![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 13 July 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A tag suggesting a merger with an article that concerns one edition of a statue appeared on this article shortly after creation. Do not see any discussion here, but that is not a relevant article for this to join.
This article is about a philosophical topic in aesthetics not the work (much less one version of the work), which is categorized as kitsch. There is a great deal of discussion among editors on this article being created at the discussion page of Kitsch, from which this was generated as a second article. Because of this, I am going to remove the tags for now. I am concerned that the topic will become muddled if the tags remain. ---- 83d40m ( talk) 18:46, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Tyrenius has kindly turned those other two articles into redirects to this one. -- Hoary ( talk) 00:03, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
The AfD itself is discussed (or not) here. -- Hoary ( talk) 10:15, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Kitsch#Contemporary_kitsch_debate describes the great (?) controversy, pointing the reader to this article (by an earlier name) for detail.
I'd have thought that there were other, much bigger art/kitsch debates -- perhaps those that have drawn the attention of national magazines or newspapers. The fixation within en:WP on these statues seems perverse.
Anyway, the radical rewriting of this article that has already been started (and I think has some way to go) may affect what's written at Kitsch#Contemporary_kitsch_debate. -- Hoary ( talk) 12:50, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
These are cited. Where are they published? -- Hoary ( talk) 14:37, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
I protest the actions being taken with the article, Kitsch controversy in Sarasota, which was created by editors dealing with a section of Kitsch. The article deals with a kitsch controversy, not the statue to which you are attempting to move it. Perhaps you have failed to look at all of the discussion at Kitsch that led to the creation of Kitsch controversy in Sarasota. It is most confounding that no attempt was made to contact primary editors, nor to understand the topic before butchering an article built with consensus.
By the way, the minutes of the city meetings are published by the city (of course) where would one expect to find the minutes of a city government? ---- 83d40m ( talk) 22:22, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
(unindent) There are issues with WP:NPOV, particularly WP:UNDUE, WP:NOR and also WP:BLP. I removed unreferenced information, which any editor is permitted to do per WP:V. It can be reinserted if it is verified. It is better to start with sound material (assuming it is sound) and build up from there. Ty 05:56, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
I am and established editor here. I have no expectations of "ownership" and I have no problem with evolution, just with devolution. Improvements are to be sought, cowboys marching off to change things without taking the time to understand them, usually results in chaos, and that is how I see what has played out.
Recently the article was turned into a discussion of one version of a statue, not of it as an aspect of a kitsch debate in contemporary culture in a city well known for its status in fine arts, as intended. The current article also has become disjointed and now even is launching off into discussions of other versions in other states and no understanding of the numbers in the series is evident.
The current topic does not seem worthy of an article, being fully covered at the Johnson page.
This statue is a perfect example of kitsch and its dynamics, the copyright infringement issue that may result from empirical evidence (which is the basis of copyright law), and a consistently-panned, minor artist "pushing the envelope" to gain acceptance. Reading some Robert Hughes reviews of Johnson such as, this sampling of articles on Johnson's work by Hughes that might be insightful --Robert Hughes - chocolate box of rubbish http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=Robert+Hughes+-+seward+Johnson&aq=f&oq=Robert+Hughes+-+chocolate+box+of+rubbish&aqi=&aq=f&oq=&aqi=&fp=O7FXPb8FcKE. According him, the art critic of the New York Times, and numerous other art critics this is not a work art. Kitsch is considered an opposite of "art" and that was the topic of the article that has been redirected totally. That topic was considered worthy of an article in the minds of several editors. That topic has not survived. I recommend deletion of what has resulted, because of redundancy. ---- 83d40m ( talk) 22:35, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
I happen to concur with Stifle's judgment, but the article was not kept. It was renamed, merged, redirected, and thoroughly muddled -- no vestige of its original intent persists. That is not a keep. The current article is redundant and now—is—worthy of nomination for deletion. Article deletion is not my forté, your inclination toward that led to what is at hand. I shall leave that up to you.
