Talk:Girl with Peaches

"Certainly his most famous"

I changed this because the two Russian sources cited (the magazine 'Argumenty i fakty' and the website Adme.ru) note it as famous and a 'web-meme', these are not authoritative secondary sources and there is in any case no evidence that picture is especially well-known in the non-Russian speaking world. We can't therefore say in WP that the pic is "certainly the most famous" of Serov's works.--Smerus (talk) 08:00, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I've already explained everything at Template:Did you know nominations/Girl with Peaches.
But I think I should repeat it here as well. As this is where the question was asked.
There are two sources in the article, both explicitly state it is Serov's most famous painting. Argumenty and Facty [1]: "Самая знаменитая его картина" ("His most famous painting") (Now I see it is a quote from a tweet, but it is repeated in the article's text as if it were a fact). ADME.ru: "самая знаменитая картина [...] Серова" ("Serov's [...] most famous painting"). And I must say the word "знаменитая" in Russian has a stronger, more emphatic meaning. It is closer to "famed", "renowned" , "celebrated". Anyway, it is Serov's most famous painting, clear and simple. Believe me. There can be no doubt whatsoever. I can find more sources. --Moscow Connection (talk) 14:52, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
The only problem may be that the two sources don't say "certainly", but I added it cause I thought the sentence sounded better like this. The word connected the two parts of the sentence, improved the flow. And, as I said, it is the truth after all. It's certainly Serov's most famous painting. Have you been to the Tretyakov Gallery? The painting is the focal point of a special Serov room, towards the end of the exposition. --Moscow Connection (talk) 14:52, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

• One more source for "the most famous", this time a book: [2]. --Moscow Connection (talk) 16:22, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
• A quick Google search in English for "Girl with Peaches" "most famous" comes up with this:
  The Girl with Peaches is the most famous: [3], [4], [5];
  Girl with Peaches and Girl in the Sunshine are the two most famous: [6].
  There's also a book that says that "his study of Nicholas II will probably remain his most famous work": [7], [8]. (Those are two books with identical text.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 00:30, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Putin and Medinski trivial dialogue does not belong to the article

I removed most of the Internet meme section but user:Moscow Connection has reverted it. The reasons why the part should not be there:

• It is trivial information which has nothing to do with the subject of the article. I see no reason why the Putin's and Medinski's wannabe funny dialogue about a Soviet TV show should be rewritten here word by word. It has no encyclopaedic value.

• The article is supposed to be about a famous painting. However, 1/3 of the text is about Putin and Medinski trying to be funny and thus the two politicians obtain undue weight in the article. This makes a lot of harm to the quality of the article and so it should be removed from the text. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 17:55, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
  • It is not trivial, the section discusses the Internet meme. The "incident" was reported in many major media outlets, the transcript of the conversation was published. The painting is famous for various reasons and this is one of them. If you want to improve the article, you should expand it instead. I think it can be expanded several times over. Then the paragraph in question will become small in comparison to the article's size. --Moscow Connection (talk) 18:29, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Most of the section does not give information about the Internet meme. The section repeats word by word the dialogue of two politicians trying to make fun of the meme instead. I do believe that it was interesting for Russian media for some reason, but it still does not mean that it must be repeated here as well. Can't you really see how little it has in common with the subject of the article?

Besides this, see also Wikipedia:Quotations#Overuse where it is stated that quotes should not dominate the section, as it has happened here – more than half of the section is quotes.

Quotes should not be used to explain a point that can also be paraphrased. Here it can be easily paraphrased without losing any "information" but such paraphrasing would probably emphasize its triviality.

It also says "A quotation that does not directly relate to the topic of the article or directly support the information as it is presented should not be used". The trivial joking about the Soviet TV show does not support the information about the existence of the meme in any way. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:54, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

It directly relates to the topic of the Internet meme. (By the way, the dialog has been formatted differently and now it looks small and inconspicuous.)
And, by the way, I think you misinterpreted it. Why did you call Medinsky a wannabe? Why did you say it was a joke about Soviet television? Putin simply described the picture to him, Medinsky hadn't heard about the meme and didn't understand. --Moscow Connection (talk) 20:32, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

If it was not a joke, if it was a "misunderstanding", than it is even more trivial than I thought. Why not to write "Putin asked Medinsky if he had seen the new version of the painting on the Internet. Medinsky thought Putin was talking about a Soviet TV show and answered he had not. Putin laughed." It is the same "information", the style is more encyclopaedic, but its triviality is more visible.

