Talk:Charles Saatchi/Archives/2012

WP:BLP concerns

Posts 1, 2, 3 copied from User talk:Tyrenius and User talk:Infoart to centralise discussion. Tyrenius 01:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

1)Hi Tyrenius, I was in contact with the Saatchi Gallery a couple of weeks ago re: copyright clearence, and today they've contacted me on an unrelated Wiki matter. It seems that there has been some libellous material included in Charles Saatchi's Wiki page and the gallery were wondering who to contact to report their concerns and have this material permanently removed. I just had a look at the page, and in going through the page history I noticed that you've previousy edited out this material on June 20, but it has been reincluded since. Looks like it's be removed again today by another user, however the gallery are quite concerned that it should not be reinstated. Would you mind looking in on this matter? If you or another Wiki representative could please contact Philippa Adams at Saatchi gallery directly she would really appreciate it. Her email is: [commented out] Many thanks for your help. Very best, --Infoart 23:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

2)I saw your note to Tyrenius re: Charles Saatchi. I'm not sure something can be permanently edited out of an article. Since anyone can edit wikipedia, anything can be added. It's up to vigilant editors to catch the vandalism and issue warnings. Vandals can eventually be blocked from editing, but vandalism will always be an issue. Occasionally, a page can be removed and an administrator can remove all traces of that article, especially if the article is libelous. However, in the case of Saatchi, he's too much of a public figure to be removed from wikipedia (and I'm guessing that's not what's wanted here anyway). He'll always have an article, and will probably always be a target for vandals. That's both the nature of fame, and wikipedia, I'm afraid. Probably not the answer you wanted. I won't contact the email you gave Tyrenius. I'm not an administrator and perhaps there is something else that can be done. But in my limited experience on wikipedia, I'm fairly certain that there's little that can be done but revert the vandalism as it happens. There are certainly a few editors who have the Charles Saatchi page on their watch-list, so changes will be monitored. I've added it to my watch-list and I sent a warning to the last vandal. If he keeps it up, I'll report him to admins who can block him. Freshacconci 00:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

3)There is a bit of a difficulty here. While some of the hostile version is outright false, much of it is just as reliably sourced (from here) as the material that is cited (from here), which ought to be just as much a concern over bias as it presents Okamoto as the bad guy. The trick is getting the balance. Gordonofcartoon 01:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Some of the material might be better dealt with in Saatchi Gallery with a briefer mention here. Tyrenius 02:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

See User talk:Malikeel. Different identities have been used to replace material in the article. Tyrenius 02:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the substance of the reverted material, see The Guardian, 22 October 2005, where it can be found. That does not necessarily mean of course that it will be included in the article in the way that it has been. That would give it undue weight, per WP:NPOV. Tyrenius 02:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Since there has been contact from an involved outside third party, is this a matter for the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard? As it does not appear to be pure vandalism (thus simply revertible) and falls under Due Weight/Sensitivity considerations it may be that we need the assistance of BLP warriors in keeping this article within guidelines. LessHeard vanU 12:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Yep; that'd be good. As I said above, some of it is straightforward reversion fodder, but a summary of the dispute within BLP constraints is going to be a rather more subtle task, given that a lot of the crit appeared reliably sourced and only wrong via the undue weight given. Gordonofcartoon 12:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, caution is needed, so that one event does not get blown out of proportion. For anyone editing this, there are also reports in The Times.[1][2] Tyrenius 21:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm awaiting a response from Infoart before submitting a notification to WP:BLP/Noticeboard since I am roughly three parts removed from the original comment. I would prefer someone with a closer knowledge of what has been said to be available for clarification if needed. If the re-inclusion of the unflattering material continues I will refer anyway. LessHeard vanU 22:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Transparent PR?

'their new agency quickly overtook their former agency in Britain's top ten'

This is such a vague, self-agrandising claim that it looks certain to be a touch of publicity. It doesn't: - define 'top ten' of what - define 'quickly' - provide citations

Wikipublicopaedia, yet again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.141.137 (talk) 20:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Hyper-realism

I once visited Saatchi's home in St John's Wood in 1974 or 75. I recall being impressed by the large presumably American hyper-realist paintings on the walls. I particularly remember one that had the tail fin of a vintage Cadillac plus a supermarket.. this was the same time as American Grafitti. His taste for this style seems to go unmentioned? Wwwhatsup (talk) 09:28, 30 November 2010 (UTC)