I have made part of my previous discussion bold so that it may be read again for better comprehension.
I certainly would continue to contribute to the article if it had continued to be an article whose existence I could justify. It no longer is. Preferring trusting collaboration to achieve mutually-desired objectives (even through minor differences that may be worked out), and again concurring with Stifle, I find futile talk page dramahz such as these rather tedious, so I'm not inclined to read for a role. I have no interest in your objective. Thank you for the invitation, but I prefer editing something I consider worthwhile and will move on—time is short. If you need another vote to support deletion, give me a shout. ---- 83d40m ( talk) 13:40, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
This tells us that "SCULPTURE FOUNDATION and SEWARD JOHNSON are trademarks of The Sculpture Foundation, Inc. All rights reserved." Should we be writing "Seward Johnson™"? -- HOARY™ 15:37, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
I just noticed that Hoary edited the reference description to the Graves letter. However, my opinion is that that letter shouldn't even be there. Letters to the Editor don't even begin to qualify as a reliable source, as there is no fact checking or other oversight by a reliable editor to ensure the info included is accurate. Letters are edited for space and content, but they aren't fact checked. The "facts" that Graves states about Life magazine and veteran's organization are inherently unreliable. Shouldn't we remove this source? Qwyrxian ( talk) 01:29, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
An article in NYTimes.com briefly documents a five-day installation of Unconditional Surrender in Times Square: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/27/arts/design/27outdoor.html
Perhaps this New York City installation should be listed on the Unconditional Surrender page.
Also of note are the reviewer's sentiments about the piece: "a thing of great ugliness, not only because of its flat-footed, crudely simplified realism, grotesque scale and stunningly insensitive title, but because of its appeal to a cheap form of patriotic nostalgia." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter Kaminski ( talk • contribs) 17:45, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Unconditional Surrender (sculpture). Please take a moment to review
my edit. You may add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. 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.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 09:06, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 08:07, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 13 July 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A tag suggesting a merger with an article that concerns one edition of a statue appeared on this article shortly after creation. Do not see any discussion here, but that is not a relevant article for this to join.
This article is about a philosophical topic in aesthetics not the work (much less one version of the work), which is categorized as kitsch. There is a great deal of discussion among editors on this article being created at the discussion page of Kitsch, from which this was generated as a second article. Because of this, I am going to remove the tags for now. I am concerned that the topic will become muddled if the tags remain. ---- 83d40m ( talk) 18:46, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Tyrenius has kindly turned those other two articles into redirects to this one. -- Hoary ( talk) 00:03, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
The AfD itself is discussed (or not) here. -- Hoary ( talk) 10:15, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Kitsch#Contemporary_kitsch_debate describes the great (?) controversy, pointing the reader to this article (by an earlier name) for detail.
I'd have thought that there were other, much bigger art/kitsch debates -- perhaps those that have drawn the attention of national magazines or newspapers. The fixation within en:WP on these statues seems perverse.
Anyway, the radical rewriting of this article that has already been started (and I think has some way to go) may affect what's written at Kitsch#Contemporary_kitsch_debate. -- Hoary ( talk) 12:50, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
These are cited. Where are they published? -- Hoary ( talk) 14:37, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
I protest the actions being taken with the article, Kitsch controversy in Sarasota, which was created by editors dealing with a section of Kitsch. The article deals with a kitsch controversy, not the statue to which you are attempting to move it. Perhaps you have failed to look at all of the discussion at Kitsch that led to the creation of Kitsch controversy in Sarasota. It is most confounding that no attempt was made to contact primary editors, nor to understand the topic before butchering an article built with consensus.
