Talk:Eddie Burrup

Neutrality and sources

The article as currently drafted reads more like an essay expressing a particular opinion than as a WP article. It favours one view of Durack/Burrup (misunderstood, hostile treatment by those unfamiliar with her) over others (impersonation, fraud). It also uses an unreliable website that is for Durack's own work as a main source for much of the material. Probably doesn't qualify as a reliable source. hamiltonstone (talk) 22:46, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Neutrality is still an issue. Given the controversy surrounding the subject, we would expect to see both sides of the debate well covered but as things stand this is not the case. Flat Out let's discuss it 12:38, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Deletion

This really ought to be deleted until someone can write a better article. It's clearly biased and way too long. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.53.15.126 (talk) 01:39, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

A revised, and shortened, version of this page is now in preparation and will be posted in the next few days. The NPOV tag already posted by Hamiltonstone is acknowledged. Purwthrub 09:51, 10 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Murranji (talk • contribs)

Multiple Issues

I have added the following tags: {{COI|date=June 2013}} {{POV|date=June 2013}} {{essay-like|date=June 2013}} {{primary sources|date=June 2013}} {{unreliable sources|date=June 2013}}

See above re: NPOV. The style of the article is essay-like and needs to written in an encyclopedic tone. Major contributors belong to the Estate of the subject which is arguably a conflict of interest. Primary sources are in use (heavily reliant on the website of the subject). See reliable sources. Flat Out let's discuss it 12:45, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I think the article has in some areas improved in recent weeks. I also think Flat Out has correctly identified some ongoing issues about comprehensive and neutral treatment in the literature, and has identified some potential useful sources, below. I'm going to trim a couple of sentences that, though they have a citation, either don't add much, are confusing, or misleading, and could be re-done with the aid of different sources.

There remain broader issues around article structure and whether it should be kept separate from the Elizabeth Durack article. I'm not addressing those questions just now. hamiltonstone (talk) 13:02, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Possible Sources for Balance

1. Julie Marcus ‘...like an Aborigine — empathy, Elizabeth Durack and the colonial imagination’ in The Olive Pink Society Bulletin Vol 9 (1 & 2) 1997
2. Christine Dauber ‘Stand up the real Elizabeth Durack’ in Picturing the ‘Primitif’ edited by Julie Marcus, LhR Press, Canada Bay, NSW 2000
3. Christine Nicholls From Appreciation to Appropriation: Indigenous Influences and Images in Australian Visual Art exhibition catalogue Flinders University Gallery, Adelaide, South Australia, March 2000
4. Franchesca Cubillo ‘Elizabeth Durack: I drew very close to these men, sharing their dilemma...' in Uncommon Ground: White Women in Aboriginal History edited by Anna Cole, Victoria Haskins & Fiona Paisley, Aboriginal Studies Press, Canberra, 2000
5. Kylie O’Connell ‘”A Dying Race”: the history and fiction of Elizabeth Durack’ in Ruinard & Tilley (eds) Fresh Cuts: Journal of Australian Studies No 67 University of Queensland Press St Lucia, 2000
6. Fred R Myers The making of an Aboriginal High Art Duke University Press, Durham and London, 2002
7. Marguerite Nolan ‘Elizabeth Durack, Eddie Burrup and the Art of Identification’ in Fakes and Forgeries Peter Knight and # Jonathan Long (eds) Cambridge Scholars Press, Buckinghamshire, 2004

Non-free images

In my view, the images do not meet the free use criteria. There is no direct reference in the text to any of these actual pictures, and little discussion of Durack's style in making these works. The works need to be very closely linked to the text to qualify. And I certainly can't imagine how three works to illustrate the one article would qualify, especially given they are so similar to each other. They cannot be said to illustrate different phases or styles. hamiltonstone (talk) 13:11, 8 June 2013 (UTC)