Talk:Jack Tworkov/Archive 1

Untitled

Does anybody anything about what Tworkov intended with his book, "The Camel who Took a Walk?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.148.137.17 (talk) 23:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Request of Restoration of References

I'm concerned about this mixing up of issues. We're here to discuss Salmon's books being added to this article. It has already been explained that the images she's talking about are judged differently, because artists have to release images before we can add them to Wikipedia. Images that have not been released have to be removed, except for the rare occasions where fair use might apply.

If Salmon wants to release her books into the public domain, then we can add their contents to Wikisource, and that might change the nature of the discussion somewhat, though we would still have to know that they were good sources, and we'd have to see which parts of the text they were supporting. But as things stand, the books are copyrighted and being sold, so they can't be compared to the images. And this isn't the place to discuss other issues anyway. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 08:31, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your input, SlimVirgin. Yes, this went off-topic, but I preferred to address the various threads here rather than start another discussion elsewhere. Much appreciated, JNW (talk) 17:06, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Issues to resolve

There are several issues here regarding the books Salmons wanted to add, each of which needs to be addressed:

1. WP:COI says: "Using material you yourself have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is relevant and conforms to the content policies. Excessive self-citation is strongly discouraged. When in doubt, defer to the community's opinion. In any case, citations should be in the third person and should not place undue emphasis on your work, giving proper due to the work of others, as in a review article."

   Salmon has added three of her own self-published books to an article that is only 286 words long, with no indication of which parts of the text the books support, if any. She has not added anyone else's work that I'm aware of. So it seems to me that this is excessive and unnecessary citation, and that she stands in violation of COI.

   She also seems to have added herself to other articles. There's a list here of 101 articles.

2. WP:SPS (part of WP:V) says: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications" (bold in the original).

   Has Salmon's other writing in this field been published by reliable third-party publications? If not, she stands in violation of SPS.

3. WP:V and WP:CITE say that sources should be added in the form of an inline citation clearly indicating which part of the text they support, with page numbers, and quotations from the source in a footnote or on talk if that's requested.

   Salmon has done none of this, though she's been asked more than once what the books are being used for. This places her in violation of V and CITE.

4. WP:EL says: ... "you should avoid linking to a site that you own, maintain, or represent—even if WP guidelines seem to imply that it may otherwise be linked. When in doubt, you may go to the talk page and let another editor decide.

   If Salmon intends these books simply as further reading/external links, and not as sources, then it is not appropriate for her to be the one to add them, and three from one self-published author where none of us have seen the contents is excessive. This places her in violation of EL.

The reason we have policies and guidelines is precisely so that we don't have to reinvent the wheel on every talk page. I suggest that we stick to them here and allow them to resolve this for us. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 07:40, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

SV, I agree with you 100% that Salmons should not be adding external links to these books, & I've already said so above. As we all should know, the proper course is to suggest on the article talk page that they be included. I've told her so before, and I have now told her again, both on and, for further emphasis, off wiki. If she continues to do so after this, the appropriate thing to do will be a final warning, with the possibility of a short block after that, & I am perfectly prepared to do that. As for using them to reference specifics, the Choice reviews validate them--I'd even be prepared to argue that a Choice notable academic book is a sufficient national award to justify an article on the work, and if there are other substantial books, as there are here, on the author. Even so, it would be better for her not to add such references herself, but to suggest them on the talk page. DGG ( talk ) 18:43, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

