![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The contents of the War art page were merged into Military art on 4 September 2012 and it now redirects there. For the contribution history and old versions of the merged article please see its history. |
We have a definition here of "War Art":
Searching Google Books [1] brings up the same thing, War Art is art by people involved in war in some manner. I am also wondering if this article should be moved to "War Art", articles should be about the thing or the person? Ohioartdude2 ( talk) 23:42, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Using the online archives of the New Zealand War Art project has 3 problems when used as a guideline for a Wikipedia article; they are not a secondary source, they by definition limit their scope to to fit a national and curatorial guideline re: "pieces of war art, by artists formally commissioned by the New Zealand government, and other unofficial art works that were acquired by or donated to the collection" [2], and building an article based on what we see in a museum collection is building by original research. We have to cite reliable secondary sources for the basis of an article, and maybe check it against a tertiary source or two. So what do we have? A search of "War Art is" in google books [3] brings up many sources such as:
Googling "a War Artist is" is a bit less fruitful [4]
This tertiary source quoting "The Oxford Companion to Military History" [5] gives us a definition:
So lots to build on. Ohioartdude2 ( talk) 23:05, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
WP:V simplifies the issue at hand. It bears repeating that "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true."
Is it not self-evident that the appropriateness of an article about the war art is validated by the books which incorporate the term "war art" in the title, e.g.,
I hope this short list helps to sharpen issues which may need further development. -- Tenmei ( talk) 23:26, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
I removed one clause from our article's introduction: "... but war art may be considered essentially to refer to only works from the 20th and 21st centuries."
Do we accept that "original research", is a specifically defined wiki-term and concept? In other words, we all understand that the term "original research" refers to material — such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories ... or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources. The substance of this disputed clause is not supported by its associated inline citation with embedded hyperlinks. In fact, this conclusory analysis is contradicted by what Freeman writes in the Oxford Companion to Military History here. -- Tenmei ( talk) 17:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:The children - victims of adult vices(war).jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:The children - victims of adult vices(war).jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 01:29, 23 February 2012 (UTC) |
![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The contents of the War art page were merged into Military art on 4 September 2012 and it now redirects there. For the contribution history and old versions of the merged article please see its history. |
We have a definition here of "War Art":
Searching Google Books [1] brings up the same thing, War Art is art by people involved in war in some manner. I am also wondering if this article should be moved to "War Art", articles should be about the thing or the person? Ohioartdude2 ( talk) 23:42, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Using the online archives of the New Zealand War Art project has 3 problems when used as a guideline for a Wikipedia article; they are not a secondary source, they by definition limit their scope to to fit a national and curatorial guideline re: "pieces of war art, by artists formally commissioned by the New Zealand government, and other unofficial art works that were acquired by or donated to the collection" [2], and building an article based on what we see in a museum collection is building by original research. We have to cite reliable secondary sources for the basis of an article, and maybe check it against a tertiary source or two. So what do we have? A search of "War Art is" in google books [3] brings up many sources such as:
Googling "a War Artist is" is a bit less fruitful [4]
This tertiary source quoting "The Oxford Companion to Military History" [5] gives us a definition:
So lots to build on. Ohioartdude2 ( talk) 23:05, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
WP:V simplifies the issue at hand. It bears repeating that "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true."
Is it not self-evident that the appropriateness of an article about the war art is validated by the books which incorporate the term "war art" in the title, e.g.,
I hope this short list helps to sharpen issues which may need further development. -- Tenmei ( talk) 23:26, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
I removed one clause from our article's introduction: "... but war art may be considered essentially to refer to only works from the 20th and 21st centuries."
Do we accept that "original research", is a specifically defined wiki-term and concept? In other words, we all understand that the term "original research" refers to material — such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories ... or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources. The substance of this disputed clause is not supported by its associated inline citation with embedded hyperlinks. In fact, this conclusory analysis is contradicted by what Freeman writes in the Oxford Companion to Military History here. -- Tenmei ( talk) 17:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:The children - victims of adult vices(war).jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:The children - victims of adult vices(war).jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 01:29, 23 February 2012 (UTC) |