I gave several reasons why it does not comply with the encyclopaedic style, to sum them up: it dominates the section, it is easy to paraphrase and the existence of the meme can be given even without (word "without" added later as it was omitted by mistake) quoting the TV show stuff. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:25, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

No, I can't agree to replace a clearly written/transcribed dialogue with something rather incomprehensible. (And it misinterprets what happened, too.)
The article in its present version has been read by lots of people and has been copyedited by several editors. It's obvious it's good as it is now and any changes will only make it worse. I think this is just a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and you are the only one not to like it.
I'm sorry, I can't continue this discussion. I planned to create some more articles yesterday, and now I need to make myself do it. --Moscow Connection (talk) 16:57, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I gave several reasons why it is trivial and unencyclopaedic and you did not disprove them. You only managed to state that "it is obvious it is good". --Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:35, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Stop edit warring. It's just disruptive. You don't have any support here. --Moscow Connection (talk) 20:41, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

By the way, I have just now noticed how you titled this discussion topic. So you think Putin's jokes are not funny (it's not even a joke, btw), the Russian Minister of Culture is a wannabe (?, I don't get it), etc...
I think you just don't like Putin and it is the only reason you want to remove the part.
WP:STICK. No support to remove. Just stop please. --Moscow Connection (talk) 20:54, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I am not edit warring, you are the one who keeps reverting my edits. You have not not addressed my reasons, you just keep reverting.

BTW, you have misinterpreted my contribution. I did not say Medinsky is wannabe, I wrote about "Putin's and Medinski's wannabe funny dialogue", you had to see it, it is still written there, so I do not know, why you did such misinterpretation. Instead of addressing my arguments you say I do not like Putin. No, I never wrote anything about him neither positive nor negative and I did not do it in this article either. I just try to remove trivial content and I explained why it is trivial. On the contrary I can just see that you are trying to introduce Putin into the topic which has practically no connection with him, but unlike you I am far from speculating about your reasons like liking Putin or whatever. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:22, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I have understood that the you feel the title of this section to be insulting. I wrote it that way trying to emphasize the triviality of the dialogue but I admit it was not done in a decent way. For this reason I have just changed so that it sounded more neutral. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:36, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

The article is perfectly neutral now and it is good as it is. --Moscow Connection (talk) 22:10, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

1. It's not trivial, it is something important that is directly connected to the meme (the section is titled "Internet meme") and its popularity. 2. The quotations are not overused, there are only two, they are very short. And you, for some reason, are trying to delete only one of them (that you don't like).
That's all, I've addressed all of your reasons. WP:STICK. No edit warring. please. I need to attend to other things, I won't repeat the same thing over and over. --Moscow Connection (talk) 22:25, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I did not start edit warring, I just made a change in the article and explained it and you reverted it immediately. After some more explanations I made a modified change and you reverted it again. So it is you who uses reverts as a mean to push your opinion and you should stop doing it.
Just to make sure I am not accused of edit warring again: I am not the author of the last edit] by an anonymous user, though I do agree with it.

Of course that I am trying to remove the quotation which I do not agree with (it would not make sense to delete the one I do agree with). Here are the reasons for the removal summed up again:

• According to Wikipedia:Quotations#Overuse quotes
  • should not dominate the section
  • should not be used to explain a point that can be paraphrased. There is no reason to repeat the dialogue word by word.
• The quotation is trivial. It is just a silly dialogue which I can imagine in some media trying to attract some kind of readers, but not in a serious encyclopaedia. Can any other serious encyclopaedia be named that uses such silly quotes? I do not know any. If you keep the information "One of the altered pictures depicted the girl sitting at a very large table covered with all sorts of dishes and was titled "The Girl with Peaches: Full Version".", you said everything important. The fact that some politician mentioned it does not say anything about its popularity. It simply looks as a try to propagate the politician (which I still keep trying to believe that it is not). --Jan Kameníček (talk) 00:50, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I've already explained everything there was to explain. WP:STICK.
    Please note that this unlogged edit you made yesterday [9] may constitute sock puppetry. (Consider this a warning.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 01:55, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

No, you have not adressed the issues I raised.

