Talk:Wally Hedrick
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
 |
This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group. | ||
 |
This article is within the scope of the San Francisco Bay Area WikiProject, a collaborative effort to build a more detailed guide on Wikipedia's coverage of San Francisco and the Bay Area. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. |
| B | This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale. |
| Low | This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale. |
Contents |
[edit] Multiple uses of a reference
Where the same source is used more than once in the article as a reference, it should be given a name the first time it's used, e.g.:
- <ref name=smith> ''Details of reference as normal'' </ref>
The second time or subsequent times the same reference is used in the article, use the name as a short cut, e.g.:
- <ref name=smith/>
Don't forget the / or subsequent text won't appear!
The source then appears once in the reference section with a, b, c etc linked to the different uses in the text. See William Bowyer for an example.
Also, it's not usual to quote chunks of text in the footnotes. If it's important, it should go in the article, or be paraphrased in the article.
Tyrenius 15:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Neutral point of view needs to be maintained
I'm really glad that this article exists and I appreciate the effort that has gone into it. I do feel though that it's getting a bit out of hand. The artist is best served by a neutral encyclopedic artcle. To this end it needs a bit of cleaning-up: there shouldn't be so many separate sections, and the section headings should avoid over-stating the case or presenting a particular point of view (eg "Hedrick's Pre-Pop Paintings Predate Japer Johns"). Also the references need to be integrated into the text, rather than standing alone.--Ethicoaestheticist 21:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your comment.
However, may I ask how can one overstate a date? and quoted citations that clearly state the case, FINALLY, from a neutral (ie non-east coast centric) point of view?
John Coplan, 1963, “Pop Art, USA," Oakland Museum catalog essay for the exhibition. Reprinted Artforum, October 1963: 27-30. See also Solnit below:
Recently, the cultural historian Rebecca Solnit in her 1990 book, The Secret Exhibition: Six Californian Artists, reasserted Hedrick’s artistic achievements: "It is now possible to say that Hedrick was ahead of his time: the first American to protest the Vietnam War, the artist to paint flags before Jasper Johns painted flags, who made kinetic junk sculpture before Tinguely did. Hedrick was a forerunner of Pop Art, Bad Painting, Neo-Expressionism, and image appropriation. It might be more useful to view Hedrick as an artist who was of his time in a unique way, a maverick whose responses to the world showed it in a different light." Rebecca Solnit, 1990, The Secret Exhibition: Six California Artists.
Respectfully, and thank you for allowing a prejudiced history to be neutralized --Art4em 01:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- Art4em Don't worry, I'm not going to launch into an argument about who painted flags first! "Hedrick's pre-Pop paintings pre-date Jasper Johns" is fine as a statement in the article, backed up, as it is, with sources (though the repeated prefix does look a bit over-defensive!). When the same statement is used as a section heading, though, it becomes something else. As ever there's a wiki policy to give advice on this sort of thing. WP:NPOV#Article structure lists "'Segregation' of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself" as something that may warrant attention. The capitalization didn't help, and the de-capitalization of the section headings in accordance with wikistyle has partly addressed the problem.--Ethicoaestheticist 10:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you...I appreciate all your comments. I freely admit I have a stylistic handicap -- which I usually remedy with paid editors. Thank you and warm regards --Art4em 17:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- I've rearranged the article into chronological order. I think this makes it easier to follow.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 20:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Looked over it quickly -- but looks GREAT ! ! ! Thank you for your continued support. I am hoping to begin working on 1970 - 2000 as soon as I gather the images. Best... --Art4em (talk) 00:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] WP:MOS
User:John is very familiar with WP:MOS usage, so I've asked him to look through the article with that mind, which he has kindly done. Tyrenius (talk) 12:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
A lot of solid content, and superb referencing, but in places a neutral encyclopedic tone is needed to phrase the info. However, any observations and input welcome. Tyrenius (talk) 01:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I think the tone of the main body of the article has now been substantially improved. The Significance and Legacy section still needs some work: the critical opinions with references need to be disentangled from the argument being made. I've moved the MOS tag to this section.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 13:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Wally Hedrick being seperated from "The Whole"
Before you start separating Wally from his age:
(ie (→1950s - removed extraneous info about Vesuvio's bar and the use of the term 'Beat', keeping the material specific to Hedrick, not the whole scene at the time)
...I would like to ask you the following:
1. First, this is absurd since Wally "ushered in the age" demonstrably -- that was a MAJOR accomplishment few can claim in any age.
2. "Wally had a commanding hand in the very night the "San Francisco Renaissance" was made (Heck, Wally himself illegally turned on the lights to the gallery!) -- heck, we might even call Wally a Medici for that night.
3. I do not see anyone asking for Ginsberg, or Kerouac et al to be separated from their age...Why? because that would be absurd since they would be laughed off the discussion board.
4. Wally's place of residence was "the epicenter of the scene".
Credit Wally, for bringing to light (and quickly) the uneven handedness of this wiki process. Please, go work on some of the many other articles that have no footnotes, citations, objection and (eventually) significance of Wally.
Thank you --Art4em (talk) 05:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- In the edit you refer to [1], I removed (uncited) information about the location of Vesuvio's bar and the fact that Kerouac frequented it, with the phrase "Vesuvio's, a popular beat hangout" which conveys the relevance more succinctly. I retained the quote about Hedrick saying he and his circle were the real Beat generation, but removed details about the origin of the term Beat, and Bruce Connor's opposition to it, which aren't relevant to Hedrick (who, the quote shows, had no problem with the term). I retained the statement about Hedrick ushering in the Beat lifestyle, and bus tours to Beat locations, because there is a reference (although it isn't clear whether the reference supports the whole sentence, or just the part about bus tours). As for telling me what articles I should or should not edit, I'm afraid that's my decision, not yours.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 12:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Dear Ethico...you cannot possibly be serious? Do you want a citation for Vesuvio's in San Francisco! OMG! ! ! Really, that is just like asking for a citation to address to the White House or Statue of Liberty! In other words, please get off your horse and please get real. And while you add it, please contest this 'random' apartment in the Allan Ginsberg article under "New York Beats": "In 1948 in an apartment in Harlem"...Go for it man, its all yours: What apartment? what's the address? who owned the apartment? east or west side of the street? where's the citation to that house? You have got to me kidding me man. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.91.10.208 (talk) 08:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Right on! You want a citation for Vesuvio's? This has sunken to another new low level.
Wally Hedrick 130 citations ---------- Jeff Koons 0 citations
And now you are asking for a citation for Vesuvio's in SF in the Beat Era... Wally rules --Art4em (talk) 09:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- Accepted, a citation for Vesuvio's address is a fairly trivial point.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 18:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Honestly, I appreciate that candor. Thank you and Respectfully --Art4em (talk) 04:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Art4em Hoaxes
As far as I can tell the vast majority of Art4em's contributions appear to be hoaxes. If anyone more knowledgeable about the subject than I can scan an eye over his/her edits that would be much appreciated. See talk:Party Down Scandal (LG Williams) and talk:L. G. Williams. Debate (talk) 14:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- Despite some disagreements about the style of the article, Art4em's contribution to this article has been constructive and well-intentioned. The sources are genuine, and Wally Hedrick is a notable subject for an article, and definitely not a hoax.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 17:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
