Jump to content

Talk:Untitled (Senior Thesis)

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

Requested move 31 May 2018

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Procedural close per below. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:17, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yale student abortion art controversy → Aliza Shvarts – A more reader-friendly article takes place under the heading of the name of the artist; the material is esoteric in the context of contemporary art; it benefits from being couched in the context of the artist's bio; a reader can learn what the artist's concerns are alongside concerns of a particular artwork, and her career is ongoing over at least ten years so far thus the reader should see this subject matter as a continuity involving both artist and artwork(s). A good quality draft can be seen for such an article at Draft:Aliza Shvarts. Bus stop (talk) 14:57, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, the artist is clearly independently notable, as shown in Draft:Aliza Shvarts. Precedent established by various controversial artworks on Wikipedia shows that this article should be about the artist or artwork, rather than the controversy. This artwork will make the most sense to the reader contextualized within Shvarts’s larger practice, as she has gone on to work with many themes and ideas first articulated in [Untitled] Senior Thesis.
To review: I attempted to create a new Biography page for Shvarts, as suggested in the above discussion by TonyBallioni and Bus stop. I did so with assistance from Bus stop, Megalibrarygirl, and KylieTastic. This draft was rejected for procedural reasons, as the page “Aliza Shvarts” already exists as a redirect to this article, “Yale Student Abortion Art Controversy.” Legacypac, noting that they believe this page is “very poorly named,” suggested that we need to sort out what to do with the drafted biography here, and noted that we are able to edit over the redirect to create the biography page.
We should now establish consensus from involved editors on the following items: 1) to remove the redirect from “Aliza Shvarts” to “Yale student abortion art controversy”; 2) to create the biography page for Aliza Shvarts according to Draft:Aliza Shvarts; 3) merge this page into the newly created artist’s biography. I am in favor of all three motions. —Vera Syuzhet (talk) 18:05, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest possible oppose this is not how we create new articles on BLPs. If you think she is independently notable, create an article and let it stand on its own subject to the same scrutiny any other new article would face. I have no opinion on whether she is notable, but I oppose the hijacking of the RM process for this purpose. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:10, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
TonyBallioni I created a new article as you suggested: Draft:Aliza Shvarts. However, because a page "Aliza Shvarts" already exists as a redirect to this page, this draft was rejected, and I was advised by Legacypac to bring the discussion back to this page. Could Legacypac and TonyBallioni please weigh in as to what is the correct procedure for creating the biography page? Should I revise the redirect page already titled "Aliza Shvarts" with the content of the drafted biography? —Vera Syuzhet (talk) 18:23, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Vera Syuzhet: I’ve deleted the existing redirect. Feel free to move your draft there, which seems to be what is being proposed here anyway. Then a merger discussion can take place as to if we need both articles, and this RM can be withdrawn. Pinging Bus stop as they started this RM. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:29, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
TonyBallioni Thank you, the biography has been created and is now located here: Aliza Shvarts —Vera Syuzhet (talk) 18:36, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
TonyBallioni—should I withdraw this RM? If so, how do I do that? Bus stop (talk) 20:14, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Bus stop, I’ve closed it. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:17, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Bus stop (talk) 20:24, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

New BLP of Aliza Shvarts

[edit]

In my initial request to merge this page into a biography of the artist Aliza Shvarts, I was encouraged to create a separate biography of Shvarts and “see if it survives.” Various editors expressed the opinion that the artist was not notable outside the controversy. I created the biography, which has been edited by Bus stop and Megalibrarygirl, and which I feel is now in a stable/good state: Aliza Shvarts

I call on those who participated in this conversation: @Bus stop: @Johnbod: @Gråbergs Gråa Sång: @TonyBallioni: @Ipigott: @Irn: @Czar: @GRuban: @Cullen: and @Dekimasu: please review the BLP. If you feel it does not meet notability requirements, I invite you to edit the page, or nominate it for deletion. —Vera Syuzhet (talk) 19:04, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me. Well written, plenty of sources, I would argue for keeping. --GRuban (talk) 19:25, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Especially since Aliza Shvarts failed an Afd back in 2008 (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aliza Shvarts, before being rescued from userspace anhd then renamed as this), I think it should be tested by a new one. Several editors in the section above expressed the view we should not have one, as n-n, with all sources referring to the episode covered here. But, as I pointed out to Bus stop, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meghan Markle ended as a delete in 2006! Johnbod (talk) 19:37, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Vera, have you considered whether Shvarts is likely to marry a handsome prince soon? Because if not, well ... --GRuban (talk) 19:57, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
An ideal solution, but one that would involve hard work, would be to merge this article into the biography. The artist's biography passes notability in my opinion but not by a large margin. And the reader benefits most (in almost any biography of an artist) by knowing about the artwork. The presentation of material pertinent to this artwork and subsequent artworks informs the biography. Therefore it is by writing about the artwork that we truly write the biography of the artist. And if that is the case, we ideally talk extensively about the artwork under the heading of the artist. I would suggest merging this material into the article on the artist. Doing so would likely require some major rearrangements to the article on the artist, such as breaking it down into subsections by work of art, such as we see at Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight). Credit to SlimVirgin for editing the layout of that article. (But of course that article is on a work of art. There are other reasons why that article is titled as it is.) Bus stop (talk) 20:03, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To respond to GRuban, having done reference cleanup on the article, she passes CREATIVE. Her performance art (not just the Yale controversy) has been the subject of critical works. Also, I agree with Bus stop. We should merge the "controversy" about her art into the article and discuss the art there. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:55, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To further clarify with my comment to GRuban, I don't think she needs to marry a prince. But if she wants to, that's cool, too. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:56, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'd need to see how you do it, honestly; current article here has a lot of info, which we would't want to lose, but just merging it in seems like it would overshadow the rest of Shvarts's article. Do work on the prince thing, though, it's highly recommended.--GRuban (talk) 21:08, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sweden has four unmarried princes, but some waiting will be involved. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:34, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's possible that the biography of Shvartz can stand alone—I haven't reviewed all of the sources—but I don't see how there can be any doubt that the Yale event is independently notable. It's the primary focus of almost all reliable, secondary source coverage about her career. A merge/redirect to an artist biography should be out of the question. To the point at hand, the Shvartz draft is drastically over-reliant on primary and affiliated sources. Look at even the last third of the references... The article should be able to stand on reliable, secondary source content alone, with primary/affiliated refs used only to fill in small details, not large swaths of the subject's CV. I would expect experienced reviewers to catch stuff like this before approving for mainspace. czar 22:32, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
czar—you say "A merge/redirect to an artist biography should be out of the question. Why? Specifically, why would a merge of this article to the artist's biography article be out of the question? Bus stop (talk) 05:36, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I said why in the preceding sentences. The subject of the sources used in both articles is not, apart from the interviews, "the career of Aliza Shvarts" but the events surrounding her senior thesis. This was also repeated plenty of times in the original survey above. Her bio should be covered proportionate to its coverage in reliable, secondary sources. If the separate bio simply uses sources about the thesis events as an excuse to cite multiple primary/affiliated sources, we call that a coat rack. czar 05:46, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
czar—I'm not understanding. It is a seriously big deal if an article with an artist's name documents her artworks? The argument taking place on this Talk page prior to the creation of the article on the biography of the artist had you arguing against changing the name of this article so that it could stop being about a controversy and instead be about an artwork. The possibilities are few. One article or two articles? What should be the name or names of any such articles? Please state your choices. No choice is perfect. And we are not bound by inviolable rules. Bus stop (talk) 06:24, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is a big deal to use coverage of an event as a reason to fork an article so that it can be stuffed with primary sources. That's the entire premise of BLP1E. As for my "choices", I think I've repeated myself enough on that: an article on the abortion art event, which is the subject of nearly all the coverage, and possibly a separate Shvarts bio if/when supported by sources not included in the former. If properly written from secondary sources, the Shvarts bio would be much shorter. Entire paragraphs would be cut at AFD as self-promotional. It seems likely that there would eventually be enough coverage of Shvarts outside the abortion art event to support a biography that does justice to the topic (with actual biographical details) so the question is what profile or feature write-up will indicate that we've reached that point. That we would currently need to explain so many basic details about her career by citing primary sources indicates that those facts were not important enough for secondary sources to cover. At risk of repeating myself, as a tertiary source, WP borrows its credibility from the selective editorial process of secondary sources. An article built foremost from primary sources is a personal bio, not an encyclopedia article. czar 13:08, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Non-judgmental descriptive titles allows for the use of titles that are "invented specifically for articles". There would be nothing unusual in titling an article with an artist's name and then documenting her artworks. No, this is not an instance of a violation of WP:COATRACK because "artist" and "artwork" are closely related, nor is it problematic via WP:BLP1E because there is ample indication of ongoing work in the field of art. She speaks at art museums and she makes artworks. The senior project may have received the greatest notoriety but the argument can't be made that it is the "one event" in her life related to art. Sources cover other "events" though not nearly with the thoroughness that is seen in the case of the senior project. Bus stop (talk) 13:31, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
BLP1E means that we don't make articles about people primarily known for one event. It's a matter of what received coverage and keeping the scope proportionate. BLP1Es are about whether the coverage of the rest of a person's career is on par with the coverage of the singular event.

