![]() | The contents of the Arthur M. Sackler Museum page were merged into Harvard Art Museums on 28 July 2016 and it now redirects there. For the contribution history and old versions of the merged article please see its history. |
Please place new discussions at the bottom of the talk page. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Arthur M. Sackler Museum redirect. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
In my opinion, the article is not just about the collections but about the architects (including James Stirling) and the various collections and the entity/people ( Harvard University, curators,etc) who run it and who 'own' it. Any other editors have thoughts about this? Shearonink ( talk) 19:16, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
A recent series of edits here has removed (at least somewhat) sourced material (like this one). I'm not saying this article & some related articles couldn't do with some updating but a new editor (see their talk page) seems to have gotten off on a rough start around this article and some others, including Harvard Art Museums, Fogg Museum, and Busch–Reisinger Museum. Shearonink ( talk) 20:23, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
As a new participant still getting the sense of things here at Wikipedia, I've been following some of the talk about this article with interest. Figuring out how to describe an institution like a museum objectively and appropriately for an article like this raises some interesting points. I think we can all agree that a museum is more than its administrative organization. And, in the case of an art museum, information about its architecture may be appropriate and helpful in giving a sense of the museum itself. I'm curious about how others feel about appropriate descriptions of a museum's collection. I see that describing this collection as "world-renowned" has been deemed inappropriate for Wikipedia (even though sources exist to back up this claim). Would it be considered too subjective and inappropriate to use "world-renowned" to describe the collection at the Louvre or MoMA? Would describing an art collection as "important" be too subjective? How about "popular" or "respected"? How does one write about an art collection or, art works, reasonably and appropriately without some (backed up and properly cited) subjective descriptions? I'd like to know what other more experienced participants think.-- Vistawhite ( talk) 15:29, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
![]() | The contents of the Arthur M. Sackler Museum page were merged into Harvard Art Museums on 28 July 2016 and it now redirects there. For the contribution history and old versions of the merged article please see its history. |
Please place new discussions at the bottom of the talk page. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Arthur M. Sackler Museum redirect. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
In my opinion, the article is not just about the collections but about the architects (including James Stirling) and the various collections and the entity/people ( Harvard University, curators,etc) who run it and who 'own' it. Any other editors have thoughts about this? Shearonink ( talk) 19:16, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
A recent series of edits here has removed (at least somewhat) sourced material (like this one). I'm not saying this article & some related articles couldn't do with some updating but a new editor (see their talk page) seems to have gotten off on a rough start around this article and some others, including Harvard Art Museums, Fogg Museum, and Busch–Reisinger Museum. Shearonink ( talk) 20:23, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
As a new participant still getting the sense of things here at Wikipedia, I've been following some of the talk about this article with interest. Figuring out how to describe an institution like a museum objectively and appropriately for an article like this raises some interesting points. I think we can all agree that a museum is more than its administrative organization. And, in the case of an art museum, information about its architecture may be appropriate and helpful in giving a sense of the museum itself. I'm curious about how others feel about appropriate descriptions of a museum's collection. I see that describing this collection as "world-renowned" has been deemed inappropriate for Wikipedia (even though sources exist to back up this claim). Would it be considered too subjective and inappropriate to use "world-renowned" to describe the collection at the Louvre or MoMA? Would describing an art collection as "important" be too subjective? How about "popular" or "respected"? How does one write about an art collection or, art works, reasonably and appropriately without some (backed up and properly cited) subjective descriptions? I'd like to know what other more experienced participants think.-- Vistawhite ( talk) 15:29, 29 July 2012 (UTC)