Talk:Mark Vallen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mexico Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mexico, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Mexico on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? Class: This article has not been assigned a class according to the assessment scale.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

Please rate the article and, if you wish, leave comments here regarding your assessment or the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
WikiProject Mexican-Americans Mark Vallen falls under the scope of WikiProject Mexican-Americans, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Mexican-Americans on the Wikipedia. This includes but is not limited to Mexican-Americans as well as those not so affiliated, country and region-specific topics, and anything else related to Mexican-Americans. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.


Contents

[edit] Expert review

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The result was: Subject is notable. --B. Wolterding 13:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

This review has been announced on the talk page of WikiProject Contemporary Art. Comments should be added on this page, below.

As part of the Notability wikiproject, I am trying to sort out whether this topic is notable enough to have its own article. There are some claims to notability in the article, but they seem to be a bit dubious to me. In particular, the article says that his works were shown at the MoMA; but on his web page I learnt that this actually reduces to two of his prints. Is this enough to meet WP:BIO?

Your opinions are welcome; please add your comments below. --B. Wolterding 19:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Well, as an artist not very notable, but as a blogger perhaps. I think the statement about the MoMa exhibition should be removed unless an authorative third-party source can be found, and the numerous artistic influences removed as irrelevant, unless evidence of his significance as an artist can be provided. This would leave, in addition to the basic biographical information the one claim to notability currently stated in the article: his reporting of the closing of the East Los Angeles Chicano art center, Self Help Graphics & Art. I suspect that this is only of local significance, but I might be wrong.--Ethicoaestheticist 00:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
He gets 18,000 google hits, which is a good start.[1] I've looked through these and considerably expanded the article. I think he now passes notability requirements, but we can discuss here if there's still a problem remaining. Tyrenius 06:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Notability clearly established.--Ethicoaestheticist 12:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your help! --B. Wolterding 13:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


[edit] Still Can't Believe Vallen is "Notable"

Certainly (certainly!) not for his art (which is 98% of the entry), and I can't even imagine he's notable for his blogging. Xeni Jardin? She's notable. Wired Magazine. CNN. NPR. Fox. ABC. And more. They've all picked her up. Vallen hasn't even been picked up by a local fan 'zine.

Notable? Sure, if your emphasis is on the "not."

The whole entry should be removed.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.30.19.80 (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia has a lower threshold than the one you are positing. Three editors independent of the original creator of the article have agreed that notability is established for wikipedia requirements, and I don't think a wider francise would differ. Tyrenius (talk) 01:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
The criteria you yourself used to demonstrate notability was a Google search to demonstrate the number of pages spider'ed that contain Vallen's name. At the time, you indicated he was receiving 18,000 "hits." Using the link you provided for the search, the number, today, is now 7,340. Leaving aside the vagaries of Google indexing for a moment (and also leaving aside the discussion of why it probably shouldn't be used to establish "notability"), does this mean Vallen has become 62% less notable? At what Google "hit" count is he considered to have fallen off of the map? A Google search on my own name returns 541,000 "hits." I should get cracking on my Wikipedia page development. It seems I'm pretty notable.
You see? Slippery, slippery.
I state again: Vallen isn't notable by a reasonable standard of notability. Not for his blogging and certainly not for his art (which the vast, vast majority of the article chronicles). Notwithstanding the great deal of time (and possibly personal interest) you've invested in building it, the article should be stricken in its entirety. (Please don't take this personally. It's really not my intent.)
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.30.19.80 (talk • contribs)

Google hits are not used to verify notability. They are just a starting point. However, someone with 3 ghits is an unlikely candidate. We go by verifiable sources, which in his case exist. Well done on the material you found, which I had not come across. You might like to work on other articles to gain a greater experience of how wiki works and how we determine was is and isn't acceptable. Tyrenius (talk) 19:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of text

A substantial amount of text was removed and also a reference link.[2] The information was on the web page cited, but has since been taken off that web page. See Wikipedia:Cite#What to do when a reference link "goes dead" The optimum course is to find another source with the same information (which as it turns out is available and now cited). Failing that, the link should not be removed, as it can be used at a later date for the web archive, which is deliberately 6 months or so in arrears in its archiving. Please discuss such things on the talk page, rather than just deleting material. Tyrenius (talk) 01:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Latest Revisions by Tyrenius ("the revert")

In regards to Tyrenius' statement that "The ref does not say this at all," I call your attention to these pieces found within the reference (please place them into context-- I'm sure an actual reading of the article will enable that):

"4. The Oil Artist

Mark Vallen Dia de los Muertos (Day of the Dead) 2003 Oil on wood panel 11 x 14"

...and (later in the rebuttal)..