She speaks at art museums and she makes artworks.

No use to us when we can't write about what isn't covered in reliable, secondary sources. czar 23:00, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Czar: I suggest that, if you think the article on Shvarts would benefit from being nominated for deletion, or if you believe she is not notable, you nominate it for deletion now. If you do not wish to do so, we should move ahead with the consensus that the artist is notable, and shift our focus to whether or not this article should be merged with the biography, as suggested by Bus stop and supported by Megalibrarygirl above. –Vera Syuzhet (talk) 22:31, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And opposed by many more editors. Really, it's time to drop the stick on this merge to the bio, for which there is pretty clearly no consensus. Of course one result of an AFD on the bio might be a merge to this article.Johnbod (talk) 22:44, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Johnbod If you think the article on Shvarts should undergo an AfD to test it (as you say above), or to see if the bio should be merged to this article (whether under the title of the artwork or the title of the controversy), I'd welcome you to nominate it for deletion. —Vera Syuzhet (talk) 23:41, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's never "she is not notable" like some grand pronouncement but whether we can do justice to a biography based on current sourcing without having to delve into primary sources and original research. Start a merge discussion if you want, but if you do, I fully expect the separate Shvarts bio to be contested by someone more zealous than me and I see no chance that the abortion art event, whose currency is undoubtedly larger than that of the artist herself, will be merged into an artist bio. The noteworthy coverage—literally the stuff that secondary sources have covered as worthy of note—as of the current sourcing is the event and not the career. It's premature to make any other prognostications about her career until we have sourcing to back it up: We're an encyclopedia and not a crystal ball. I think I've been clear enough on these points that you two don't need to {{ping}} me unless you have a request in which I can actually help. czar 23:00, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Then change the title of this article to "Untitled [Senior Thesis]" and merge the Aliza Shvarts article into this article. This would then very much be parallel with Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight). Bear in mind that "Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight)" is not called "Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight) controversy". Bus stop (talk) 23:25, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with GRuban/Megalibrarygirl that Aliza Shvarts looks keepable (of course, anyone who disagree can start an AFD, I won't), and agree with CZAR to keep this article. IF the other article is deleted (which IMO seems unlikely), I see no problem with having a "Shvarts' later career" or somesuch section here, but let's cross that bridge if we come to it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:47, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I stated in my very first post that I'm a writer and scholar who is researching Aliza Shvarts. I am not gaming the system. I was told to create a biography and see if it survives. This is precisely what I did: 1) I created a biography; 2) editors on this page continued to argue that Shvarts is not notable, and yet refused to bring the BLP to AfD; 3) in order to move the conversation forward, I brought the BLP to AfD myself, wanting to submit my article to a just and fair review and "see if it survives"; 4) it survived. Many artists rose to notability for their first, most controversial, or most accomplished artwork. Please note Wikipedia's CREATIVE notability guidelines, which Shvarts meets. I have made it patently clear throughout that the artist merits a more comprehensive and, frankly, unbiased page than one titled "Yale student abortion art controversy." This is the only page on Wikipedia about an artwork which is instead titled according to the reactive hysteria surrounding to that artwork. I have repeatedly shown that multiple peer-reviewed academic, art historical texts that discuss the work as a piece of performance art, and spell out in no uncertain terms the artwork includes the discourse surrounding it. This is a basic tenant of relational and parafictive artwork. This article is grievously mistitled. I will continue to argue such. This is an artwork, and if this page must exist independently of the artist, it deserves to be named as is proper of an artwork: by its title. —Vera Syuzhet (talk) 19:28, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
E.M.Gregory—the original problem is that this article is improperly named. The subject of this article is an artwork, not a "controversy". Bus stop (talk) 23:53, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Title change still called for

[edit]

