Jump to content

Talk:Alice Starmore

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 04:07, 27 February 2024 (Maintain {{WPBS}}: 3 WikiProject templates. Keep majority rating "Start" in {{WPBS}}. Keep 1 different rating in {{WikiProject Biography}}. Remove 2 same ratings as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject Scottish Islands}}, {{WikiProject Textile Arts}}.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

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

Reception section of article - can we restore it?

[edit]

An editor has removed two paragraphs of 'Reception' that are properly cited and which serve to establish the notability of the article. I am a bit bemused by this as they seem to be good solid materials:

==Reception==
Adrienne Martini describes one of Starmore's Fair Isle patterns as "famously difficult".[1][2]
Sarah E. White, on About.com, writes that Starmore's Book of Fair Isle Knitting "makes my head hurt in a good way."[3]

What do other people think on this? BTW the same editor has removed other materials also. I've restored the image as it seems highly relevant, illustrating nicely Starmore's work and reason for notability. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:40, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted the page based on the fact that Millstonelane removed his own new references which he added, making his contributions constitute only removing information without replacing it with new informataion. — JJJ (say hello) 14:24, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Martini, Adrienne. Sweater Quest: My Year of Knitting Dangerously, Free Press, 2010
  2. ^ Reviewed in LibraryJournal.com. Retrieved 20 July 2012.
  3. ^ "Alice Starmore's Book of Fair Isle Knitting (review of)". About.com, part of The New York Times Company. Retrieved 20 July 2012.

Image and references being removed

[edit]

Millstonelane has again removed the items mentioned above, despite lengthy discussion on that user's talk page and the discussion here. I have restored the image as it is clearly relevant and has a proper fair use rationale. Millstonelane asserts that it is present as an advertisement, which is plainly not so as the book's publisher has never been involved, nor any agent for them. The references need to be rechecked before restoration. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:28, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The current copyright status on the file (as seen at the file's page) is copyrighted, however it may be used on the English Wikipedia to illustrate the subject in question, as well as if there is no free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information. Assuming she wrote the book, as long as this is the only available image, and the file keeps the same licensing status, it may be used in the article. — JJJ (say hello) 14:36, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I just had a very quick read through the discussions. I haven't checked all the reverts and the editing history. I will add my two cents' worth, though. I agree with TheJJJunk regarding the use of a copyright image if there is no substitute available. I did some searching on Flickr Creative Commons and found some examples of Alice Starmore designs that people have knitted; alas, no worthy fairisle photos. There was one decent photo of an aran style pullover with a bit of colourplay in the pattern, I've added it to Wikipedia Commons so it could be added to this article. I don't know if you want to use it as a lead photo, however, because Starmore is most noteworthy as a fairisle expert.


The quote from Adrienne Martini would be useful, she's known herself for writing a best-selling book on knitting (My Year of Knitting Dangerously). I'd include her quote, and include the reason why her opinion is especially worth noting (her own book). I wouldn't include quotes unless they are the opinions of persons who have some type of credentials to be offering an opinion, so that I know, as a reader, why it is worth my while to read it. It's like movie reviews: professional critics are more likely to be quoted in the media than any old joe who posts a comment to a Website (I'm indicating about.com here). "Reception" should be more about sales figures of her patterns/books, how many reprints they've had, how much media coverage she's gotten (has she done media interviews? Had reviews in knitting periodicals?). That would give some substance to that section and make it look a bit less like an ad.OttawaAC (talk) 21:35, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll add back the Adrienne Martini. If you or others know of the sorts of reviews/reception coverage you describe, please help! For the above, many thanks Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:48, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Martini an "expert"?

[edit]

If Martini is such an “expert” with "credentials" then why is her book so factually incorrect? Her book is an unreliable source on many levels. She states, both in the text and on the cover, that AS is “reclusive”. She also states in a promotional video that AS is “some kinda recluse” and cites the fact that AS lives on a Scottish island as proof of this. These statements display a profound (and laughable) lack of knowledge of both AS and Scottish geography, and prove that she did no meaningful research at all. AS does indeed still reside on the island she was born on, along with 22,000 other people, and that island is just one hour by plane away from Glasgow and two hours away from London. If Martini had even done a bare minimum of research then she would have known that AS has based her long career on constant public speaking. Martini’s statement is demonstrably false (and, as with the Library Journal statement, also defamatory and possibly libellous), which is one of the reasons why I removed the reference to her book. Another compelling reason is Martini’s constant theme, based on no offered evidence, that AS is dangerously fond of taking legal action. As a highly successful designer, it is probable that AS has had to have C&D notices issued on her behalf (it goes with the territory if you have talent), but I believe I am correct in saying that she has never instigated actual court proceedings against anyone, anywhere. Martini does not cite any such court cases. References to AS in her book are based on hearsay, gossip and speculation rather than any real research. The book has no place in any serious reference that purports to be factual.

