to go through each of the problems with you, there are so many that we are likely to be here for a very long time indeed. It seems odd to me that you would view a text as in some way 'superior' or appropriate - or indeed more coherently encyclopedic - simply because it was posted on here first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blanchot ( talk • contribs) 11:40, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Art & Language. 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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:58, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
"Starting at the beginning of the 1970s, individuals such as Ian Burn, Michael Corris, Preston Heller, Graham Howard, Joseph Kosuth, Andrew Menard, Terry Smith and from Coventry Philip Pilkington and David Rushton joined the group."
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect A&l. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. signed, Rosguill talk 23:36, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
I am proposing to merge the current article with the one on the magazine, Art-Language. Both articles have a lot of overlap in contents, even using the same image. The difference between the two (& vs -) is a bit too subtle for me, and also for the average reader, I assume. Merging the two will provide for a more complete and coherent article than the current two. -- Randykitty ( talk) 12:17, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 05:22, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Maintenance tags were boldly removed without resolving the underlying issues. The tags were then restored and were removed again in an edit-war manner without starting a discussion here nor resolving the issues; additionally more unsourced material was added.
The tags were as follows:
COI: the article has been heavily edited by single purpose editors, editors who never responded to COI inquiries nor made a disclosure, editors adding COPYVIO material, SPA editor adding huge listings of works held by the collector and who owns the museum whose primary function is to house Art & Language’s works, edits made by several commercial galleries that represent A&L, etc.
Citations needed for verification: there are multiple claims, statements, and “facts” throughout the article, including multiple paragraphs, lists of artists and collections without proper sourcing.
Excessive detail: this is obvious per the two issues above.
The maintenance tags will be restored. Please do not remove them again without resolving the issues. Netherzone ( talk) 00:29, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Large blocks of unsourced content regarding living persons have been unsourced for many years, therefore indicating original research WP:OR and/or not complying with WP:NPOV. BLP violations since much of these unsourced additions concern living persons;. Self-sourced content. Maintenance tag for citations for verification repeatedly removed rather than resolving the problems in the article. Netherzone ( talk) 23:53, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
L'Origine du monde, please stop removing the COI maintenance tag without resolving the issuesit has been removed three times now. The last time you did so, you stated that there was no justification for it, this is incorrect. The COI issues are not resolved, the justification is above on this talk page stating COI: the article has been heavily edited by single purpose editors, editors who never responded to COI inquiries nor made a disclosure, editors adding COPYVIO material, SPA editor adding huge listings of works held by the collector and who owns the museum whose primary function is to house Art & Language’s works, edits made by several commercial galleries that represent A&L, etc.
. Additionally, one of the main
Single Purpose Editors who added large amounts of unsourced content failed to ever respond to the COI notification on their user page, thus the COI issues are NOT resolved. If you examine the article history, you will see that I have extensively worked on the article, and have cleaned up some, but not all of the problems yet. The unsourced content added by the COI SPA involves living persons and is thus also a BLP violation. Please stop edit warring over the maintenance tag, and try to develop patience.
Netherzone (
talk)
22:20, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
I have already provided justifications several times on the Art & Language article talk page and in my edit summaries. Just because you don't agree with those justifications is not a reason for you to bludgeon the process. If you would kindly look through the article history (which I have also asked you to do more than once, but I will explain again), you will find that the most frequent editor, who has added scores of unsourced content, and who primarily only edits Art & Language, Château de Montsoreau-Museum of Contemporary Art where the permanent collection of Art & Language is held and where they had added a tremendous amount of puffery, Philippe Méaille the owner of the Art & Language collection and the president of the Chateau de Montsoreau museum which houses that collection, and whose other edits are to frequently add Art & Language content to other articles, as well as half of their article creations having to do with Art & Language, including the article on the building that houses the A&L collection (which was deleted four times before being accepted under another article name). As an experienced editor, that seems quite odd to me, and is clearly indicative of conflict of interest editing, or worse, UPE, undisclosed paid editing. And that they never responded to the message I left for them regarding COI, is a pattern I've seen before. There have also been numerous other single-purpose editors. I have already communicated this, please stop making demands for justification when I have already done so. The maintenance tags that you so vehemently object to are are a helpful way to alert the community that work is needed on a specific article. I will continue to clean. up the unsourced content and original research and the remainder of COI content, but I won't be doing it on your timeline as you are certainly not the boss of me. I have other priorities on the encyclopedia and in real life. As previously suggested, please try to cultivate patience. Thank you and goodbye.Netherzone ( talk) 21:29, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