In the opinion of this editor it's time to discuss what I see as the problematic title of this article. When we last left off there was a significant opinion expressed that Aliza Shvarts was not notable. But the revised opinion is that she is notable, as evidenced by the Aliza Shvarts article. Those arguments that Aliza Shvarts was not notable were invalidated by subsequent events therefore I think it is only fair that we weigh in again on a question I have been persistently raising concerning what I perceive as the less-than-ideal titling of this article. The subject of this article is a proposed and partially completed performance piece. It is my argument that reactions to that proposed and partially completed performance piece are of secondary importance and consequently don't warrant prominence of position in the title. The present title is not the only possible title for this article and it is my argument that the present title is less than ideal. The moving force that generated the reactions to this proposed and partially completed performance piece is the piece itself and consequently it is reference to the piece itself that warrants prominence of position in the title. In my opinion it is important that logic be brought to bear on properly titling this article. Please see "consistency—the title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles." This article's title should be consistent with articles on similar subjects. When this initiative was last raised by Vera Syuzhet in the section headed Requested move 14 May 2018 it was argued that the suggested move from "Yale student abortion art controversy" to "Aliza Shvarts" could not be justified because Aliza Shvarts was not notable. Now that notability has been established this discussion should be restarted. One possible title that I think is reasonable and that I think could placate arguments about the incompleteness of the piece is "2008 proposed Aliza Shvarts performance piece". But other possible titles exist as well. I am cognizant of arguments pertaining to "incompleteness". Not only did the school not permit presentation of documentation pertaining to the performance piece but it is doubtful that actual insemination and abortion took place. I don't think its identity as artwork and performance piece are negated by these factors. But we adhere to the findings of sources, all of which confirm its identity as art. No good source says that this is not a work of performance art. We have to keep in mind that we are an encyclopedia which means that when writing about these general subjects we are basically documenting artists and artworks. Those are our two main areas of concern. We are not basically documenting reactions to artworks, as the present title suggests, as it is expected that there will be reactions to artworks. It is emblematic of a parochial concern that we elevate reactions to artworks to the raison d'être of an article, as is suggested by the present title. A proper article title would identify the artwork and leave it at that. In my opinion this would be the case regardless of the volume of reactions to the artwork contained within the article. I don't think the subject of the article is altered by an enormous volume of "reaction" to an artwork. We are not primarily documenting reactions to artworks but rather we are documenting the artworks themselves. Bus stop (talk) 14:41, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the long "lets agree to change to something else" discussion above that didn't find anything resembling consensus, I think this is approaching beating dead horse territory. However, start an Rfc with suggestion for specific title/titles and see what happens. There is now of course the recent "no consensus, default to keep'" Aliza Shvarts to keep in mind in a possible renaming. My opinion is that the current title is good enough, it is reasonably recognizable, concise, natural, precise, and consistent. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:14, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't take such a legalistic approach to this. Haven't we gone through enough negative territory already without a suggestion that I now start an RfC? Discussion is a simple thing, at least as a starting point. It consists of arguments and counterarguments. You have not presented a counterargument to my reasons that I have carefully presented as to why the title of this article should be changed. You have said "My opinion is that the current title is good enough." Yes, we understand that much. Now it would be great if you explained the reasoning behind the position that you support. Bus stop (talk) 15:29, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As you have added that "it is reasonably recognizable, concise, natural, precise, and consistent" let me respond to that. It is not consistent. This is an article on a work of art. Works of art invariably get the title of the work of art. Other possibilities do exist but it remains always the case that the work of art is referenced in the title—never the reactions to the work of art. Wikipedia articles on works of art commonly contain "Reception" sections or "Critical appraisal" sections. In the case of this article the concept of "reception" or "critical appraisal" has been elevated to the status of the title. Why should that be? Bus stop (talk) 15:34, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the title needs to be changed. However, because video documentation of the work is currently on view at Shvarts's solo exhibition at Artspace, and because by her account she did perform the work but was censored from exhibiting it at Yale, I don't think 'proposed' is the best word for the title. The artwork was completed, but not exhibited until recently.
I would challenge editors who like the word 'controversy' in the title to find a single other controversial artwork or artist on Wikipedia that receives the title 'controversy.' There is simply no precedent for this. It's quite simple, really. Controversial artworks, according to precedent, are titled by their title or included in the artist's biography, and the controversy is written about in a section called 'reception.'
I would suggest the following titles:
  • Untitled (Senior Thesis) (Aliza Shvarts performance)
  • Untitled (Senior Thesis) (performance)
  • Aliza Shvarts 2008 Yale Senior Thesis
What do we gain from keeping the word "controversy" in the title? —Vera Syuzhet (talk) 18:29, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly against titling the article "Untitled" for what should be obvious reasons. Ceci n'est pas un titre? Not to mention the two sets of parentheses. Let's not make this article a participant in a piece of performance art. --GRuban (talk) 18:49, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Basically almost anything would be better than the present title. Of the four possibilities presented above I would choose "Aliza Shvarts 2008 Yale Senior Thesis". Bus stop (talk) 20:37, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
GRuban It's not a crazy suggestion, nor does it have anything to do with making the page a piece of performance art. I looked up how untitled artworks are usually handled on Wikipedia, and then created those suggested titles using the precedent I found. Many untitled artworks on Wikipedia are titled as "Untitled" with a parenthetical used to describe the work: Untitled Artworks on Wikipedia I agree that Aliza Shvarts 2008 Yale Senior Thesis is more descriptive, although it follows precedent less. –Vera Syuzhet (talk) 21:52, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But do any of them use double parenthesis? Bus stop (talk) 22:41, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I found only this example of a double parenthetical: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/(Untitled)_(2009_film) I would be happy to agree on Aliza Shvarts 2008 Yale Senior Thesis as the title, though, to avoid getting stuck in a discussion surrounding the word "Untitled" and the double parenthetical. Especially given that the artist now has a Wikipedia biography, my strongest opinions are that 1) either her name or the artwork's title should be in the title of the Wikipedia entry; 2) the title should reflect that this is an article about a controversial artwork, rather than an article about a controversy. I think this section of the naming policy is interesting to consult in relation to this discussion: [but common names] —Vera Syuzhet (talk) 01:27, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Untitled (Senior Thesis) (Aliza Shvarts performance)" is fine too. We can live with a double parenthesis. Bus stop (talk) 02:00, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this is the most clear title, and the title which aligns most with Wikipedia precedent for titles of pages on artworks. What is the best way forward in officially proposing a title change? —Vera Syuzhet (talk) 18:01, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, but I am assuming that we are presently taking the best way forward. In my opinion anyone can weigh in to this discussion. I am not enthusiastic about giving advice but I would give it some time and if no one speaks up to oppose or to offer counter-suggestions or any other sort of input, then I think it would be OK to go ahead and change the title. I am assuming this page is on past-participants' Watchlist. Perhaps past-participants could be notified of this discussion. I don't think this discussion is the same as the last one. My reasoning is explained in my opening post as to why I feel that a fresh start is called for in these talks. Bus stop (talk) 18:29, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Still oppose. "Untitled" is inherently a terrible title, and our sources do not call it that. I clicked on a few of the Untitled Artworks on Wikipedia and most deserve to be deleted for not meeting Wikipedia:Notability. At least one is up for deletion now, I may be nominating most of the others soon. This article here actually has sources offering indepth coverage - most of them don't. --GRuban (talk) 21:06, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