My interest in this particular subject is backed by my direct knowledge of it, as I have seen, heard and enjoyed AS speaking on five occasions:

(1) 13th May 2008, Stornoway. Scottish Government Public Enquiry Reference Number IEC/3/134 into the proposed Muaitheabhal Windfarm. She delivered detailed evidence to a packed enquiry room on the likely social and environmental effects of the proposed scheme.

(2) 11th September 2009, Royal Horticultural Halls, London. I-Knit event. A very lively knitting lecture, plus Q&A.

(3) October 2009, Strathpeffer Pavilion, Ross & Cromarty, RSPB event. An inspiring talk on reconnecting people with the natural world.

(4) 10th September 2010, Royal Horticultural Halls, London. I-Knit event. Another lively lecture and Q&A session.

(5) 3rd July 2011, BBC Television’s “Coast” programme, broadcast nationally on BBC2. Interviewed by Nick Crane on the subject of natural dyeing.

These are the occasions on which I have personally witnessed AS’s skills as a witty, passionate and engaging public speaker with a deep knowledge of her subject matter. There are many more such occasions that I have not attended but have read reports of. Most recently for example, Vogue Knitting Live, New York City, last January; Interweave Knitting Lab, San Mateo CA November 2011. Over the course of the past 30 years, thousands of people in lectures and workshops across the world must have shared my experience of AS as an expert communicator, and not the social inadequate that Martini portrays. What Martini and the Library Journal state about AS’s reclusive and withdrawn character is the diametric opposite of the truth and constitutes a direct, unfounded attack on what the woman actually is and does. Such attacks have no place on Wikipedia, or any other pages, and I believe that I am fully justified in removing them in accordance with Wikipedia’s instructions regarding biographies of living persons: do not place material that is not true.Millstonelane (talk) 23:26, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Millstonelane, what you say may well be true, but the whole of what you have stated above, both about Martini and about Starmore is simply not relevant to the article.

1: on Martini) The claims about Martini's book are not relevant here because we are not restating them, nor quoting them, nor relying on them. Indeed we are not asserting that Martini is an "expert", simply that she claims that she has heard that the patterns are hard to knit. The only statement attributed to Martini that is made in the article is "famously difficult" which is certainly not libellous. You have no justification for removing something which is not an attack and which is correctly cited, on the spurious grounds that other claims are false.

2: on Starmore) Whatever personal experience you may have of Starmore, on however many occasions, is not relevant here. (See WP:Verifiability.) We have an article on Starmore because there is verifiable published evidence of her notability. There is nothing in this article that makes any negative claim or suggestion about Starmore, and I for one would remove any such unsubstantiated claim immediately.

To avoid an edit war, I would ask you please not to make any further edits to the article until this matter is resolved. Doing so would likely constitute disruptive behaviour. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:37, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]


It is a shame that "disruptive behaviour" has been mentioned when I have simply used observable facts in order to correct and clarify. I did not state that it is libellous to call a designer's work "difficult". I stated that it is possibly libellous to claim that AS is a withdrawn social inadequate when in fact she is visibly and successfully fulfilling public speaking engagements the length and breadth of the land, and was also visibly and successfully employed in a public role by Britain's largest charity, the RSPB. It is not on "spurious grounds" that I extrapolated from Martini's massive untruth; in an investigative field, if a source claims A, B and C, and A can be proved to be wildly incorrect, then B and C are also suspect.

Allowing such claims to be part of a Wikipedia article gives weight to views such as the following, expressed by a Times leader writer: "Wikipedia should be not only avoided by journalists, educators and everyone else but derided out of use. The criterion for resolving disputes among Wikipedia editors is not accuracy but consensus." The Times, London, December 8th 2012.

One further point: Martini's "famously difficult" statement is also incorrect. A few AS designs are for experts only, but the design on which Martini bases her book requires only an average ability with the Fair Isle knitting technique.Millstonelane (talk) 13:10, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Alice Starmore. 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) 08:00, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Alice_Starmore&oldid=1210544067"