I knew you would accuse me when I noticed the edit in my watchlist and that was why I hurried here to explain it. Nevertheless, you still did it. I tried to search for the IP and a geolocator showed me it is from the US. I do not live in the US and have never been there. In fact your repeated revert is a continuation of your edit warring. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 08:12, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

1. The only other edit the IP made is related to the Czech Republic. And incidentally, you are from the Czech Republic.
And you posted here the same very minute I undid the edit. (I'm not sure how this is even possible. Cause your post is rather lengthy.)
And there have been two weeks since almost all the edits you made to the English Wikipedia are related to this one paragraph in one article.
2. This endless discussion has already disrupted me from doing more work on Wikipedia. I don't have to go over it all over again. The default outcome of no consensus is the status quo.
3. I see you've requested a third opinion, so let's wait. (As I said, the page has been on the front page and it has been viewed a lot, it has been edited by many users, and you are the only one who objected to the paragraph.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 12:51, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

As you said, I am from the Czech Rep., unlike the IP. You can try this locator. After you do, I am prepared to accept your apology. I cannot believe that you accuse somebody based on such poor "evidence" like editting an article related to the same COUNTRY which I am from, which tells quite a lot about you. You even wrote your offend into the edit summary where I cannot defend against it. I have edited various Wikipedias and other wikiprojects for 11 years and have never needed to hide and have never done it, believe it or not. After such a long time I know quite a lot about how people misuse sockpuppets and if I wanted to do so, I would do it in a much cleverer way than reverting you from a mobile and pretending it was not me.

You are not able to give evidence I am wrong so you are trying to offend me and on the top you are using pseudo-arguments like the number of objecting people (BTW there are at least two if we include the IP adress). However, it is arguments that counts, not the number of votes. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 16:09, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I didn't really think I was "accusing" you of anything. I simply said it was your edit cause I thought it was your edit. It was reasonable to think that it was you, that you simply wasn't logged in. (It may happen for lots of reasons.) When you said the edit wasn't yours. I added more explanations why I thought it was reasonable to think it was you.
You can start a discussion at WP:ANI or somewhere like that (I'm not sure where the right place is) and if people decide my guess wasn't reasonable, I will apologize.
I don't see any reason to count that IP edit as "another person". It could be just someone who doesn't know anything about Wikipedia who was passing by.
By the way, I am still astounded at how fast you appeared after the edit was undone. It can surely look like you liked the edit very much (perfectly understandable since it was almost exactly like the ones you had done before) and monitored what would happen next. --Moscow Connection (talk) 17:51, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I've just noticed the "warning" part in my message. (I forgot.) Okay, so I did say something like "accusing" you of continuing the edit war from an IP (i.e. while unlogged)...
I'm not suire what I should say... If it wasn't you, then it wasn't... Things like that may happen. The rules don't disallow saying something like that. I still think my guess was reasonable. --Moscow Connection (talk) 18:30, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Ask at WP:ANI if you like. I think it will be useful for me, too, to know what I can say and what can't and what I should say to another editor in a situation like this...
I am personally tired of this discussion, I think it has interfered with my editing quite a lot, prevented me from doing other useful stuff. I really think you have insisted too much, beyond the reasonable. I'm simply asking you to let it be cause I had other plans on Wiki than being stuck on this talk page. --Moscow Connection (talk) 18:53, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

And again... The article is much better now that what you want it to look like. My mission is to provide the readers with something valuable to read, and that's what I tried to do here. I think the article (now, after having been copy-edited by multiple people) looks good and is reasonably well written. I truly think what you did would make it much, much worse. I can't allow to make it worse. If really care about the topic, expand this article instead of deleting a part that you don't like. --Moscow Connection (talk) 18:53, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm the one who made the edit not Jan Kameníček and like that person said I'm from the US, this article was on the "Did you know..." section of the Main Page a few weeks ago which is how I first noticed it I had never heard of this painting before then. The other article you mentioned that was edited under my IP address of Sonja Vectomov was also on the "Did you know..." section of the Main Page back in January, I forgot I edited that one and had to go back and look but I simply corrected a mistake in that article where it read "She she has designed" so I removed the second "she". So that article being Czech and Jan Kameníček being from the Czech Republic is just a coincidence. I have a Wikipedia account that I'm usually logged in under on Internet Explorer but I've been on Google Chrome and haven't bothered to log in on this browser, I rarely edit and when I do it's almost always under my Chantons L'amour account so that's why there's only 2 edits under my unlogged IP address.

