Talk:Coosje van Bruggen

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

Old talk[edit]

I don't know how to add anything to this page, but it would be nice to see mention of The Spoon Bridge and Cherry Sculpture created by her and Claes Oldenburg that is in the Minneapolis Sculpture Garden?

This is a link to a Wikipedia page that includes an image of the sculpture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 21:44, 2 May 2009

Old talk 2[edit]

It is a shame this article wasn't created until 3 days after she died.--RayqayzaDialgaWeird2210    01:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

It's also a shame for de-wiki, I confess. When I wrote about Inverted Collar and Tie I missed an article about van Bruggen, but I also shelved it. However, I tried to gather some material as a basis. --EvaK (talk) 10:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Censored images[edit]

A recent DMCA take-down notice (original) resulted in removal of the sculpture photographs hosted at Commons. I have replaced the images with [CENSORED] stamps, leaving the original file names as HTML comments. It seems that at least some of them can be restored by reuploading them to en.wikipedia under "fair use" conditions, if the greediness of the "copyright holder" Hallie McNeill will not permit a more sensible solution... — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 02:47, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Good note - should be a template! At the moment, there's a FfD for File:Cupid's Span.jpg - join in. --Lexein (talk) 07:45, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Extended discussion here: WT:Non-free_content. --Lexein (talk) 22:57, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
If images are deleted, they should be removed from the article, they can be added later again. Readers have no use for a "censored" image. That's an internal discussion, not for readers. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Self-references to avoid. Besides, just File:Censored rubber stamp.svg doesn't tell anything, it's just a picture with censored stamped on it. Garion96 (talk) 00:11, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
I appreciate the discussion, rather than just reverting; I'm hoping for some solution, that doesn't disservice the reader (censorshipimage disappearance is a disservice). I appreciate your viewpoint, and that stated in the essays. I agree with not calling out Wikipedia. However, we do have content tagging templates. I've made a proposal at Commons:Village_pump#.28What_can_I_do.3F.29_Tag_the_gaps_proposal Commons referring to DMCA_Take-Down posted yesterday. I guess discuss there, unless the discussion should be moved somewhere else. Thoughts? Better place to propose this? --Lexein
It's not a censorship issue, just a copyright issue. And the discussion should be on the English Wikipedia, not Commons. Commons is for hosting images, discussion about what images to use on articles here, should be decided here.
Can't you see how pointless these images are on this article? It doesn't even explain anything. Garion96 (talk) 09:27, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Not my intention for it to be a censorship issue - let's not stick on that. You're not wrong about the discussion, but it's on Commons because the DMCA discussion was there, and editors work on both Commons and WIkipedia when deletions are involved, and my proposal includes the option of replacing the image at Commons, in order to maintain the file page. In the proposal, I agreed that a substitute image should be explanatory or not there. I proposed alternate text. Perhaps these examples B, C, D (below) will help unstick the discussion with you at least.
What's more important to me is the tag template {{DMCA takedown}} (simulated here), next to the caption in each of the examples. This is what I'm proposing, to provide a minimalist piece of linkable info for readers/editors who are interested. --Lexein (talk) 11:38, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
A B - white C - black D - no image
Inverted Collar and Tie, Frankfurt[DMCA takedown][1]
Inverted Collar and Tie, Frankfurt[DMCA takedown][1]
Inverted Collar and Tie, Frankfurt[DMCA takedown][1]
File:Krawatte Kronenhochhaus 1.jpg
Inverted Collar and Tie, Frankfurt[DMCA takedown][1]
  1. ^ a b c d "Artists' Studio Wants Photos of Their Work Removed From Wikipedia". Chilling Effects. October 23, 2012. Retrieved 2012-11-09.
We never maintain the file page. If images are deleted, they are removed from the article or replaced. A small section in the article about the removal of the images however could be fitting. If reliable sources can be found. Garion96 (talk) 11:56, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
I strongly object against replacing the DMCA-deleted images by a CENSORED tag, as these deletions have nothing to do with censorship. Abusing the censorship-ticket in this case means actually belittling the problems with real censorship. --Túrelio (talk) 15:07, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
(As a clarification, replacing links to deleted files with "CENSORED" was not my original idea — I saw this in the other article (about Claes Oldenburg) and did it here to attract people's attention. The reason for leaving the original data was that the issue was not closed yet (WMF proposed to file counter-notices), and this would make the possible restoration easier/more obvious. This was a temporary measure anyway.)
I strongly suspect that such deletions are a form of censorship. While the law allows copyright holders to send takedown notices, it DOES NOT REQUIRE that. One approach is when the copyright holder writes you "you know, according to the current law your photographs cannot be published as they are, but I encourage people learning about our sculptures and thus can give you appropriate licenses", and a completely different attitude is to write "remove everything or I will sue you"...
I think, the most honest approach in such situations is to ask the holder for the permission or why they deny it and then state it clearly on file pages or in the article (if they don't reply, state so). And this deserves some standardization of procedures and templates.
Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 01:26, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I updated the article in order to show one of the improved substitute images, added the prototype live !template link, and citation of reliable source for the DMCA takedown. This is, I think, the minimal fair documentation of a deleted image, without referring to Wikipedia itself, or discussing the image as a Wikipedia artifact. I guess I should have live-demo'ed it first, instead of just describing it and implementing in Talk. See the live gallery. --Lexein (talk) 06:51, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