GRuban OK, but the notability of other untitled artworks has no bearing whatsoever on the notability of this artwork. Not titling artworks, or titling them "Untitled," is such a norm within art history, and such a commonly accepted standard, that I hardly feel the need to discuss whether "Untitled" is a good title or not. Not titling a work may or may not be "good," depending on your definition of "good." Regardless of your personal preference, using "untitled" is simply a fact of art history. Until the eighteenth century, most paintings did not have proper titles. The Wikipedia page on untitled works includes not only artworks, but albums, songs, and various other creative works which meet notability standards easily. Anyways, we're not suggesting that the page be called "Untitled." We're suggesting "Untitled (Senior Thesis) (Aliza Shvarts performance)," which has five fully present and signifying additional words tacked on to the detestably vague "untitled" to provide ample contextualization.
Here are how peer reviewed, academic texts refer to the project:
  • “Yale University fine arts student Aliza Shvarts's senior undergraduate art project” (Ana Grahovac. “Aliza Shvarts’s Art of Aborting: Queer Conceptions and Reproductive Futurism.”)
  • “Untitled (2008) … Aliza Shvarts’s work” (Hold it Against Me: Difficulty and Emotion in Contemporary Art. (Durham: Duke University Press, 2013)
  • “the 2008 senior thesis project by then-Yale art major Aliza Shvarts.” (Rosemary Candelario. Abortion Performance and Politics. CSW Update, UCLA Center for the Study of Women, 2012)
  • “art major Aliza Shvarts’s documentation of a nine-month-long senior project” (Carrie Lambert-Beatty, “Make-Believe: Parafiction and Plausability”, October No. 129, 2009)
  • “Aliza Shvarts’s senior art project” (Nikki Cesare Schotzko. Learning How to Fall: Art and Culture After September 11. (New York: Routledge 2015)
And here are how more recent sources refer to the work:
  • Untitled [Senior Thesis] (2008) … “2008 performance and aftermath.” "Aliza Shvarts: Material Fictions" by Angelique Syzmaneck, in Aliza Shvarts: Off Scene (Artspace, 2018)
  • “Shvarts’s senior thesis at Yale in 2008” "Who's the Audience?" in New Haven Independent, 2018
  • "Shvarts's untitled senior thesis project" in "Aliza Shvarts's daring performance work," Wendy Vogel, Mousse summer 2018
To clarify what are your thoughts on Aliza Shvarts 2008 Yale Senior Thesis as a title for the page? —Vera Syuzhet (talk) 22:19, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A lot better than "Untitled"! If you can show that there is significant coverage of the performance as such, and not just as a controversy, I could support it. However it looks like your own sources are calling it "Abortion Performance" and "Art of Aborting". Something to be said for including that word in the title. --GRuban (talk) 02:40, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Yale", "Art" and "Abortion" are very frequent in sources. With them, "2008" becomes redundant. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:00, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Carrie Lambert-Beatty writes in October that the project’s “central point [is] that what we take as biological facts are constructed in language and ideology,” and says that there are major political and ideological differences in calling Shvarts’s bleeding a “period,” a “miscarriage,” or an “abortion.” Shvarts herself never called what she was doing "abortion," but instead "self-induced miscarriage." I'm not denying that the project revolves around themes of abortion. I'm just arguing that we not use that word in the title, because it is not NPOV. The theme is covered thoroughly in the article's body. Using the word "abortion" instead of "miscarriage" in the title involves making a politically charged decision, and it's not Wikipedia's role to make those kinds of non-neutral value judgements. I've already shown above, many times, that the controversy is by all accounts part of the artwork. The discourse surrounding the performance is part and parcel of the work. This is the same situation as Duchamp's Fountain, and many other controversial artworks in the history of art, which were intended to provoke, and did so. The reception to the work becomes notable within the context of the artwork, within the context of the history of art. Is there any form of mediation, or conflict resolution, on Wikipedia? Positions have become so entrenched that I'm now arguing basic tenets of art historical understanding, including the tradition of not titling artworks and the fact that artworks exist within contexts and generate discourse, with little to no possibility of my arguments being heard, let alone taken seriously. —Vera Syuzhet (talk) 12:23, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree that we should not make "politically charged" decisions, I disagree that the controversy is "part of the artwork". Bus stop (talk) 12:29, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Luckily, we can agree to disagree on this and still arrive at the same conclusion: the title of the page should be changed. Your reasoning is that an article on an artwork should not be titled according to reactions to the artwork, and I think this logic is consistent and reasonable. My reasoning is that in the case of this particular artwork, the discourse (reactions) surrounding the artwork are part of the artwork itself, and so it is more consistent to title the page after the artwork. Your argument is perhaps a bit more straightforward! And, I'm glad you agree that we should not make politically charged decisions in the title. —Vera Syuzhet (talk) 18:12, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a source to show us that "in the case of this particular artwork, the discourse (reactions) surrounding the artwork are part of the artwork itself"? Bus stop (talk) 18:46, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The artist, who writes: “The artwork exists as the verbal narrative, as an installation [which was censored], as a time-based performance, as a independent concept, as a myth, and as public discourse.” The last three items claim the space of public discourse (i.e. the “controversy”) as part of the work.
  • Carrie Lambert-Beatty, who writes: “Fiction or fictiveness has emerged as an important category in recent art … in parafiction real and/or imaginary personages and stories intersect with the world as it is being lived … parafictional strategies are oriented less toward the disappearance of the real than toward the pragmatics of trust … these fictions are experienced as fact.” She goes on to say that if Shvarts had shown the documentation and sculptures, this “would have destroyed the piece.” What is the piece, then? The piece is the parafiction, the story, the rumors and controversy surrounding a performance which can never be fully “present.”
  • Jennifer Doyle, who writes, “the content of the performance has expanded to include nearly all reaction to it.”
  • Nikki Cesare Schotzko, who writes that “the project [was] restricted to … its linguistic narrative—both the narrative generated by Shvarts herself, in response to Yale’s censorship, and that generated on the part of what became a virtual audience to a work made virtual through the ensuing controversy”—meaning that the digital text that accumulated around the piece comprised it’s “linguistic narrative,” which the piece was “restricted to” (and so existed as).
