Talk:Villa Müller

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Vandalism after Article is linked by r/mensrights[edit]

A link to this article was posted on r/mensrights just over an hour ago and a few minutes ago the article was vandalised

I think it's worth noting that this is just following another incident of vandalism by the community yesterday.

If further edits are made against the article, I will request semi-protection --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 18:50, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another example of vandalism from a different IP address --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 19:12, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
One more incident of section blanking --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 19:36, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Further vandalism following its posting, the fourth attempt within six hours --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 00:31, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fifth attempt -- Drowninginlimbo (talk) 01:21, 9 April 2014 (UTC) Sixth attempt and seventh attempt --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 08:10, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Give canvassing a read. However it is alright, it must be done in a certain manner as to not disrupt discussions and influence Consensus one way or another.

I don't believe it was canvassing, they straight up vandalised the article and made no attempt to improve or even properly edit it --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 00:18, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm deleting the Feminist section, because honestly, we don't need to be promoting this sort of bullshit from random academics anyway. WP:NPOV, WP:Notability, etc. Maybe copy-paste it to Feminist Geography (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminist_geography) if we have to keep it. 124.170.111.132 (talk) 05:53, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say it's due weight for its inclusion, she did a study into the house and we are just presenting her research. Also don't use foul language here, it makes you sound hugely biased. I'm not listing that last edit as vandalism as you went to talk and I should assume good faith but please get consensus before making further edits and see ownership of articles as you and the users canvased with you made well more than three section blanking edits --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 08:13, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, she's a nobody academic. I'm also trying to delete her biography page, since it doesn't meet the requirements of WP:Academic, but the WP:Deletion Process page doesn't exactly make the syntax to add pages to the Articles for Deletion category clear.--124.170.111.132 (talk) 09:09, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Huh, apparently I already have a wikipedia account. Must not have used it for ages. This is User talk 124.170.111.132, by the way. --Nick012000 (talk) 09:17, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia again, I guess. Well, I would also notify the creator of the page, as well as relevant WikiProjects about the deletion. Deleting a page tends to not be a users first act on Wikipedia. Anyway, it seems you've added the page correctly, so now you just have to wait until WP:CON is met. Personally, I don't see any issue with her information being on the encyclopedia. I'm not very well read into architecture, but she seems to be notable in her field, with awards, grants and publications in both journals and in her own right. I also don't see any harm in including another perspective on the house here if her work is notable in her academic field and it is well sourced in the article --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 11:17, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I've added it to relevant WikiProjects and notified the creator of the article --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 11:30, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While vandalism is not justifiable, I can see where the irritation of the IP(s) comes from. The building is notable for its architecture and "Raumplan" while the feminist critique is poorly written and undue weight. The section should be at least half the length and more readable. --ELEKHHT 12:23, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the section needs work, if I were well read in architecture I would shorten it myself. The matter is, the vandalism is inexcusable and it took seven instances of it until one of them went to Talk to try to justify it. Is there a banner we can put up to say this section needs shortening? --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 12:47, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The page got linked on the Men's Rights subreddit on Reddit,where they're rather annoyed about the attempts by feminists at censoring wikipedia to conform to their worldview, by doing things like offering extra marks to university students for editing pages to conform to a pro-feminist bias; apparently some of them decided to retaliate by doing vandalising back at them (or, perhaps, simply thought that vandalising the page would be funny). I actually posted a comment in the thread asking them not to.--Nick012000 (talk) 01:44, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re-write of paragraph dealing with Colomina[edit]

I stumbled across this article and was surprised to see the very odd and seemingly misplaced prose about views of sexuality and feminism in an article about architecture. I can understand why certain editors have voiced their dismay about it being there. I have re-written the entire paragraph to avoid the following issues:

1) Loos was an architect, not an interior designer, so the part about him placing sofas here and there is not convincing. The home owner (or their interior designer) would do that after moving in.
2) The part about "psychologically ..." needs to be removed because no psychologist has rendered an opinion on the appearance of the house; and Colomina is not a psychologist either.
3) The part about "speculation" is not good either; readers needs facts, not speculation.
4) The “voyeur concept” seems farfetched even to a rank layman with no architectural experience whatsoever.
5) And, finally, I have retitled the header for the paragraph to read “Colomina: Space and sexuality” which is what nearly the entire paragraph is about—her interpretations of the sexual nature of the spaces in the home.

I have taken the liberty to remove the tag mentioning the controversy regarding this paragraph. Hopefully this edit will suffice to quell any animosities still felt between the various editors in disagreement. --Wapiti (talk) 23:28, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Villa Müller. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:44, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Villa_Müller&oldid=1210364195"