Reading this article I was confused about the Putin mention where it said he caused a near riot and after clicking on the link it was dead so I tried doing a Google search but I couldn't find anything mentioning a riot or why that joke was important, I looked around on the edit history and Talk Page to see if there was any info on the supposed riot and saw this discussion so I've been checking back and reading the conversation for a few weeks. I agreed with Jan Kameníček that the Putin quotes were unnecessary and after seeing they didn't remove it I decided to do it myself, Jan Kameníček you were very reasonable and tried to follow the Wikipedia guidelines but Moscow Connection you came off as rude and arrogant in this whole back and forth. I couldn't understand why you were so fixated on not changing that edit until I saw that you were the creator of this article, anyway I hope that clears up the confusion about who made the edit. 2601:980:4001:B040:7878:AAB5:1B94:EB21 (talk) 16:23, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request :

Hello, I saw this on the Third Opinion page. After reading through your discussion and looking at the article, it seems like WP:Notable comes into play here. The quote did not cause a riot, as the source for the quotes states in the title - it caused a "near-riot" which, while good for a news story, doesn't qualify as terribly notable. If a riot HAD happened, then including the quote may have more weight to it, but as it is the line before the quote gives proper weight to what happened. I would remove the conversation between Putin and Medinski from the article. SportsGuy17 (talk) 21:17, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

• 1. The dialogue was even in the news headlines. Here's a list: [10]. Some of the articles:
     • Путин посоветовал Мединскому посмотреть фотожабу на "Девочка с персиками" - Komsomolskaya Pravda
     • Путин рассказал министру культуры об Интернет-меме - RBC Ukraine
  2. This article says the fuss around the excibition broke out after it was visited by Putin:
     • Ажиотаж вокруг выставки Серова вспыхнул после визита в Третьяковку Путина - NTV.
       Do you want more? --Moscow Connection (talk) 21:56, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
• Another source that says (see the headline) that it was because of Putin's visit:
  К ажиотажу на выставке Серова со сломанными дверями причастен Путин. --Moscow Connection (talk) 23:03, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I also saw this on the Third Opinion page. I'd like to make a few comments. First, I don't understand the dialogue at all. Why did the minister ask if it was the New Year's Little Blue Light? Why did the president laugh when he said no? If it was a joke, what is the joke? If it was a misunderstanding, what was the misunderstanding? Is this something Russians can understand and English-speakers cannot? If so, it should not be on English Wikipedia. Second, it is an utter mystery how the remark caused a "near-riot". Was it because he appeared to show disrespect to a revered Russian painter? Was it because he laughed at the mention of a popular television show? Again, if this is something English-speakers can't appreciate, it shouldn't be on English Wikipedia. Finally, SportsGuy17 referred you to WP:Notable, but it would have been better to refer you to WP:Recentism. Being in the newspaper for a few days does not make a thing important enough to merit inclusion in an article. And being in local newspapers does not give a thing world-wide importance. The dialogue should be removed. I'd like also to say that the article, otherwise, is excellent. Kudos to Moscow Connection for creating it. Scolaire (talk) 11:14, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Agree with Scolaire wholeheartedly. Thanks for the WP:Recentism link, that's a stronger point. Also agree that overall this article is of good quality. SportsGuy17 (talk) 14:13, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

There has been no further discussion in the last 72 hours, so I'm going to revert this myself. Anything that was added since then was related to the exhibition, not to the painting, so it doesn't belong in this article either. It might possibly be added to the Valentin Serov article. Scolaire (talk) 13:24, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

I will only say that the article is now worse than it was on February 1. It saddens me that the user who started this discussion just wanted to delete something instead of expanding the article or doing some other constructive edits. There's a lot of place for expansion and improvement.
I've decided to go away from Wikipedia for some time. Cause it discourages me too much when I have to spend lots of time in discussions like this instead of doing something more useful. --Moscow Connection (talk) 01:59, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Scolaire and SportsGuy17 for helping with 3rd opinion. Now the article is much better because the reader is not confused by an incomprehensible dialogue of politicians saying nothing. Moscow Connection: do not complain about wasting time, because if you listened to my arguments, it would save you time. I was also not happy that I had to explain quite obvious things. It is not the first time that you argue with my personality instead of with Wikipedia rules. However, you do not have to worry about me. Besides helping with this issue I did quite a lot of work in English Wiktionary. Unfortunately my time for Wikiprojects is limited and so I cannot do everything. Despite that I decided to devote at least part of it to remove the non-sense from otherwise good article. I gave the reasons, than other people gave the reasons, and it is a pity that you do not try to understand what they say so that you learnt how to avoid such things in other articles too. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 08:32, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I've added a bit on the exhibition to the Serov article. Scolaire (talk) 12:37, 20 February 2017 (UTC)