  • Even Yale said the work was made up of "visual representations, a news release, and other narrative materials." Obviously this requires some creative interpretation, but "other narrative materials" is a pretty capacious phrase, not really specifying what the "narrative materials" are that comprise the artwork--so maybe including the discourse surrounding the artwork! —Vera Syuzhet (talk) 19:22, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Vera Syuzhet—you only have provided one source and it does not support your contention. The artist is Aliza Shvarts. Carrie Lambert-Beatty and Jennifer Doyle and Nikki Cesare Schotzko and Yale had no part in producing the artwork and they have no capacity to stipulate what the parameters of the artwork are. As concerns Aliza Shvarts they say "To protect myself and others, only I know the number of fabricators who participated, the frequency and accuracy with which I inseminated and the specific abortifacient I used. Because of these measures of privacy, the piece exists only in its telling. This telling can take textual, visual, spatial, temporal and performative forms — copies of copies of which there is no original" and "The artwork exists as the verbal narrative you see above, as an installation that will take place in Green Hall, as a time-based performance, as a independent concept, as a myth and as a public discourse." Note that "Because of these measures of privacy, the piece exists only in its telling. This telling can take textual, visual, spatial, temporal and performative forms — copies of copies of which there is no original." The piece only exists in Aliza Shvarts' telling. Aliza Shvarts' telling "can take textual, visual, spatial, temporal and performative forms — copies of copies of which there is no original." When Aliza Shvarts "tells" this story it exists. "The artwork exists as the verbal narrative you see above, as an installation that will take place in Green Hall, as a time-based performance, as a independent concept, as a myth and as a public discourse." Aliza Shvarts is not clear what this "public discourse" consists of and you are interpreting that public discourse as of unlimited dimensions temporally and spatially. But that is really your interpretation, and it is unreasonably generous in the amount of space and time allotted by you to the performance. Were the piece really infinite as you are saying wouldn't Aliza Shvarts have been exceptionally clear about this surprising claim? And Aliza Shvarts is saying that the work of art is "a time-based performance". It seems to me that "time-based" implies a limitation in time. A piece cannot be both unlimited in time and also "time-based", can it? Yet you are saying on this Talk page "in the case of this particular artwork, the discourse (reactions) surrounding the artwork are part of the artwork itself". You haven't shown that to be the case. You have provided sources that consist of people other than the artist. And the source by the artist does not say "in the case of this particular artwork, the discourse (reactions) surrounding the artwork are part of the artwork itself". All that Aliza Shvarts is saying is that "The artwork exists as the verbal narrative you see above, as an installation that will take place in Green Hall, as a time-based performance, as a independent concept, as a myth and as a public discourse." The only words in that quote from the artist that lay credence to your claim is that the work exists "as a public discourse." One can allow that when Aliza Shvarts engages in "discourse" pertaining to the work it "exists". But when persons other than Aliza Shvarts discuss the artwork—that is not the artwork too. It could be the artwork. That would require a bold and articulate statement to that effect coming from none other than Aliza Shvarts. Bus stop (talk) 21:16, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Can I ask you an unrelated question—what is a "fabricator", used in such sentences as "To protect myself and others, only I know the number of fabricators who participated, the frequency and accuracy with which I inseminated and the specific abortifacient I used" and "I created a group of fabricators from volunteers who submitted to periodic STD screenings and agreed to their complete and permanent anonymity."? Bus stop (talk) 01:37, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve been told by multiple editors (not you) that the artist is not a reliable source, and have been asked to provide reputable secondary sources—thus, my inclusion of multiple arguments by critics and art historians. Note that Shvarts said the piece exists in its telling, not in “my telling of it.” She also says that it exists as an “independent” concept (independent of what?) and as public discourse. Discourse, by definition, implies more than one speaker, and public discourse involves a public. Public discourse is, by Wikipedia’s definition, usually carried out as public debate, and usually within the media: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_sphere. Shvarts is also careful to say that no telling of the piece can be privileged over another: the various tellings are “copies of copies of which there is no original”: each iteration is as much the artwork as the others. There is no original or primary telling. And the piece exists only in its telling. Certainly, one of the iterations is a time-based performance; another is an extensive and unlimited public discourse. And what would "public" mean if not, well, public?
I suggest you read this essay written by Shvarts in 2011 about the performance. She clearly articulates precisely what you’re looking for on the first page: “As I see it, there are two elements of this work that are not neatly separable from each other, both of which played a large part in structuring the piece’s reception. The first is the series of specific actions undertaken by a body over time. The second is the telling and retelling which made those actions knowable to the world … the latter narrative element became the piece’s dominant performative mode. The media, online commenters, the administrators, and others ultimately reduced my artist’s statement, which accounted for the specificity and ambiguity of my actions, to a number of other accounts, which ranged from accusations of mass murder to a disavowal of the entire piece as an elaborate hoax. For these reasons, I feel as though my senior thesis is a piece that never really happened as well as a piece that never stopped happening … the narrative echo that was the work’s only staging reverberates in every new invocation, in tellings and retellings including my own here – each the performance of a performance that has never ended.”
And, the final page: “Each reiteration of the project – as fake or real, as art or not-art, as worthwhile or monstrous – is a mark of a pedagogical discursivity, of performance’s duration. Although the actions I undertook with my body two years ago were important for their physical specificity and examplarity, the piece was always a performance staged in the performativity of language – one that continues to take place as long as language about it continues to be produced.”
Also, I'm pretty sure the fabricators were volunteers who provided semen. —Vera Syuzhet (talk) 23:44, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The fabricators were volunteers who provided semen. (I said that it was an unrelated question but it was a related question.) Aliza Shvarts is not using language in a straightforward manner. You are saying that "in the case of this particular artwork, the discourse (reactions) surrounding the artwork are part of the artwork itself". Aliza Shvarts is not saying that in a straightforward manner. A surprising claim calls for down-to-earth language, not vague allusions. Of course an artist runs the risk of looking ridiculous in making surprising claims. The slippery slope here is that the artiness of the entity allows it to use fast and loose language. You don't have the liberty of interpreting language that does not appear to have been formulated literally to support assertions that are eyeopening. Bus stop (talk) 02:23, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I’m going to first note that you asked me a leading question (that you appear to have already known the answer to) to convince me that Shvarts is not “straightforward”—being rather unstraightforward yourself.
Anyway. I think this is pretty clear and self-evident: “the piece was always a performance staged in the performativity of language – one that continues to take place as long as language about it continues to be produced.” The stagings in language are “tellings and retellings including [her] own—each the performance of a performance that has never ended.” How could this be construed as unclear?! She literally lists that “each reiteration of the project” includes discourse that says the project is “fake or real, art or not-art, worthwhile or monstrous”—these have been the exact terms not only of media discourse, but of our own conversation here. Other editors asked me for trustworthy, credible, reliable secondary sources to back up my argument, which I provided. You asked for statements from the artist to back up my argument, which I provided. It seems that neither me, nor secondary sources published by MIT and Duke University press, nor the artist herself have the capability of producing language that you would consider trustworthy, credible, or reliable. —Vera Syuzhet (talk) 12:00, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) You say above "I suggest you read this essay written by Shvarts in 2011 about the performance." First of all, I admit that I did not read it. Why? Because it is from 2011. I glanced at it. It says "Figuration and failure, pedagogy and performance: reflections three years later". It goes on to say "In 2008, as an Art major at Yale University, I engaged in a yearlong performance of repeated self-induced miscarriages that sparked a great deal of controversy." You linked to this essay. You mean later commentary retroactively applies to the work? And which later commentary is it that you find so pertinent? Here are your quotes:

