Jump to content

Talk:Stuckism in Australia

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

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Cewbot (talk | contribs) at 19:41, 9 February 2024 (Maintain {{WPBS}} and vital articles: 1 WikiProject template. Create {{WPBS}}. Keep majority rating "Start" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 1 same rating as {{WPBS}} in {{WP Australia}}.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Notability

[edit]

I do not believe this movement is notable having done a google search. There appears to be no reference in mainstream media.

Wikipedia policy at Wikipedia:Reliable sources is the policy on the use of sources. The policy queries the use of sources which "have an agenda or conflict of interest, strong views, or other bias which may color their report" and suggests such sources "may be used as primary sources only i.e. as sources about themselves, and even then with caution and sparingly." I do not think the possible sources in external links, or any I have turned up in google searching meet the criteria.--A Y Arktos 06:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a misunderstanding of the article. A google search for Stuckism gives 31,000 results. There isn't (as far as I know) a movement called "Stuckism in Australia"—this article is essentially part of the main article Stuckism. The Australian info could be merged back into it, but then if the main one gets expanded (which I would like to do when I get time) it would only have to be split off again. Tyrenius 09:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article claims there is such a movement and names some indiiduals in it. There appears to be no report of the movement in the mainstream Australian media - but then again my searching could be lousy. Merging back might be a good option.--A Y Arktos 10:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
PS - in my earliest comment, I did not mean to show doubt that there was Stuckism movement but was referring to this article's Australian assertions.--A Y Arktos 10:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The info in the article seems valuable - remember that Wiki is a resource, and if anyone wants toi find out about Stuckism in Australia, this piece can tell them useful things. Whether it be merged back into ageneral article on Stuckism I have no opinion, but certainly Stuckism per se is important enough to warrant an entry. PiCo 10:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia must be verifiable from reliable sources. The sources for this article, as per above, do not sufficiently meet this standard. If a reliable source is produced I would withdraw my concerns.--A Y Arktos 10:59, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what the sources are required for now. It was originally to verify a movement called "Stuckism in Australia", but I think we are agreed that there is no such movement. There is only a movement called Stuckism. "Stuckism in Australia" is a description of the article's content, namely the activities of the Stuckism movement in Australia. I have amended the intro to try to make that clear. Sources for such activities are in the article, namely:
  • a double page spread by Gabriella Coslovich on the Stuckists in the leading Melbourne paper The Age. [1]
  • In December 2001, The Stuckist demonstration outside the Turner Prize at Tate Britain, London, was broadcast on Australian national TV news.
  • The Age ran a reprise of Stuckism (etc) [2]
  • ==Reference==
  • Ed. Frank Milner (2004), "The Stuckists Punk Victorian" National Museums Liverpool, ISBN 1-902700-27-9
  • ==External links==
  • Melbourne Stuckists
  • Graham Wilson
  • Godfrey Blow
  • Kaye Blum (Screenworks Directory)
  • Godfrey Blow criticises Tate's purchase of The Upper Room
In this instance the three Australian Stuckist web sites (and Blow on The Upper Room) are simply examples of activity of Stuckism in Australia.
The Stuckism web site would seem to be valid as external source, because it is the web site of an organisation independent of the Australian groups, by its own admission: "This is the web site of the first Stuckists art group founded in 1999 by Charles Thomson and Billy Childish. There are now over 100 independent, artist-led Stuckist groups and 5 Stuckist Centres worldwide. The contents of this site are not endorsed by any other organisation, including other Stuckist groups. We do not have any responsibity for,nor we necessarily endorse,any external sites or organisations (including other Stuckist groups) mentioned on or linked to by this site." [3]It can therefore validate the Australian art shows etc. [4]
Tyrenius 12:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Stuckism in Australia" This is my first article on this site and I was surprised and disappointed to be told that it is not notable enough and that Stuckism in Australia as a movement does not exist. I did not say there was a cohesive whole movement but that there existed several small groups. In the article it states that "manifestations of Stuckism" appeared in Australia spreading from the original movement in The UK. It has been implied that there have been no press releases referring to the Stuckists in Australia. There have been in fact several articles in the press and much of this has now been placed on the site. One article mentions the Stuckists in Australia - "State of the Arts", magazine for the arts, called "Stuck for a new ISM". In Western Australia, Ron Banks, Arts Editor of the West Australian newspaper wrote an article on Stuckism and my involvement called "Getting stuck into Concepts" and more recently the West published another piece about Stuckism and my current solo show which is running at Stafford Studios here in Perth. When I did a search for Stuckism in Australia through Google and Yahoo I found over 500 web sites which detailed their existance! Hope this demonstrates that Stuckism in Australia is a viable and worthy entity.