For a big change like this, which could also be used on other articles, please seek consensus first. So far it looks that many editors think it's a really bad idea. See the discusson on Commons:Village_pump#.28What_can_I_do.3F.29_Tag_the_gaps_proposal Commons which you started on the commeont of Jheald on wt:nfc Garion96 (talk) 08:11, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
I am seeking consensus - this, on this article, is a demo, for this discussion, which, though bold, causes no harm, offers readers information otherwise hidden, and is within policy - this is new policy/guideline territory. The discussion is ongoing. The arguments against, so far, are based first on "Censored" (without suggesting an alternative) which was only an example, and I've proposed alternates. I do not think reversion while discussion is ongoing is appropriate. Give it a chance, so discussion can reasonably proceed. My in-Talk examples were not being acknowledged or commented on. Please revert your reversion - I don't want to revert war. I truly think this needs proper airing, including live article demonstration. I won't be propagating this to other articles without consensus. --Lexein (talk) 08:54, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
We don't use "demonstrations" on a live article. You were bold with this idea, it was reverted and now we discuss. I didn't comment on your alternates, cause they are all based on the same (to me) bad idea. An image is deleted (on commons), we remove it from the article and/or replace it. Other editors who like to comment on your proposal can see it easily in the history of the article or at your examples here. Garion96 (talk) 09:15, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
  • The full implementation, for discussion, is here.
  1. I see that you don't agree that DMCA-action images should be treated the same as DMCA-action text. Why?
  2. Your reason for saying it's a "bad idea" is "we don't do that." That's not really a reason. As long as DMCA actions on prose leave a visible mark on articles, DMCA actions on images should too, in articles, because that's where the readers are. Further, as has been noted by WMF, forensics would be helped greatly if DMCA deletions and remediation attempts (permission/OTRS, counter-notice) were recorded in the image file itself, and such edits logged in the history. That's impossible the way things are currently done. So, two major reasons to change the way things are done at Commons for DMCA images. --Lexein (talk) 11:23, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Were do we leave DMCA action notices in article prose? And I have no objection to having a "fake" image on commons with the same name were everything is recorded. That image however should never be on a wikipedia article but should only be used on Commons. Garion96 (talk) 11:32, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Just saw Conventional PCI where they indeed do it. It's comparable indeed when doing something like that to the image. But that issue was about the article prose (or just a link), this is about an image. A notice like that It can belong on the image page on commons, although it's easier to simply delete the image. That article could relatively easy be saved, no need to delete the entire article. With these images that's not possible. Garion96 (talk) 19:47, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Ok, I'm glad you see some utility in preserving the image file. I see the "do we do this" problem as less about part(article) vs whole(image), than giving the reader and editors notice that something is not see-able by the reader, even though we'd like to.
If Commons consensus will never allow placeholder images in articles, then I'm (just now) thinking a bottom notice in the article would work for me. Not in the prose, but below the External links section:
should read *23 october, 2012 (not 27)Lx 121 (talk) 23:36, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Leaving the image link live lets the reader go to the image file, to see what;s going on with it. I think including a link to the image's Talk page would be helpful; either that, or the WMF discussion page, or Commons discussionn page, if there is one. The bar should be black, though to match the {{pp-office-dmca}} as used at Conventional PCI is kinda cool, though).--Lexein (talk) 02:23, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
With that last idea I don't agree. There are problems with the image. So tagging the image is ok. There are no issues with the article and there is no need to mention the DMCA in the article. Unless the foundation of course would state there is a need to display it. The link on Conventional PCI and the article protection was placed by an Office action. So far it look like they don't think that's needed in this case. Garion96 (talk) 14:04, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
I tend to agree with the idea that listing deleted images is not very useful for the readers. While they must not be deleted suddenly, as it is done now, but first replaced with some notices so that local WP editors can do whatever they see appropriate in each particular case (the idea discussed on Commons and apparently supported by most people), the long-term solution must be somehow different. After all, if such images are not allowed in general, there is no point to list some of them that were "overlooked" before. :) I think, a better idea in such situations would be to include a more or less general template saying something like "This page lacks illustrations because photographing of ... is restricted by ... [link to regulations]. You can improve this article by uploading photographs authorized by the copyright holders [link to instructions]. (Or try to change the law [link to campaign].)". First, it will increase awareness and prevent possible "violations". Second, it might actually help to get more "legitimate" images. (BTW, shouldn't we discuss this general stuff in a place more general than this article talk page?) — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 04:28, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

intellectual property[edit]

since one user has objected to & ENTIRELY REMOVED the section i wrote, discussing the recent actions by the studio-estate of this artist, to remove images of their works from wikimedia's collection, i am 'in good faith' opening a discussion section.