  • "Although the actions I undertook with my body two years ago were important for their physical specificity and examplarity, the piece was always a performance staged in the performativity of language – one that continues to take place as long as language about it continues to be produced."
  • "At the same time, the narrative echo that was the work’s only staging reverberates in every new invocation, in tellings and retellings including my own here – each the performance of a performance that has never ended."
  • "Each reiteration of the project – as fake or real, as art or not-art, as worthwhile or monstrous – is a mark of a pedagogical discursivity, of performance’s duration."

Now you are saying "It seems that neither me, nor secondary sources published by MIT and Duke University press, nor the artist herself have the capability of producing language that you would consider trustworthy, credible, or reliable." It is not a matter of trustworthiness, credibility, or reliableness. It is a matter of applicability. You are trying to support a claim which you have made that "in the case of this particular artwork, the discourse (reactions) surrounding the artwork are part of the artwork itself". Was that articulately and unmistakably said in 2008? Compare to the "Mattress Performance" "rules of engagement". "They spent the summer of 2014 creating the rules of engagement, which defined the parameters of the project. Written on the walls of their studio in the university's Watson Hall, these included that they had to carry the mattress when on university property; that it had to remain on campus when they were not there; and that they were not allowed to ask for help in carrying it, but if help was offered they could accept."[1] I am basically speaking about logic here. Those "rules of engagement" were spelled out clearly before the artwork began. "Freshly painted on the walls around us loomed big black letters spelling out the “rules of engagement,” the guidelines to her performance: One states that she will continue the piece until the man she accuses of attacking her is no longer on campus, whether he leaves or is expelled or graduates, as she also will next spring." The above three quotes you have provided are buried within a lot of text in a document written three years after the performance piece. When language is part of a work of art then language is subject to scrutiny. If language is a component of a performance piece then language is subject to evaluation. Language can be used in any way an artist chooses to use it. But literal significance and figurative significance are probably always going to be qualities applicable to language. Language buried in text is less significant than language boldly and succinctly stated. And why would language written three years after the performance piece be applicable to the performance piece? The parameters of a performance piece should be stated pointedly. This is the artwork itself. And I think the parameters are stated at the time a performance piece is initiated, not some years later. That which is stated years later is commentary on the artwork. The impact of a performance piece is correlated to the knowledge that the viewer has of it. Another thing is that you seem to think that "secondary sources published by MIT and Duke University press" can serve to establish parameters for the artwork. They cannot. The parameters of the artwork are established by the artist at the time of the artwork's inception. Bus stop (talk) 13:30, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GRuban—is there a correlation between articles on works of art with "untitled" in the article title and articles that are poorly-sourced on works of art? (I typed this response before Vera Syuzhet typed her response but Vera Syuzhet posted before me.) Bus stop (talk) 22:31, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Heh - seems to be, doesn't it? I can't guarantee I know why, but have some suspicions. --GRuban (talk) 02:40, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A selection of really unimportant artworks, not notable in the history of art, and with little to no scholarship done on them, unworthy of a title:
* Warhol!
* Kandinsky!
* Basquiat!
* Pollock!
—Vera Syuzhet (talk) 12:23, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A proposed title

