Talk:Authenticity in art

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

PROD declined[edit]

  • I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Authenticity in art, which you proposed for deletion, because I think that this article should not be deleted from Wikipedia. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! Colonel Warden (talk) 22:39, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Languages of art, Nelson Goodman (1976), "Art and Authenticity" — refspam?[edit]

  • CW: please see the above template. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 12:16, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Shame on you, Hrafn, for (a) using a template instead of thinking, (b) not getting your mind around the simple concept of further reading, and (c) being destructive rather than constructive when the constructive was a simple matter of adding a section heading with just one edit. You are not making a positive contribution towards the improvement of Wikipedia. Uncle G (talk) 13:46, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Have a WP:TROUT Uncle G, and get a clue. Unlike the cited book that you are obsessing over, the template is R_E_L_E_V_A_N_T. As is does not support any of the material in the article it does not belong in the R_E_F_E_R_E_N_C_E_S section, so I removed it. As the citation is not on "authenticity in art" in the context that this article is discussing it, it is as I_R_R_E_L_E_V_A_N_T as 'further reading' as it is as a reference. Shame on you Uncle G for attacking somebody for removing refspam rather than the person who damaged Wikipedia's integrity by refspamming in the first place. "You are not making a positive contribution towards the improvement of Wikipedia." HrafnTalkStalk(P) 14:57, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
  • You didn't remove "refspam". You removed a book relevant to the subject by a credentialled authority. More shame on you for the sort of response immediately above that I'd expect to see in a school playground, not in Wikipedia. Own up to your errors and learn from them; don't hide behind such foolish "No, you are stinky!" comebacks. Uncle G (talk) 17:55, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
  • WP:Complete bollocks, Uncle G the shameless enabler of refspam. The cited chapter was on "authenticity" versus forgery -- a dichotomy the article MAKES NO MENTION OF! There is nothing to "own up to" but the vacuous accusations of a one-eyed delusional partisan. "No, you are stinky!" would be more than your insubstantial, unsubstantiated poo-flinging deserves. While you stand there shaking your head in pitifully pompous faux-profundity, please imagine me Rolling on the Floor Laughing My Arse Off at you. You really are "I_R_R_E_L_E_V_A_N_T". HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:27, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
  • My goodness your argument descends into more and more schoolyardisms by the minute, as you keep trying to defend the indefensible. A stub makes no mention of something. How … usual. Go and learn the Wikipedia basics, kid. Start with Wikipedia:stub, which explains that stubs usually are not complete discussions of a subject. Honestly, you truly are descending into complete foolishness here. I'm singularly unimpressed with this ad hominem attempt to defend what is clearly an outright error on several levels. Uncle G (talk) 18:55, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
  • "Schoolyardisms" would seem to be the obvious response to puncture such pompous twittery: "My goodness, shame, shame, shame..." You come across as an outraged spinster. Do you mind if I call you 'Maiden Aunt G' from here on in? So Auntie, words can have more than one meaning. Article titles, being made up of words, can likewise have more than one meaning. That is why part of the purpose of an article lead is to define which of these multiple meanings (if they exist), the article is on. "authenticity" has a wide range of meanings, even in the context of art. The lead of this article defines the meaning of artistic authenticity that this article is dealing with to be the one concerned with originality and artistic integrity. The book chapter deals with a different meaning of artistic authenticity, concerned with authenticity versus forgery. This is why the chapter is I_R_R_E_L_E_V_A_N_T. Now have a nice glass of sherry to calm your nerves and go back to your knitting. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:58, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
  • The lead at the time stated, "Authenticity in the Art is the credibility of transmission, the authenticity of the sample.". The chapter in question is not just concerned with the issue of forgery of unique art such as paintings. It goes on to discuss what it calls allographic forms of art such as dance and architecture. The extent to which the vision of the original artist/composer may be transmitted by an imperfect notation is discussed and analysed. The issue is of authenticity when works are intended to be reproduced by performance or by a mechanical process such as printing. The source will help us in developing this topic and so is relevant. Per WP:REFSPAM, "Citation spamming is a subtle form of spam and should not be confused with legitimate good-faith additions intended to verify article content and help build the encyclopedia." Colonel Warden (talk) 08:01, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


Alright, so now that this article has survived, it needs some serious work. The term is still left unclearly defined and the page seems to be a confusing mish-mash of different possibilities. Let's fix it up.--Yaksar (let's chat) 01:31, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Authenticity in art. 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}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:13, 22 October 2016 (UTC)