i have also restored the deleted text from the article.

the objecting user didn't like my use of quotation marks, so i've removed 'most' of them.

that aside, the text is a simple recitation of facts, & if anyone wants to reword it, or suggest additions, i'm open.

if anyone wants to claim it's nnpov, please SPECIFY what parts of the text you feel are problematic.

as regards factuality, & verifiability, the record is pretty clear.

as regards notability, if the artist or their representatives choose to be agressive in using DMCA notices to assert 'ownership' over rights in photographs taken of their artworks, then it is relevant & worth noting their position.

the reverting user cited a "chilling effect"; how is it "chilling" to include information which is indisputably factual & a part of the public record?

the only rational basis i can see for seeking to remove this information, is a desire to 'protect' the image of the artist, & that IS NOT our job @ wikip.

Lx 121 (talk) 05:50, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

That text block is blatantly wrong on too many fronts to actually list. It has been removed again, and I can do so as often as is needed without end (exceptions to WP:3RR, because you have not provided independent reliable sources for the claims, you have potentially libelous claims, and a non-neutral tone which is decidedly non-encyclopedic. Spacing out your remarks to take up the maximum space doesn't advance your arguments.
You were bold, I reverted, and now we discuss. You do not re-add. See WP:BRD.
I was not the sole "user" objecting. Another editor removed your similar block of text at Claes.
Facts are not enough, unless they are universal, like the sky is blue. See also, WP:Verifiability, not truth.
I was referring to which did not discuss the topic, only relisted the request.
Articles are special: they are intentionally public, and the primary way in which readers interact with Wikipedia. Therefore, all content in them must be reliably independently sourced. This is nicely summarized in WP:42. Wikipedia itself is not a citable source in Wikipedia articles. For more, read my reply to your question below, as well as all the other discussion on the page. --Lexein (talk) 09:30, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
so, if i understand you position correctly, you are stating that a letter sent to the WMF & published VERBATIM on their website IS NOT A RELIABLE SOURCE of information about the contents of said letter!?
i'm sorry, but i can't agree with you on that point. nor is it "original research" to cite the contents of same.
as for my writing style in commenting, i'm sorry that you don't like how i write, but you write your comments, & i shall write mine... personally i find spacing & emPHAsis helps to get the point across, makes it easier to follow a discussion, & certainly makes it easier to find key points in someone's position.
and it works pretty well for stephen king in his writings
Lx 121 (talk) 20:52, 16 November 2012 (UTC)


(Moved from User talk:Lexein. Doesn't belong on my talk page. --Lexein (talk) 09:20, 16 November 2012 (UTC))
in the context of the claes oldenburg & coosje van bruggen articles, who or what is "RS"?

Lx 121 (talk) 07:31, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

As an editor, you already know that RS is Wikipedia-editor shorthand for "independent reliable source", as in WP:RS. Every statement made in a Wikipedia article, unless it is an obvious one like "the sky is blue", should be WP:V verifiable (policy), meaning supported by independent WP:reliable sources (strong guideline). The more extraordinary the claim, the more reliable should be the sources. See also WP:VRS for a capsule summary. In other words, Wikipedia is not the authority which is speaking, the sources are. We paraphrase, quote, and cite them. What you wrote has not been explicitly discussed in the media (yet).
2nd point: we don't write about Wikipedia or internal matters unless independent reliable sources have done so; to do so again sets up WP (or an editor) as an authority.
3rd point: See WP:BURDEN], which spells out that it is the duty of the adding editor to cite reliable sources supporting the claim. If none exist, the claim must not be added to a Wikipedia article. --Lexein (talk) 09:20, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
thank-you for clarifying that. contrary to your expectations, i don't spend very much time or effort learning "wikipspeak", & without the 'prefixed' "WP:" it seemed like you were referring to the initials of some proper name of some person or organization, which puzzled me, because i could not find any R.S. in the article. i encountered a simillar problem with the comment about "chilling effects" sans tld.
as for the accusation of "canvassing"; with all due respect, i do not think that asking you, on your talk page, to clarify an obscure point in your edit comment constitutes "canvassing". i put the question there, because it was a direct question to you, about a trivial matter which was unrelated to the points under discussion here (except to clarify my personal misunderstanding of your reference). Lx 121 (talk) 21:02, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
My point was: spreading discussions out isn't good. It's not good even when I do it. Worst case, it begins to resemble canvassing, but if that's not what you meant, fine. --Lexein (talk) 01:14, 17 November 2012 (UTC)