[edit]

Can we all please consider as a title for this article "Aliza Shvarts Yale senior thesis 2008"? I'm trying to come up with a title that is similar to commonly encountered Wikipedia article titles, that contains all the valuable terms relating to the art project but none of the terms that predispose the reader to think of the project in any particular way—terms such as "abortion" or "miscarriage", I am trying to come up with a title that identifies the project rather than the response to the project, and I am including the year because the year marks the start of this artist's career, for most intents and purposes. The work may be untitled but "Untitled" is not its title, so after some consideration, I have decided to leave it out. I think Untitled is merely an indication of an absence of a title. Bus stop (talk) 17:18, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with changing the title to "Aliza Shvarts Yale senior thesis 2008." A good solution! Thank you. —Vera Syuzhet (talk) 23:48, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your support, Vera Syuzhet. Bus stop (talk) 12:51, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So you just moved it?! Seriously? Just because people have stopped responding to your repetitive monologues it doesn't mean no one is watching. You know perfectly well this will be opposed. Do a proper RM proposal - you know how. Johnbod (talk) 13:01, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, of course—why don't you weigh into the discussion? I thought there was no opposition. I judged that to be the case because neither you nor other involved editors spoke up. This has been going on for awhile. Bus stop (talk) 13:04, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've edited the page 14 times, several of them to complain about you just repeating arguments you've made many times already. Replying just encourages you. Several editors have objected above to similar proposals & can be expected to do so again. Johnbod (talk) 13:38, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I felt that complaining once in this thread [2] was enough. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:49, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly you folks have nothing to say. That is the only explanation for your failure to weigh into an ongoing discussion. You can characterize my input as a "repetitive monologue" but I am actually saying something. You don't have to agree with me. In fact refutation is fine. There is now an Aliza Shvarts article. How silly of you to now pretend that nothing has changed. This has been a comedy of errors. I did not even argue for the creation of that article. I argued for one freaking Wikipedia article on both artist and artwork(s). And now it is being suggested that I go to the wider community and initiate a WP:RM. What for? The interested editors are gathered here on this Talk page. That they don't engage in discussion—that is the real problem. Bus stop (talk) 14:14, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now 157,689 bytes, never mind the bio one. Guess who wrote most of that? You and Vera are over 50k each, but there are 9 editors into 4 figures. We've said what we think, once, twice, a few times. You don't agree, and just go on repeating the same arguments. Now let's do an RM & hopefully settle this. Johnbod (talk) 15:02, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ideally a Wikipedia title about a work of art should enable the reader to identify the work. An academic styling of the work in question is given here: Hagen, Lisa Hall (4 April 2012). "A performance ethics of the 'real' abortive body: The case of Aliza Shvarts and 'Untitled [Senior Thesis], 2008'". Performing Ethos: International Journal of Ethics in Theatre and Performance. 2 (1): 21–39. doi:10.1386/peet.2.1.21_1. Retrieved 28 June 2018..
As pointed out, Untitled is awkward because there are so many unnamed works. In this case, that likely means including the artist's name in the article title to identify whose Untitled work this is. 'Untitled' does however suggest that this IS a work of art of some sort, which I think is important. Just using "Senior Thesis" without any qualifications is also very vague, as many things could be a "Senior Thesis" that are not artworks. A working alternative might be to quality it as a Senior Thesis (performance art). The year is useful to place the work, so I would include it. I could agree with either of the following (people are welcome to fight over the punctuation to their hearts' content). Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 15:35, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aliza Shvarts 'Untitled' (Senior Thesis, 2008)
  • Aliza Shvarts Senior Thesis (performance art, 2008)
I think both are fine, Mary Mark Ockerbloom. The thing is the problem with the present title. This isn't an article primarily about a "controversy". It is primarily an article about an artwork, specifically a work of performance art. Bus stop (talk) 22:13, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer the first option, but would be fine with either. We've identified several options for good alternate titles: is there a way to officially agree on one? As I see it, we basically have three good options now: these two, and the title proposed by Bus stop above, "Aliza Shvarts 2008 Yale Senior Thesis." —Vera Syuzhet (talk) 22:40, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 1 March 2021

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: There's a consensus to move to "Untitled (Senior Thesis)". Among other arguments, much of the sourcing focuses on the artwork itself as opposed to the controversy. Various variations have been suggested, but the one that seems to have the most support is "Untitled (Senior Thesis)". A strong argument raised in favor of this name is that it is sufficiently WP:PRECISE due to not having any other wiki article named "Untitled (Senior Thesis)". (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 00:03, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Yale student abortion art controversy → Untitled (Senior Thesis) (performance) – 2.5 years have passed since the last discussion, during which time at least a dozen WP:RS have been published in academic books and the leading at press (e.g. Artforum, Art in America, etc) which all discuss the work-as-work, Shvarts as artist/author (not “Yale student"), and refer to it by its proper title "Untitled [Senior Thesis]" undermining all previous arguments against changing the title.

Though the work should always be referred to as Untitled [Senior Thesis], because the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (technical restrictions) prevent the use of square brackets in titles, I have proposed the page title “Untitled (Senior Thesis) (performance)”


While the 2018 discussion started as a request to convert the page to a BLP, the end result was that a separate page for Aliza Shvarts was created. After that point, discussion about what to name this page faded out without reaching any definitive consensus.

In that move discussion, the most compelling objection came from the WP:Verifiability of the title. As @Czar: said, "as a tertiary source, WP summarizes what has been written in secondary sources," which I agree. Czar later clarified, saying that there "is no basis in sources for claiming that the subject of this press was "untitled senior project" (by any name) and not the story/ambiguity as it lived in publicity." This may have been true at the time, but this point is no longer valid. At this point the majority of the sources (17 of 28) are from after the April/May 2008 period, and these 17 sources all discuss Shvarts as artist, and nearly all name the work ‘‘‘‘Untitled [Senior Thesis]’’’’. Furthermore, since the intense but short period in 2008 following the Drudge Report’s article, only one source has focused on the controversy-as-controversy, and that source is from 2012, in a bioethics journal published by Pontifical Athenaeum Regina Apostolorum an educational institution of the Catholic Church, located in Rome: Joseph Tham, L. C. "The Ugliness of “Abortion Art”." Studia Bioethica 5, no. 1-2 (2012).

Here are the sources added to the article since the last discussion, most of which were published during those 2.5 years:

  • e-flux Journal, includes title as ‘‘Untitled [Senior Thesis]’’
  • Temporary Art Review cite, includes title as ‘‘Untitled [Senior Thesis]’’
  • Artspace exhibition catalog, source uses title ‘‘Untitled [Senior Thesis]’’
  • Wendy Vogel in Artforum, source refers to work as Untitled [Senior Thesis Project]
  • 2020 NYT article. This is the only mainstream media article to address the controversy as controversy since May 2008. It does not name the work itself, but mentions the lack of nuance in many media responses
  • Art in America. "As told to" edited interview. Used here for the photos, to verify the works exhibited. Does not name the work explicitly, but refers to it as "Footage from my untitled BFA thesis is on a small monitor at the other end of the gallery."
  • Musee Magazine. Refers to work as ‘‘Untitled [Senior Thesis]’’
  • Brooklyn Rail review, refers to Banners and Player by title, frames discussion in terms of feminism and art history. Never uses the word controversy
  • Times of Malta survey of theme of abortion in art. Short mention of the work, but doesn't call it by any title. Does call it a "controversial case" but keeps the discussion in the context of art.
  • Performing Ethos: International Journal of Ethics in Theatre & Performance. citation to peer reviewed journal article from 2011. Exclusively discusses the artwork, refers to it as ‘‘Untitled [Senior Thesis]’’
  • Cesare Schotzko. Peer reviewed book. Refers to the work as ‘‘Untitled [Senior Thesis]’’
  • Jennifer Friedlander, peer reviewed book with Oxford UP. A full chapter that discusses the work in terms of theories of realism and deception in art
  • Coco Fusco, in Texte zur Kunst, which refers to the work as ‘‘Untitled [Senior Thesis]’’

The continuing discussion of ‘‘Untitled [Senior Thesis]’’ as an artwork, in the discourse of Art History, shows that this is not, as @Gråbergs Gråa Sång: was concerned, a situation where ‘the controversy gets the "upper hand"’ -- in the end, Art History (e.g. the secondary RS) have discussed this as a work of art, with a title and author. The work of art got the upper hand, which even the 2020 NYT piece makes clear.

