Talk:Ariel Moscovici

Untitled

What could be done in order to be more neutral? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.127.24.34 (talk) 12:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

For information the neutrality tag was set by author Biruitorul (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.127.24.34 (talk) 13:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Without any feed back for one whole month, because we believe this article is neutral (get only the fact), we will proceed to deletion of the tag —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.127.24.34 (talk) 15:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Installations and exhibitions

This section seems a word by word copy of http://www.sculpture.org/portfolio/sculptorPage.php?sculptor_id=1002152

I am not sure a badge list like this adds any value. It would be helpful to replace it with a couple of lines a describing what Moscovici actually makesSuperp (talk) 21:29, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

A year is a year; a title is a title. If one changes a word in the title of an art work to please Wikipedia editors, one makes the information inaccurate in the process. What good is that? If one leaves out this information entirely, how has the reader been helped?

A catalogue of works and exhibitions has value in artist biographies. As a glance at a standard reference work such as The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians will show, artist biographies very often conclude with a list of works. This is one of the most valuable features of references such as that one. A glance at Wikipedia articles about artists of the past--Michelangelo, Mendelssohn, Austen--will also show that most of these article provide some sort of works list with information about events such as premiers. This is considered useful information to provide.

Artists' catalogue may be made personally by the artist or by a colleague. Things like opus numbers in music are generally frawn from such catalogues. Scholars may also come along later and, if they see a need, make their own catalogues. Even so, for dates, locations, titles and other data they rely heavily on information originally supplied by the artist, if they have it. This is primary source material.

I am glad the editors of Wikipedia have learned the importance of including citations and avoiding plagiarism. It is also well to keep in mind the importance of weighing sources. Having primary documents and authoritative sources are good things.

Alton (talk) 03:00, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ariel Moscovici. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110409124245/http://www.ensba.fr/ to http://www.ensba.fr/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:31, 9 July 2017 (UTC)