"Or to put it yet another way: reducing complex system phenomena to binary schema will not effectively address the problem. My radical motto: avoid binary thought."

I encourage Tyrenius to read the referenced material. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.35.24.1 (talk) 23:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I did read the material and I read what you have quoted. The problem is that you have drawn a conclusion from those passages which the original does not make explicit. Such interpretation is not permitted on wikipedia. You have to stick strictly to what the reference says. Tyrenius (talk) 01:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I challenge you to go back and read the "response to Mark Vallen (in five parts)" and tell me how you interpret #4, if not the way I did. I look forward to your providing the language that could pass the bar on this author's critique of Vallen's blindingly naive treatise on the BP/LACMA arrangement. I also suggest you call in a second editor in from on high. Maybe you're too close to the subject? 75.35.24.1 (talk) 20:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

You have proved my point when you say, "tell me how you interpret #4, if not the way I did." We do not interpret. We only use what the source makes explicit. It lists Vallen's painting, but it does not make any specific comment on it. Another experienced wiki editor has already reviewed this.[3] Why should we use Art as Authority as a reliable source? It looks like a blog, and Kevin Freitas seems an obscure figure.[4]
If you want to consult other editors, post on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Visual_arts or see WP:DR.
Also, please do not make derogatory comments about living people per WP:BLP, and I am beginning to find your innuendos about me irritating. Comment on edits not editors.
Tyrenius (talk) 20:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Kevin Freitas is less obscure than Mark Vallen in the art world and his blog (as opposed to Vallen's BLOG) much more read (and referenced). I asked a question and did not make a "derogatory comment." Your ire is, itself, telling. Again, I look forward to your providing the language that could pass the bar on this author's critique of Vallen's blindingly naive treatise on the BP/LACMA arrangement.75.35.24.1 (talk) 21:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I should add that the oil artists' use is linseed oil, a natural product with little geo-political significance, except to artists that is. This might explain why your interpretation of the source is awry. I can't believe that I should have to be explaining this ;)--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 21:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
You can't be serious. Please see Mineral spirits. 75.35.24.1 (talk) 21:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Mineral spirits are not recommended as a fine art painting medium, only for cleaning brushes. Tyrenius (talk) 21:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
You're not suggesting mineral spirits aren't used as a fine art painting medium are you? 75.35.24.1 (talk) 21:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I said "irritating", not "ire", but you are right that it is telling - telling that the comments are out of order. "Blindingly naive treatise" is a derogatory comment, your personal opinion and has no reliable source to validate it. Regarding use of blogs, see WP:SPS. If you disagree, I have shown you how to get input from other editors. If Kevin Freitas is notable, you might like to start the article Kevin Freitas. Just make sure it referenced properly. Tyrenius (talk) 21:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

So what you're saying is you foresaw my "derogatory comment" before it was made? Again, I look forward to your providing the language that could pass the bar on this author's critique of Vallen's treatise on the BP/LACMA arrangement. 75.35.24.1 (talk) 21:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

18 minutes after, actually.[5] As I've pointed out above, Authority as Art is not a reliable source per WP:SPS, so is not eligible for use at all. Tyrenius (talk) 21:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Then I suggest striking all reference to quotations from Vallen's blog as it is both less authoritative and less reliable. (Nice selective edit on the "blindingly" and "naive," by the way.) 75.35.24.1 (talk) 21:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you read the policies first? A blog can be used to show the opinions of that person, when the article is about them. So the opinions of Freitas can be quoted in the article Kevin Freitas, provided it meets WP:N requirements and doesn't get deleted, that is. Don't pull the trick of repeating offensive remarks by pretending to be withdrawing them. Tyrenius (talk) 21:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Then I look forward to the removal of all referenced material contained within Wikipedia that uses Vallen's blog as a source of comments on other people. I'll stand by patiently. 75.35.24.1 (talk) 21:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
It has already been done.[6] Tyrenius (talk) 03:52, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps a little insight is in order as to how this topic you're referencing began, that is, how it became my response, and a fellow contributor's, to Mark Vallen's original article entitled "LACMA: The Oil Museum". Vallen's article was posted on his blog, "ART FOR A CHANGE" on March 14th, 2007. The bullet points you're discussing came from Richard Gleaves’ original response, ART AND OIL: A TRAGEDY in 5 PARTS (a response to Mark Vallen) and subsequent email conversations we had, that were posted on my blog, artasauthority.com. Richard Gleaves is a San Diego artist and a frequent contributor to artasauthority.com. --K. Freitas (talk) 16:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I understand that. There is an external link at the bottom of the article, should anyone wish to follow up. Ty 02:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)