Talk:Galerie Gmurzynska

Advertising tone and sourcing

This article is full of unsourced boastful material, and boastful material sourced solely to the Gallerie itself and its postings on ArtSy. It needs much culling and/or sourcing. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:40, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Import duty information

I am removing some of the recently added material, and want to give some summary explanations why here, so as to help guide editing in the future.

• Because some of the material here deals with specific, identifiable living people, it falls under our policies on biographies of living persons, which make some stringent sourcing requirements of material that may cast such persons in a negative light.
• The material on the import duty situation was sourced directly to a court ruling. While this may sound like a good source, it is actually what Wikipedia considers a primary source, which we lean against in general. Primary sources don't give context, and they also don't show the import of their information. If this matter got covered in the newspapers, particularly if it continued to get mentioned in later coverage of Galerie, that shows its significance.

While I'm doing some cursory editing for obvious concerns on some of the other added material, I do not have time at the moment to review the other sources; my failure to edit anything at this moment shouldn't be seen as my approval (and to be clear, I'm just another editor; the value of my approval doesn't go beyond that.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:30, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Let me add that WP:BLPPRIMARY specifically states "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person." --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:52, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring

If I had more time at the moment, I'd be posting both of the recent editors for sanctions at the edit warring notice board. Please stop just pingponging the article back and forth, and use the talk page to discuss differences. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:05, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Edit request

At the moment, the introduction section contains discussion of the article subject being under an investigation. This neither fits the introductory nature of the introduction nor the summary that it's supposed to serve. It also is of borderline WP:BLP concern, as the Galerie is revealed in the article as being owned by an identified living person, and we normally avoid mere accusations of crime or statements of suspicion when it comes to living persons. So I request that the second, third, and fourth paragraphs of the article be deleted. If the BLP concern is deemed invalid, please put a header ("Investigation") between the first and second paragraphs, so that material is not part of the introduction. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:37, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Not done: The page's protection level and/or your user rights have changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Prot expired 18:27, 20 October 2014. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:44, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Edit request on 16 October 2014

It is requested to enable editing and to modify the page as it has a harassing character, intimidating living persons, by not surely verified facts and with the use of controversial sources as well as court ruling information that should not be used in an encyclopaedia. Thus, I would request, that an administrator modifies the introduction, with all the unverified statements that do not belong into it as well as the history, that contains mistakes (e.g. the gallery left Germany permanently in 2005, as one can see from previous sources I added before) removing also the legal case formation of the entire article. Art&Design3000 (talk) 09:07, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Not done: The page's protection level and/or your user rights have changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Prot expired 18:27, 20 October 2014. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:44, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Stubifying

I would like to reduce this to a stub, a short simple couple of sentence describing the Gallery - locations, specialties - and then add other material only once consensus has been achieved for it on the talk page, rather than seeing this ongoing edit war. Any objections? --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:46, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I think that this would be for now a good solution as it seems quite unfair to delete a lot of non commercial and non-boastful facts, like the representation of certain estates as well as showcasing the first exhibitions of Russian avant-garde, replacing them with selected truth claims and unproven assertions that show the article in a completely legal case oriented and negative light. Thus, I would also suggest to reduce the page to a very simple explanation of what the gallery shows / represents and where it has its locations, at least for now till a further consensus can be reached as Nat Gertler (talk) has suggested. Art&Design3000 (talk) 10:08, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with this approach. Regarding recent edit warring on this page, Gmurzynska is using a third IP address in order to suppress public material it wishes to keep hidden - Andemw3 (see previous edits and undos of the reliably referenced material by this username). The latest edit is, to my mind, simply a continuation of the edit warring in this regard. Spurious grounds have been found for removing most of the (to them) undesirable material by misusing the WP:V and WP:BLP tags. Other material has simply been deleted without explanation.

The referencing by Art&Design3000 (and his other identities) is also highly dubious. The references to the promotional material don't seem to have any actual connection to Galerie Gmuzynska (if they do, this should be clearly identified) - see footnote 3, for example, a highly dubious claim and link to an article in which I cannot see any mention of the exhibition in question. There are also instances of willful misquotation of the published sources. For example, 'Antonina [Gmurzynska]appears to have sought out the artists' families in Russia and became adept at sneaking art out of the country' has been changed to 'Antonina 'sought out the artists' families in Russia and was moving this art out of the country, to Europe', so that a documented case of smuggling sounds like an act of charity.

As such, I am reediting again in what I believe to be a balanced way that reflects the published sources properly. I do not consider this 'edit warring', but a restoring of publicly available material, accurately sourced and cited. I welcome Administrators' views and am happy to engage with them in producing a satisfactory version of this page. I do not, however, wish to see a valuable reference resource used as a form of sanitized advertising board which suppresses publicly useful information taken from a range of reliable international publications. Grammophone (talk) 23:42, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

First, as a simple matter of terminology, Andemw3 is not an IP account. An IP account is one that does not have a user name, and is identified by basically a string of numbers.

Second, that you feel that you have reason for your edit warring does not make it not edit warring. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:32, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello together, any further comments on stubifying the article? Or to create a neutral version? The current one is still very legal case oriented basing the entire entry on mostly three incidents. Art&Design3000 (talk) 10:56, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Recent edits

This article continues to be problematic with consistent reverts to an excessive Quotefarm containing POV issues (see headings), with possible undue as well. Continuing to monitor reverts of edits by editor: Grammophone who has previously been warned on this talk page for these practices. As indicated, Grammophone, please address issues with edits on this page rather than wholesale reverts. Thank you. Jppcap (talk) 17:13, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank-you for your comments Jppcap. This article had achieved a settled form, but recently insiders have begun once again to try to hide shameful and embarrassing episodes in its history in favor of commercial/advertorial language, much of which is itself inaccurate and exaggerated. It is not even accurate regarding the gallery's main centre, which is in Zurich, not Zug, as a quick look at the gallery's own website will show you. It is not correct to say that the gallery "has been accused" of the Khardzhiev smuggling, or that it "denied involvement". The sources given quote the gallery owners themselves on the removal of this major archive from the Soviet Union, as a result of which it is no longer permitted to operate in Russia. Nor is it appropriate to use the title "Controversy" (singular) when, in fact, the gallery has been involved in numerous legal problems, many of which are not listed here only because of Wikipedia's aversion to primary legal records as a source or because they predate the internet.

Regarding the recent VAT fraud raid, the figure involved is unpaid VAT of 8% on artworks of estimated value 75M Swiss francs. It does not seem appropriate to trivialise the scale of this legal action by removing the figures. As requested, I am making edits rather than a full reversion. I should add further that insider edits are muddling the references, distorting documented records and contain numerous grammatical errors which tend to make the article hard to understand in places. Grammophone (talk) 20:33, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Grammophone please discuss here when before deleting facts that are documented with sources. I deleted the information you posted regarding Khardzhiev because nothing you mentioned was in the source you had linked to it. It is important to find sourcing for materials to confirm you are not posting opinions and or falsehoods as you are want to do. Thanks Jabba1212 (talk) 13:52, 18 September 2015 (UTC)