Talk:Pew Fellowships in the Arts
 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Section length[edit]
There's no need to list every single person who's won an award. Just the notable people will do (i.e. those who already have wikipedia articles). --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 20:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Lifebaka, thank you for your note on length, but I disagree. It is important to list each fellow - no one is more important or worthy than the other. I will look into ways to make the list into columns or condense it in some other way. Anncinque (talk) 17:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Include all, since size less than 32 kb, and Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists : "every entry meets the notability criteria for its own non-redirect article in the English Wikipedia. Red-linked entries are acceptable if the entry is verifiably a member of the listed group, and it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future. This standard prevents Wikipedia from becoming an indiscriminate list, and prevents individual lists from being too large to be useful to readers. Most of the best lists on Wikipedia reflect this type of editorial judgment." Accotink2 talk 04:23, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Notability[edit]
- It seems to me most of these don't meet notability criteria, and that's the point, nor do I expect an article could be written on most of these people beyond "This person was awarded a Pew Fellowship", which is not an article. -R. fiend (talk) 04:32, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
- yes they do, and i will. do you have any policy to back up the deletion of notable information from this article? Accotink2 talk 04:35, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
- WP:anybio 1: "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times."Accotink2 talk 04:37, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
- I would argue that receiving a Pew Fellowship meets the criteria. Is this any more significant than, say, a Rhodes Scholarship? We certainly don't list all of them, nor try to have articles on them. A significant award, such as a Nobel or Pulitzer is awarded for a specific, well known achievement. What did a Pew Fellowship recipient do to get the grant? It doesn't say. Basically, all the alleged "notable" information on 90% of these people is "they received a grant". Great. What did they do to deserve this grant and what did they do with it? Doesn't say, but they are a lecturers at minor colleges or whatever. There is a significant dearth of substantial information here. If this is a much greater distinction than a Rhodes Scholarship then explain why. -R. fiend (talk) 04:46, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
- the value of the Rhodes Scholarship is £11,500 versus $60,000. [1] career award versus undergrad scholarship. the pew foundation does go on, about the career of the people getting a fellowship. i'm surprised that you object to the editor of "n+1", rather than the ukrainian textile artist. but given that we now have a comprehensive list of rhodes scholarships [2], i will now add the list to my to do, as was done at List of Fellows of the Royal Society, or MacArthur Fellows Program. (you have not established that such a list would be non-notable) i look forward to your "bah humbug, who cares about philly", "listcruft" argument at AfD. cheers Accotink2 talk 13:58, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
- "She is the recipient of many awards, including a Pew Fellowship, a Guggenheim Fellowship, two awards from the American Academy of Arts & Letters, and the 2010 Pulitzer Prize for Music for her Violin Concerto". [3] equating this award to guggenheim or pulitzer. Accotink2 talk 22:18, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not exactly sure what you're getting at. Approximately $20,000 is not notable but $60,000 is? How much money does someone need to receive to get an encyclopedia article? Does the guy who won $50,000 on Wheel of Fortune get one? Both Pew and Rhodes appear to be given to largely unknown people who are seen to have potential, which is great, but it takes more than potential to warrant an encyclopedia article. As for objecting to this article over others, that is simply not the case; this just happens to be the first article I came in which someone has an article based solely on having received a grant. Now, do you indicate above that you intend to start articles on each and every Rhodes Scholar to complement the stub creation based on this article? I wish you wouldn't. You'll see we already have a List of Rhodes Scholars covering those who went on to accomplish things that warrant an encyclopedia article. I see no reason why we shouldn't take the same approach to all Pew Fellowships (and not just for the arts). Please note that the Fellows of the Royal society article does not attempt to list all fellows, just those that have encyclopedia articles for other accomplishments. That seems to make much more sense. Right now we have several articles on minor artists which consist only of the fact the they won a Pew Fellowship, where they went to college, and a few places their artwork has been displayed. Minus the Pew grant these articles by and large would not pass muster. I don't think a grant in and of itself makes that big of a difference, though I would like to get input from others on this. (Additionally, listing a Pew Grant in the same sentence as a Pulitzer does not equate the two.) -R. fiend (talk) 00:57, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- Well, I think the fact that it's a grant for people who have been working already, versus a grant for someone at the start of his career, should be taken into account. That and the fact that it's granted to no more than twelve annually; that indicates to me that whoever decides upon giving the grants must be looking for some kind of notability. In other words, not just anyone can get a grant; they're only given to people who have proven by their career to that point that they're worthy of receiving it. These articles are but stubs; they can, and should, be expanded upon. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 03:10, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- I see your point, but the fact that most of these articles say so little seems evidence that there really isn't much to say. While they have already been working, is not this grant intended for them to use to accomplish something great, based on work that, by all appearances, doesn't yet meet Wikipedia's standards for inclusion? Going back to an award such as the Pulitzer Prize for Fiction, we see that it is given for a particular, highly significant contribution to the field. The book for which the award is received is already highly notable, and probably has an in-depth article here. Do we even know what exactly these Pew grants are given for? And if we do, why don't the articles say? Right now most of them (at least the ones I'm objecting to) are basically filler with a "he got a Pew Fellowship" thrown in, as if that changes everything. Let's keep the ones with significant accomplishments that can be pinpointed and are covered by sources well enough, but these others should be questioned. Many of these articles have no sources but the Pew site saying basically "this guy made some art we liked so we gave him money" and the artist's own personal site, which is hardly a good source. If there are to be articles on these artists, it should be because their work is somehow especially significant, and if it is, we should be able to find some good secondary sources covering their work. So far it seems this isn't forthcoming. -R. fiend (talk) 03:48, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- i've responded at length here User:Accotink2/award lists and stubs this could be an essay. Accotink2 talk 04:36, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- Two points: One: narrowness of the range of awardees. No more than twelve people annually receive a grant; consequently, one might assume that the award is a.) highly competitive and b.) high visibility, as a result. Couple that with the fact that it's being presented by a highly notable organization and I think that should go some way towards establishing notability of the recipients.
- i've responded at length here User:Accotink2/award lists and stubs this could be an essay. Accotink2 talk 04:36, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- I see your point, but the fact that most of these articles say so little seems evidence that there really isn't much to say. While they have already been working, is not this grant intended for them to use to accomplish something great, based on work that, by all appearances, doesn't yet meet Wikipedia's standards for inclusion? Going back to an award such as the Pulitzer Prize for Fiction, we see that it is given for a particular, highly significant contribution to the field. The book for which the award is received is already highly notable, and probably has an in-depth article here. Do we even know what exactly these Pew grants are given for? And if we do, why don't the articles say? Right now most of them (at least the ones I'm objecting to) are basically filler with a "he got a Pew Fellowship" thrown in, as if that changes everything. Let's keep the ones with significant accomplishments that can be pinpointed and are covered by sources well enough, but these others should be questioned. Many of these articles have no sources but the Pew site saying basically "this guy made some art we liked so we gave him money" and the artist's own personal site, which is hardly a good source. If there are to be articles on these artists, it should be because their work is somehow especially significant, and if it is, we should be able to find some good secondary sources covering their work. So far it seems this isn't forthcoming. -R. fiend (talk) 03:48, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- Well, I think the fact that it's a grant for people who have been working already, versus a grant for someone at the start of his career, should be taken into account. That and the fact that it's granted to no more than twelve annually; that indicates to me that whoever decides upon giving the grants must be looking for some kind of notability. In other words, not just anyone can get a grant; they're only given to people who have proven by their career to that point that they're worthy of receiving it. These articles are but stubs; they can, and should, be expanded upon. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 03:10, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not exactly sure what you're getting at. Approximately $20,000 is not notable but $60,000 is? How much money does someone need to receive to get an encyclopedia article? Does the guy who won $50,000 on Wheel of Fortune get one? Both Pew and Rhodes appear to be given to largely unknown people who are seen to have potential, which is great, but it takes more than potential to warrant an encyclopedia article. As for objecting to this article over others, that is simply not the case; this just happens to be the first article I came in which someone has an article based solely on having received a grant. Now, do you indicate above that you intend to start articles on each and every Rhodes Scholar to complement the stub creation based on this article? I wish you wouldn't. You'll see we already have a List of Rhodes Scholars covering those who went on to accomplish things that warrant an encyclopedia article. I see no reason why we shouldn't take the same approach to all Pew Fellowships (and not just for the arts). Please note that the Fellows of the Royal society article does not attempt to list all fellows, just those that have encyclopedia articles for other accomplishments. That seems to make much more sense. Right now we have several articles on minor artists which consist only of the fact the they won a Pew Fellowship, where they went to college, and a few places their artwork has been displayed. Minus the Pew grant these articles by and large would not pass muster. I don't think a grant in and of itself makes that big of a difference, though I would like to get input from others on this. (Additionally, listing a Pew Grant in the same sentence as a Pulitzer does not equate the two.) -R. fiend (talk) 00:57, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- I would argue that receiving a Pew Fellowship meets the criteria. Is this any more significant than, say, a Rhodes Scholarship? We certainly don't list all of them, nor try to have articles on them. A significant award, such as a Nobel or Pulitzer is awarded for a specific, well known achievement. What did a Pew Fellowship recipient do to get the grant? It doesn't say. Basically, all the alleged "notable" information on 90% of these people is "they received a grant". Great. What did they do to deserve this grant and what did they do with it? Doesn't say, but they are a lecturers at minor colleges or whatever. There is a significant dearth of substantial information here. If this is a much greater distinction than a Rhodes Scholarship then explain why. -R. fiend (talk) 04:46, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
- Two: stubbiness of the articles. I see your concern; however, taking a theme from Accotink2's subpage, I've seen enough articles go from stub to substance to refrain from writing them off simply because of length. I still think that each of these has potential for development.