By the way, the minutes of the city meetings are published by the city (of course) where would one expect to find the minutes of a city government? ---- 83d40m ( talk) 22:22, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
(unindent) There are issues with WP:NPOV, particularly WP:UNDUE, WP:NOR and also WP:BLP. I removed unreferenced information, which any editor is permitted to do per WP:V. It can be reinserted if it is verified. It is better to start with sound material (assuming it is sound) and build up from there. Ty 05:56, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
I am and established editor here. I have no expectations of "ownership" and I have no problem with evolution, just with devolution. Improvements are to be sought, cowboys marching off to change things without taking the time to understand them, usually results in chaos, and that is how I see what has played out.
Recently the article was turned into a discussion of one version of a statue, not of it as an aspect of a kitsch debate in contemporary culture in a city well known for its status in fine arts, as intended. The current article also has become disjointed and now even is launching off into discussions of other versions in other states and no understanding of the numbers in the series is evident.
The current topic does not seem worthy of an article, being fully covered at the Johnson page.
This statue is a perfect example of kitsch and its dynamics, the copyright infringement issue that may result from empirical evidence (which is the basis of copyright law), and a consistently-panned, minor artist "pushing the envelope" to gain acceptance. Reading some Robert Hughes reviews of Johnson such as, this sampling of articles on Johnson's work by Hughes that might be insightful --Robert Hughes - chocolate box of rubbish http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=Robert+Hughes+-+seward+Johnson&aq=f&oq=Robert+Hughes+-+chocolate+box+of+rubbish&aqi=&aq=f&oq=&aqi=&fp=O7FXPb8FcKE. According him, the art critic of the New York Times, and numerous other art critics this is not a work art. Kitsch is considered an opposite of "art" and that was the topic of the article that has been redirected totally. That topic was considered worthy of an article in the minds of several editors. That topic has not survived. I recommend deletion of what has resulted, because of redundancy. ---- 83d40m ( talk) 22:35, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
I happen to concur with Stifle's judgment, but the article was not kept. It was renamed, merged, redirected, and thoroughly muddled -- no vestige of its original intent persists. That is not a keep. The current article is redundant and now—is—worthy of nomination for deletion. Article deletion is not my forté, your inclination toward that led to what is at hand. I shall leave that up to you.
I have made part of my previous discussion bold so that it may be read again for better comprehension.
I certainly would continue to contribute to the article if it had continued to be an article whose existence I could justify. It no longer is. Preferring trusting collaboration to achieve mutually-desired objectives (even through minor differences that may be worked out), and again concurring with Stifle, I find futile talk page dramahz such as these rather tedious, so I'm not inclined to read for a role. I have no interest in your objective. Thank you for the invitation, but I prefer editing something I consider worthwhile and will move on—time is short. If you need another vote to support deletion, give me a shout. ---- 83d40m ( talk) 13:40, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
This tells us that "SCULPTURE FOUNDATION and SEWARD JOHNSON are trademarks of The Sculpture Foundation, Inc. All rights reserved." Should we be writing "Seward Johnson™"? -- HOARY™ 15:37, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
I just noticed that Hoary edited the reference description to the Graves letter. However, my opinion is that that letter shouldn't even be there. Letters to the Editor don't even begin to qualify as a reliable source, as there is no fact checking or other oversight by a reliable editor to ensure the info included is accurate. Letters are edited for space and content, but they aren't fact checked. The "facts" that Graves states about Life magazine and veteran's organization are inherently unreliable. Shouldn't we remove this source? Qwyrxian ( talk) 01:29, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
An article in NYTimes.com briefly documents a five-day installation of Unconditional Surrender in Times Square: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/27/arts/design/27outdoor.html
Perhaps this New York City installation should be listed on the Unconditional Surrender page.
Also of note are the reviewer's sentiments about the piece: "a thing of great ugliness, not only because of its flat-footed, crudely simplified realism, grotesque scale and stunningly insensitive title, but because of its appeal to a cheap form of patriotic nostalgia." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter Kaminski ( talk • contribs) 17:45, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Unconditional Surrender (sculpture). Please take a moment to review
my edit. You may add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. 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.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 09:06, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 08:07, 3 January 2023 (UTC)