Regards,

Godfrey Blow (Perth Stuckists).

Hi Godfrey
Thank you for joining Wiki and contributing a useful article. Please continue to contribute. A Y Arktos was only trying to ensure that Wiki standards are maintained, as it is very tempting for people to use Wiki to promote themselves regardless of sufficient notability to justify inclusion, and you are obviously part of this movement. I think the article is worthwhile, justified, and does have enough external corroboration. But please read the guidelines that AYArktos put on your discussion page, and also check out Wikipedia:Vanity guidelines. This may put the objection in a different light. I would suggest you also add into the article the extra information you've just mentioned.
Best Tyrenius 14:13, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spam

[edit]

Its pretty obvious that this is Spam. The page is self-promotion by a couple of people who are trying to claim that they are internationally important. Its a Blog by other means. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.1.237.40 (talk • contribs).

You are not addressing that issue. You are removing material about the Antipodean group and saying that material is spam, and you are removing categories, namely:
Category:Australian art
Category:Australian artists
Category:Australian culture
Category:Arts in Australia
Category:Modern art
These categories apply to the subject, so please don't keep removing them.
You are also removing an internal link under the "See also" section to another article on wikipedia and calling that spam. Another article in wikipedia cannot be spam by definition.
This is vandalism.
Tyrenius 06:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its a Blog

[edit]

I can only agree with many of the above comments. This page in its current form is an out and out Blog (I see that it was mostly written by the person it is about). This sort of entry undermines what the Wiki is about, and fuels arguments by our critics that the encyclopedia is flawed with misinformation. After all, it also contains some spurious historical claims that ought to be removed. Having written a book on the Antipodeans Group - and personally knowing several of them - that particular section had me in stitches. They were a precedent? Nonsense. The art represented by Stuckism is actually what they were taking a stand against. Heaven help the Wiki if much more of this fabricated historical information gets in. Dr Christopher Heathcote 23:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your observations. I understand you have written a book on the Antipodeans, and certainly your contribution to wikipedia is welcomed and could be very helpful. However, I must also caution that you would not be the first authority on a subject to find wikipedia a frustrating environment to work in. It is perhaps unfortunate that personal knowledge and authority cannot, in themselves, validate article content. There are some core policies that dictate what is admissible content, namely WP:VERIFY, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. In extreme cases, accurate content that does not meet these criteria may be removed, and flawed material that does meet them may be retained. The overall result, however, is that much erroneous matter is excluded.
These policies work well with the majority of editors, forcing them to derive and reference material from published sources. This can feel quite insulting to someone who is used to being accepted as able to pronounce definitively in their professional life. That is not the intent, but the inevitable result of a work that "anyone can edit". Wikipedia is a culture of its own, and acquaintanceship with its protocols is necessary as with any institution. Feel free to consult me if you need any advice on this at any time. I might also mention that emotion can run high at times, but inevitably backfires, and dispassionate analysis triumphs over rhetorical argument, as do referenced sources over passionate claims.
A blog is diary of personal experiences, thoughts and opinions by the writer. This article avoids that temptation and is simply a record of facts, so I don't feel concerned on that score. It is a chronology, so I've amended that. The important consideration is the edit not the editor (although guidelines have been tightened recently per WP:AUTO and WP:COI). Your observation that there is "misinformation" is a serious matter, but I can't see where this occurs. You need to cite the specific examples, and likewise for the statement of "spurious historical claims", in order to generate a viable assessment and dialogue. The article contains a reasonable number of verifiable references to media mentions, which is one of the key wiki requirements.
You mention "fabricated historical information" with regard to the "precedent" of the Antipodeans. I must confess to knowing nothing about the Antipodeans before seeing them in this article (though I have done some brief research since). However, I am puzzled by your statement that the "art represented by Stuckism is actually what they were taking a stand against." As I understand it, they were taking a stand against abstract expressionism, and Stuckism does not in any way represent this. Stuckism represents modern figurative painting, which is exactly what the Antipodeans are stated to represent. Furthermore both groups advocated this form of art in opposition to the prevailing orthodoxy of their time which was against it. As the Antipodeans did this earlier, they are by definition a precedent for the later group.
I think this is useful information for the reader, in order to give him a wider historical perspective on the development (or reiteration even) of ideas. It is not stated that there is any explicit connection between the two groups — merely that they existed and stated a parallel philosophy. Nor is it stated that their interpretation of this through their work was the same. Perhaps you could elucidate further where the problem lies. However, I have shortened that section and removed "precedent" to avoid any notion of "synthesis".
Tyrenius 02:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Stuckism in Australia. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 06:06, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Stuckism in Australia. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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).

  • 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) 06:19, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stuckism_in_Australia&oldid=1205486840"