You have removed it four times in a little over a week without resolving the issues. I have explained it will take time to go through several years of edits by connected editors. Do not remove the template again without fixing the issues. Netherzone ( talk) 20:14, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
surely the Artist's representative gallery deserves a link( WP:ELNO),
I do not understand your problem with lists of galleries or affiliated artists being added to this article years ago eby someone with an interest( WP:COI, WP:UPE). I have done nothing that merits issuing you an apology. There are no expert editors and every single one of us is qualified to provide an opinion on an article, it's contents and its sourcing. Your conduct, persistent interest in removing what you believe to be a "badge of shame", concern about the size makes me think yes, you have a conflict here. I'm going to be offline for several hours but will come back to this later today. Star Mississippi 18:15, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
" I do not understand your problem with lists of galleries or affiliated artists being added to this article years ago by someone with an interest, since your complaint seems to be about formatting and use of references, rather than the accuracy or notability of the information."- please explain your complaint. If you look at policy it clearly states that tags should not be used as a badge of shame. For many years the article had 3 tags pointing out the obvious, with repetition. I do not understand, or appreciate, why quoting wikipedia policy makes you suspect a COI, nor do I understand why thinking that the article is short and bad, and adding all the available images from wikicommons should make you suspect it. I have been editing subjects including art and terrorism for over 10 years. I have consistently asked for an understandable justification for maintaining the tag, and I think you owe me an apology because, rather than explain your reason for keeping the tag, you attack me. As far as I can understand you are an admin. ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ♥ Talk ♥ 18:29, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
I have turned the long list of artists into a short paragraph, and collapsed the list of collections that holds the work. Please can we now remove the tag, or explain to me why it is important that some of the collections that do hold the work are not properly referenced. ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ♥ Talk ♥ 21:42, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
" I do not understand your problem with lists of galleries or affiliated artists being added to this article years ago by someone with an interest, since your complaint seems to be about formatting and use of references, rather than the accuracy or notability of the information."- please explain your complaint. If you look at policy it clearly states that tags should not be used as a badge of shame. For many years the article had 3 tags pointing out the obvious, with repetition. I do not understand, or appreciate, why quoting wikipedia policy makes you suspect a COI, nor do I understand why thinking that the article is short and bad, and adding all the available images from wikicommons should make you suspect it. I have been editing subjects including art and terrorism for over 10 years. I have consistently asked for an understandable justification for maintaining the tag, and I think you owe me an apology because, rather than explain your reason for keeping the tag, you attack me. As far as I can understand you are an admin." ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ♥ Talk ♥ 00:21, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
This is true, and important, so I added it to the lede. I think their gallery's website is a reasonable source for this info. ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ♥ Talk ♥ 21:55, 4 March 2023 (UTC) [1] ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ♥ Talk ♥ 21:55, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
True and importantdoes not justify adding yet another commercial link. @ L'Origine du monde, WP:IDHT is not becoming of an editor of your tenure. @ Theroadislong and I both believe you're heavily invested in this article and yet you have not disclosed. Star Mississippi 14:59, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
By Nicola McCartney · 2018 ? ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ♥ Talk ♥ 10:14, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
Art & Language stands on its art historical importance as a key conceptual art collective of the late 20th century. Their Wikipedia article does not need to include a free advertisment for their gallery. The encyclopedic importance of their work is their art historical signifcance, that is why they are notable - what is important is their art historical value, not their market value or where to buy their work. To include a link to their commercial-market showplace is promotionalism. Netherzone ( talk) 17:04, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
Comment While there is nothing fundamentally wrong with mentioning gallery representation of a contemporary artist, any such inclusion should make sense within the context of the article and contribute to encyclopedic purpose as @ Netherzone had alluded to earlier. What worries me here is that ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ has pushed this inclusion without providing any further background, when in fact they could have put together some potentially valuable edits about exhibitions of Art&Language at Lisson held during the 1970s and 1980s to help expand the article. But inserting gallery name name into the article that already has commercial issues only because they represent the artist makes little sense, if any at all. It seems, L'Origine du monde, that you might need to do more research before making any more suggestions of this nature and you should seriously rethink the way you interact with other editors. The way you're arguing here is the opposite of WP:CONSENSUS and does not help make the article better. Ppt91 talk 02:50, 6 March 2023 (UTC)