We have a policy that says no self-published books unless the author is an expert who has previously been published in the field by an independent publisher. I can see discussing an exception for one of these books, if (a) it was being used as an inline citation for something specific, and (b) there was no other source that could be used for that point. But as neither of these is the case here, it's a moot point. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 19:16, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to fight about it for the article, both because it isn't worth the trouble and because I disapprove of the manner in which it has been added. However, as a general matter, I regard your position as illogical and indefensible.. The rule you cite--which btw is a guideline, not policy, is intended to prevent works from being cited that have no reliability,as is the case with almost all -- but not all -- self-publiushed works. If the reliability of a source is demonstrable in whatever manner, the wording of WP:RS does not hold us back from using it. If this comes up for anything more important, I will certainly contest your view as opposed to the principle behind the rule--a rule which of course I support when properly used . DGG ( talk ) 06:00, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:SPS is a policy, not a guideline; it is a long-standing and widely accepted part of Verifiability, one of Wikipedia's three core content policies. It's intended to ensure that someone other than the author has checked a source prior to publication; that there has been some form of professional editorial oversight. It's also intended to make sure people don't use Wikipedia to promote books they've written and published themselves. And it's intended to guide us in choosing sources that have at least some notability, because independent publishers—hopefully reliable and professional ones—have been willing to spend money producing them. These are minimal safeguards that are applied across the project. To ditch them entirely for one case, we would need a very good reason. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 10:02, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Whether the sources are deemed reliable or not, It’s spamming. I'm a regular contributor for a publication with a circulation of several hundred thousand. Apparently the publication considers me knowledgeable in my field, and one can make the case that the published articles may be used as sources here. But I wouldn't reference my own writing in a Wikipedia article or add largely gratuitous links to the publication, especially since I can find other scholarship for the content I wish to add. I believe the removal of self-referencing is in no way controversial, and I’m surprised that the edits have remained this long. JNW (talk) 14:31, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

No one disagrees that she should not have added the sources herself, and she has promised not to do so again. I have been warning her for this, not defending her. And that's why I decided not to proceed further with this one--the addition was fatally compromised.

But on the general issue, I agree with SV that we need WP:SPS, and need a very good reason to over-rule it in a specific case. In this case, that very good reason is the Choice review. The only point where I disagree with her last statement is that I am more skeptical than she about professional publishers, for I have some knowledge of the academic publishing industry. For example, even the best professional publishers of research-level monographs in academic fields, such as university presses, normally expect a very substantial subsidy from the author or the author's institution or the author's granting agency. The reason for trusting the high-level academic publishers is that they use peer-review, similar to the way peer-reviewed journals do, but stricter--the current norm is 5 reviews, not 2. DGG ( talk ) 17:23, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks DGG. I realize that this talk page has become a sort of catch-all in which at least four different issues are being discussed. JNW (talk) 21:10, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Amazon

I wrote above that none of us had seen the contents, but I see they're available to read on Amazon.

• [http://www.amazon.com/York-School-Abstract-Expressionists-Documentation/dp/0967799406/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1296633400&sr=8-1 New York School Abstract Expressionists] mentions Jack Tworkov on nine pages, excluding the index and front matter. There's some biographical detail on p. 369, and a quote from him on pp. 11–12, though that's also available in Tworkov's "Notes on my Painting," Art in America, September-October 1973, p. 69, which the book cites. Perhaps people familiar with Tworkov could look through those 11 pages to determine whether there's anything in them that's needed for this article.

• [http://www.amazon.com/American-Abstract-Expressionism-1950s-Illustrated/dp/0967799414/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1296633400&sr=8-2 American Abstract Expressionism of the 1950s] mentions him on three pages, excluding index and front matter, but they seem to cover the same material as above, except for a quote from him on p. 342.

• [http://www.amazon.com/American-Abstract-Figurative-Expressionism-Timeless/dp/0967799422/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1296633400&sr=8-3 American Abstract and Figurative Expressionism] mentions him on three pages, excluding index and front matter. I can't see all the pages in this one.

SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 08:15, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

If you do not want to go to a library and find the books, you can read the reviews, which describe them. As the books are in the principal library I use for research, I've seen them. They are in the nature of subject encyclopedias, giving several pages of information & a key representative painting for each artist included. That's just the sort of secondary work that Wikipedia articles should ideally be based on. In general, a particular artist is covered in only one of the books, though articles in the others might list him for comparison. SV, don't just judge by amazon excerpts. Various recent discussions at RfC and elsewhere have shown pretty clearly that even good editors who rely on excerpts from the googles and amazon and the like can easily make errors. And judging the actual contents of a book from the table of contents and index is even more risky. DGG ( talk ) 18:35, 3 February 2011 (UTC)