This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
I have confirmed with Wanås that the "Singing tree" is no longer on display, but there is talk of reinstalling in Brazil in a year or so. -- Drankpee ( talk) 17:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Is it really correct that Singing tree can still be seen at Wanås? I visited as late as in September 2007 and I was very convinced that it was no longer under exhibition.-- Bjornwireen 21:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
https://twitter.com/petercoffin/status/1241188467637452802
perhaps he should be placed in a lgbtq+ artist category? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:645:4201:BBD0:C097:DABA:E63C:BD99 ( talk) 07:16, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
The second sentence of the second paragraph is quite a doozy. Here it is:
He is the nephew of artist Robert Smithson who introduced Coffin to the study of plant consciousness before Smithson died July 20, 1973 when Coffin was just a year old.
This line seems to tell us a few things:
When looking at the citation, none of these "facts" are included. The citation is simply a description of a museum exhibit that happens to include pieces from both artists. So not only is this sentence extremely poorly written, it is poorly sourced and includes the rather ridiculous claim that a one-year-old has the ability to comprehend and retain a discussion of plant consciousness. I think this sentence needs to be removed entirely. -- Tabrown97 ( talk) 17:47, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
I have confirmed with Wanås that the "Singing tree" is no longer on display, but there is talk of reinstalling in Brazil in a year or so. -- Drankpee ( talk) 17:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Is it really correct that Singing tree can still be seen at Wanås? I visited as late as in September 2007 and I was very convinced that it was no longer under exhibition.-- Bjornwireen 21:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
https://twitter.com/petercoffin/status/1241188467637452802
perhaps he should be placed in a lgbtq+ artist category? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:645:4201:BBD0:C097:DABA:E63C:BD99 ( talk) 07:16, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
The second sentence of the second paragraph is quite a doozy. Here it is:
He is the nephew of artist Robert Smithson who introduced Coffin to the study of plant consciousness before Smithson died July 20, 1973 when Coffin was just a year old.
This line seems to tell us a few things:
When looking at the citation, none of these "facts" are included. The citation is simply a description of a museum exhibit that happens to include pieces from both artists. So not only is this sentence extremely poorly written, it is poorly sourced and includes the rather ridiculous claim that a one-year-old has the ability to comprehend and retain a discussion of plant consciousness. I think this sentence needs to be removed entirely. -- Tabrown97 ( talk) 17:47, 19 March 2022 (UTC)