- (There's a third point, too, actually - totally unscientific. I call it the "I've-actually-heard-of-some-of-these-people-so-I-assume-holders-of-this-award-are-notable" factor. I know it doesn't really hold water. Still, I figure I'm generally so clueless that if even I've heard of someone, then he must be famous. :-) ) --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 06:02, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- While I think narrowness of range has some merit, but by and large it doesn't mean much in itself, especially since the geographical range in which they are given is also very narrow (a single city). The local Starbucks presumably has only 12 Employee of the Month winners too, and I don't think anyone would argue for their inclusion for being one of twelve.
- As for the stubbiness, if that can be remedied with more real significant information, covered by third party sources, then that would probably satisfy my objections. If we can find enough information that would satisfy WP:BIO even if they hadn't won a Pew Fellowship we needn't have this discussion, but so far I'm not seeing it. Most of these articles are indistinguishable from vanity articles. The fact is we don't have articles on each and every winner of any real comparable award, as far as I can tell. The exception may be the Genius Grants, but those do appear to be substantially more notable, and all the recipients' seem to have complete articles which meet WP:BIO even if the award is disregarded.
- You admit your final point doesn't mean much, and of course it doesn't, but I'll grant that it can be telling. So have you heard of most of these people independently of Wikipedia, and if so are you a resident of Philadelphia with an interest in local artists? Everyone has some esoteric interests which would lead them to hear of people who really aren't otherwise famous. Regardless of the notability of these specific artists, the question that really needs to be answered is "Does the Pew Fellowship in the Arts qualify as 'a well-known and significant award or honor' to enough of a degree to qualify under WP:BIO, or is it more like a Rhodes Scholarship or other rather high-profile grant which seemingly do not in and of themselves qualify?" I think you know what my opinion is, but I'd like to get the opinions of other more neutral people here. (I notice you entered this discussion at the behest of Accotink2, so while your opinions are valid and you have certainly added to this discussion, I'm not sure I'd consider you neutral on this). Maybe this should be brought to the WP:BIO talk page or similar forum? -R. fiend (talk) 15:54, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- yes i would encourage to take this to Wikipedia talk:Notability (people), Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style, Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (lists), and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (embedded lists). an extended discussion doesn't belong on article talk. i'm kinda sorry i dragged Ser Amantio di Nicolao into this, </sorry> i was hoping his superior editing experience would elicit some meeting of the minds. Accotink2 talk 18:35, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- (There's a third point, too, actually - totally unscientific. I call it the "I've-actually-heard-of-some-of-these-people-so-I-assume-holders-of-this-award-are-notable" factor. I know it doesn't really hold water. Still, I figure I'm generally so clueless that if even I've heard of someone, then he must be famous. :-) ) --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 06:02, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Copyright problem[edit]
This article has been reverted by a bot to this version as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) This has been done to remove User:Accotink2's contributions as they have a history of extensive copyright violation and so it is assumed that all of their major contributions are copyright violations. Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. VWBot (talk) 06:07, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Copyright problem[edit]
This article has been reverted by a bot to this version as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) This has been done to remove User:Accotink2's contributions as they have a history of extensive copyright violation and so it is assumed that all of their major contributions are copyright violations. Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. VWBot (talk) 13:04, 10 December 2010 (UTC)