 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Plagiarism?
edita large portion of this article is taken, word-for-word, from the Encyclopædia Britannica article on Metaphysical painting. (https://www.britannica.com/art/Metaphysical-painting#ref35324 ) i was, at first, just going to put a couple sentences in quotation marks and add an in-line reference, but the more i read of the EB article, the more word-for-word copying i saw, and i realized that, basically, most of this article would then need to be in quotes.
the paragraph that begins with "While Futurism staunchly rejected the past," i can't find on EB, although it is found, word-for-word, on many other sites (many of them "wiki" sites). i've noticed this copying between "wiki" sites before, but in this case, there doesn't seem to be any "original source." because it sounds/reads like the direct quotes taken from EB, i suspect it was taken from some article there, but i haven't found it.
at any rate, i don't know the WP, or the WMF, rules for copying/plagiarism. i know that the EB article is cited as a Source here, but citing something as a Source usually doesn't mean one can simply copy large chunks of text from said Source without actual attribution. but, as i've mentioned, i don't know how WP or WMF deals with this. my experience is with 'scholarly' papers (college or professional), and newspaper journalism.
so i'm noting it here, in case some editing needs to be done to bring this article into compliance.Colbey84 (talk) 23:48, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for spotting this. The EB copyvio been cleaned up; the rest is in progress. Ewulp (talk) 06:26, 2 September 2017 (UTC) ...and now complete. Ewulp (talk) 08:13, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Proposed move
editThe suggestion by User: Daask to rename this page "Metaphysical painting" (diff) seems sound; it's the literal translation of the Italian Pittura metafisica and in my experience is the more common term. Do we have a consensus? Discussion is invited here. Ewulp (talk) 22:00, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
- Support. Google Ngram Viewer shows metaphysical painting as the clearly more dominant term. Note that the movement was in the 1910s, so a significant number of instances of "metaphysical art" may be unrelated, as the prevalence prior to 1910 shows. Google Scholar search for metaphysical chirico shows both terms are in use. A cursory review seems to me to indicate "metaphysical painting" may be more common. Daask (talk) 23:15, 11 April 2020 (UTC)