Even as it currently stands, this is an article about an artwork that generated controversy, not about a controversy itself. @Johnbod: has said of the article that "the main subject is actually the controversy" but if you look at the article, with the exception of the first sentence, which says "The Yale student abortion art controversy concerns reactions to a work of performance art by Aliza Shvarts" (which is tied to the title, and shouldn’t be changed without discussion here) the rest of the article reads in more or less the same way as any other article about a work of art. The structure is the same: Description of the work; Reception; Specifics about how the work has been exhibited over time. The grammar of the second sentence is particularly instructive: "The piece was controversial, and considerable debate revolved around whether or not the project was a "hoax" or "creative fiction"" -- The work is the (grammatical) subject of the sentence, not any controversy. The work generated controversy and debate about what the work itself was.

Lastly, I want to highlight the argument put forward by @Vera Syuzhet: that naming this article as "controversy" and not by its title contravenes precedent. Vera Syuzhet looked up the most controversial artworks of the last 50 years, and noted that they are all named by their title.

Vera Syuzhet also "looked back in the “controversies” category until 2000 [and] could not find a single instance in which a work of art was considered controversial and neither the artwork nor the artist received a Wiki page, but the controversy did. In the case of controversial artworks, the standard seems pretty clear: the title of the artwork is the title of the Wiki article. This article should conform. If disambiguation is needed, standd also seems pretty clear: the type of artwork, and potentially the creator, is specified."

Given the significant increase in WP:RS that discuss ‘‘Untitled [Senior Thesis]’’ by its proper title, and following the precedents with all other controversial artworks, I propose the article be moved to one of the following:

  • Untitled (Senior Thesis)
  • Untitled (Senior Thesis) (performance)
  • Untitled (Senior Thesis) (2008 performance)
  • Untitled (Senior Thesis) (Aliza Shvarts performance)

Additionally, I propose that the first sentence be re-written from “The Yale student abortion art controversy concerns reactions to a work of performance art by Aliza Shvarts, ’‘Untitled [Senior Thesis]’’, 2008 which she conducted during 2008, the final year of her visual arts degree at Yale University.” to “‘‘Untitled [Senior Thesis]’’, 2008 is a work of performance art by Aliza Shvarts.” Theredproject (talk) 10:07, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think your suggestion should be moving to just Untitled (Senior Thesis). There is no other WP-article with that title, so the second parenthesis is unnecessary. I never knew that squarebrackets are "forbidden" (WP:NCHASHTAG). Atm I don't have an informed opinion. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:13, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Gråbergs Gråa Sång, I would actually prefer just Untitled (Senior Thesis) but I feared that would be too ambiguous, and that the titling conventions mean that parenthetical statements describe the thing itself, eg. Untitled (1982 painting) but now that you mention it, I'm also seeing titles where the parenthetical is part of the subject/work, and not a descriptor, e.g. Untitled (How Does It Feel). I think Untitled (Senior Thesis) is best. I'm unsure if I should edit the template info, or if that would break things... Theredproject (talk) 10:37, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. I agree with the renaming to Untitled (Senior Thesis) for all the reasons Theredproject lays out. Let's follow naming precedent here. Anasuyas (talk) 12:02, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Untitled (Senior Thesis) is preferable. Parenthetical disambiguation should use only as much additional detail as necessary, and adding (performance) is not necessary because there are no other articles with similar titles or titles that could be mistaken as referring to this work as the primary topic of the article. Vexations (talk) 13:07, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I should clarify that the work should be referred to as Untitled [Senior Thesis] but that use of square brackets in article titles is not possible due to limitations of the mediawiki software. (See WP:TSC) Vexations (talk) 13:12, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
At least one source [3] says that the title is Untitled [Senior Thesis], 2008. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:02, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Gråbergs Gråa Sång, that source does, but Shvarts herself does not include the year in the (un)?title. The year isn't necessary, because there are no other works with that name. It leaves us with very little to call it, but the work is untitled after all. Vexations (talk) 23:40, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Vexations, point of clarification: Is this a comment, or are you making a !vote? Theredproject (talk) 13:27, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Theredproject, just clarifying that square brackets in the article title are not possible. Vexations (talk) 14:02, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, I'd disagee that at least some of these are "similarly controversial" - My Bed, which I'm most familiar with, got a lot of salacious media attention, but nothing you could really call "controversy" - nobody suggested taking it off display or anything like that. Our article doesn't quote a single hostile comment, and suggests the most "furore" was about the biohazard of the various elements, typical press nonsense. Likewise (but less so) Myra (painting) - you missed The Holy Virgin Mary in the same exhibition, which caused no fuss in London and Berlin, but did when the show went to New York a couple of years later. Especially on American subjects, "controversy" is a hugely over-used word on WP, but here it is for once justified. With most of the others the "controversy" was a slow burn; here it was immediate, indeed it seems to have prevented completion of the work, and certainly submission as a work for a thesis. The various permutations of Untitled [Senior Thesis] are also just so hopeless as titles; of course they can all be set up as redirects. Note that for Piss Christ we rightly don't use the actual title of the work (per the artist). Mirth & Girth was new to me, but clearly is a "controversy" article, with that getting the great bulk of the article , & I might support a rename - I see there is at least a redirect in place. Johnbod (talk) 15:26, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Correct – I'm saying titles should never have "double parentheticals" in their titles like in the proposal. So Untitled (Senior Thesis) or Untitled (Senior Thesis) performance controversy would both be completely acceptable titles. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:47, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Title is "Untitled [Senior Thesis]" not "Untitled [Senior Thesis], 2008"

[edit]

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: The title of the work is Untitled [Senior Thesis]. Yes, one source does call it "Untitled [Senior Thesis], 2008" and another source calls it "Untitled [Senior Thesis Project]", but as I noted above, there are 13 new sources, all but one that names the work, calls it Untitled [Senior Thesis]. The one that doesn’t is the Artforum article that calls it "Untitled [Senior Thesis Project]". Additionally, the artists website calls it Untitled [Senior Thesis]. So it is clear that the verifiable title is Untitled [Senior Thesis]. I’m going to correct it again.Theredproject (talk) 23:23, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Untitled_(Senior_Thesis)&oldid=1204461320"