Talk:Stanley Spencer

Marriages

I have made this sub-heading plural, as an interim measure, since it discusses both Hilda and Preece. But there is at present stuff about the latter in a subsequent section. And there is important information available publicly about Spencer realising that he had made a huge mistake over Preece, and his daughter Unity forgiving him. Plus, the Carline family were important artists in their own right, including Hilda - both self-portrayed and drawn by Spencer. Whereas Preece was disreputable - we can say this without risk of libel, since there are several respectable cites. She even exhibited paintings done by Dorothy Hepworth which Preece signed i.e. passed off as hers! This can also be supported by cites. I propose separating material on Hilda from that on Preece, either by means of two Sub-sections, or by following the chronology and inserting the facts about each in the sequence in which they occurred.--Dendrotek 13:21, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Short title needed for 1920 - 26

Short title needed for 1920 - 26

A short title is needed for the Section 1920 - 26 (or should it be '27?) Spencer finally left his parents' home in 1920 (see the chronology in SS, Tate Publishing, 2001). As the Wiki Article at present says, he moved with his family to work in Burghclere, in 1927 - the same chronology says this. In this mid-1920's period, perhaps the most significant influence of his actual life i.e. biography, on his art, might be "Hampstead" where he not only finally decided to marry Hilda, but also worked on the first major "resurrection". A problem with this Article as it stands at present is that it conflates "SS Biography" and "SS Art." Making large changes, like the last, without discussing them with anyone, does not help. His first solo exhibition at the Goupil Gallery in spring 1927, needs considering in the context of this section, too. "Marriages" needs moving, or as I have previously posted, dealt with differently.--Dendrotek 20:11, 26 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dendrotek (talk • contribs)

Beginning of Section on Art

A check on the first three sentences of this Section:- Spencer has been described as an early modernist painter. His works often express his fervent if unconventional Christian faith. This is especially evident in the scenes that he envisioned and depicted in Cookham. ... etc. Using a Google search containing these words throws up only blogs, WP echo sites and WP parasites. Clearly the beginning of this potentially important Section needs a citation to a respected source. So unless somebody discovers where this came from, and it is good, what I propose to do is to replace it with either a close paraphrase (cited), or a direct cited quote from such a source. In either case, conveying more or less the same ideas. Probably one of those we already use elsewhere in the Article. Comments please! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dendrotek (talk • contribs) 22:48, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Odd sentence and a half at start of 3rd para of Section Royal Academician

This says: - Spencer has been the subject of several biographies. The diminutive survivor of turmoil domestic and military is depicted ... There are more than several biographies, of course and in any case we have a Bibliography in the Article. Shall we just delete this? Or move it? And the start of the next sentence is strange too - who "depicts" SS thus?--Dendrotek 16:39, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Copyright violation

Dendrotek, I appreciate it may have taken you as much as twenty minutes to copy, word for word, the 'Summary Chronology' section from the Stanley Spencer Gallery website, but that is clearly what you did and as such is a blatent copyright violation and that material needs to be deleted from the article. I'm sorry I didn't check it sooner. A link to the Gallery page can be added under 'External Links' but wholescale copying, no matter how you try to amend it now, is unacceptable.14GTR (talk) 07:51, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

It is not copied "word for word" but re-phrased. Also, it includes additional facts from the RA Archives and from Spencer ed Hyman Tate 2001, and is in any case just a concise list of facts by dates with little or no intrinsic intellectual property input from the Gallery, who obviously compiled it from elsewhere in the first place. Plus, the Gallery link to the chronology is cited. Similar chronologies exist for quite a number of other artists. Originally, you said you liked it. It adds useful information to the Article in a concise manner. You say sorry you did not check earlier, but how else could I have started it without doing O.R. - by going to the Gallery, Tate etc. requesting view of all relevant docs., writing down the facts in my notebook, then editing them and putting them into WP? - I don't think so!

A few other points, now you have appeared here on Talk - You seem to be trying to make all your British Artists Articles have a similar format to one another but remember a basic rule of WP is that there are no hard and fast rules. Also, please don't be sarcastic - it took more than 20 mins. to do the Chronology. Have a look at the copyright situation re your IWM illustrations - they may not be "public domain" - other IWM paintings have been flagged up in WP as offending. It would be a shame to remove them, but maybe they ought to have a "Fair Usage" plate and accompanying explanation. I had hoped to submit WP Stanley Spencer for a review as a potential "Good Article" but now you have started an edit war, this will have to be put on ice.--Dendrotek 15:22, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

So, this is the page from the Stanley Spencer Gallery website, http://www.kwantes.com/SSG%20website/chronology.html and here is your original posting on the 1st February, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stanley_Spencer&diff=593482903&oldid=593441441 So in all there are 24 items on each; 22 of them are word for word identical; the other two differ by all of one word each,(an additional 'Also' and a 'Britain'). Such wholescale copying is plagiarism and simply not allowed and destroys the credability of the article. The relevant WP policy in cases of extensive plagiarism is to delete the offending material, no matter what subsequent edits have been made to it. I hope you find the good grace to accept this course of action.14GTR (talk) 11:56, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

No, I do not accept this proposal, in particular I detest the idea of "punishing" another editor who acted in good faith and started a useful section with a full acknowledgement of the source. Now that I have modified it my chronology is even less similar to the Gallery, which you have not taken into account. Furthermore, my other arguments above still apply including the fact that the Gallery version has itself little/no intellectual originality (this affects copyright law - see Wikipedia advice on the subject) and that information from the other source now cited may as appropriate be merged in - although as earlier posted on Talk I proposed it be kept short, which I assume you agree. But you are creating a storm in a teacup and behaving autocratically if not vindictively. I cannot understand why? It would be better if we could both work in harmony on further improving the Article. I propose calling in another editor to mediate and shall do so when I have time to follow the procedures. Meanwhile, will you please look at the situation re your IWM images, as mentioned - I think they need a Fair Use reproduction claim? I would like to discuss how the Article should go from here e.g. whether it should fork, how to cover other significant themes in Spencer's art etc. Alternatively, if you cannot respond more decently, I may just drop him for a year or two. Perhaps Wikipedia is not a suitable medium to study art!--Dendrotek 14:46, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

So,Dendrotek, having strenously denied that you copied the material you are now saying that you did but that it's somehow all right because the material has "little/no intellecttual originality" ? No, it's not alright and nor is that the standard WP operates to. As I said above the sooner you find the good grace to accept that the material you copied has to come out the better for all concerned.14GTR (talk) 14:13, 13 March 2014 (UTC)