Talk:Rebecca Chamberlain

BLP Sources tag

The article remains tagged for Biography of living people sources because:

• There are several uses of a MySpace citation, which is not reliable because it's a social media site which has no editorial control. See WP:Reliable sources

 Done Out.--Aichik (talk) 20:52, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

• The artist's CV, which is not a neutral, objective source.

Took out two of three uses. Keeping in part where artist talks about her own work. I think that's allowed. Same info referenced with a second source too.--Aichik (talk) 16:18, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

In addition, the gallery citation would be better to replace with a more reliable secondary source. The source for the daughter is a merchant's site and does not cover the information that was being cited.

It's not a gallery. Examine the site more carefully: Like I said, it's a nonprofit. Staying.--Aichik (talk) 16:18, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Without reliable secondary sources to replace the information at MySpace, the article subject's CV and the merchant site, then it should be removed. See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons for information about writing articles about living people. I hope this helps, there are a lot of guidelines to sort through. If I can help, let me know.--CaroleHenson (talk) 02:34, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

What should be removed? The information, right? Not the article. Please make this more clear. Took out merchant site info.--Aichik (talk) 16:12, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Regarding your changes and responses:

• I don't see anywhere on the http://www.vijfde-seizoen.nl/en/artists/rebecca_chamberlain_guy_richards_smit page or within the http://www.vijfde-seizoen.nl that the site is a non-profit, but I'll take your word for it.

It's here. Stichting are nonprofit foundations in the Netherlands.--Aichik (talk) 21:04, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

• Social media - MySpace and Facebook are absolutely not reliable sources. The cited information should go if you cannot find a reliable secondary source for that information. Now we have the addition of facebook

 Done These are out and have been replaced. --Aichik (talk) 21:04, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

• The artist's CV is really not great. Is there really no other source of information other than her CV?

Okay, will take out.--Aichik (talk) 19:38, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Because of the type of information that is in dispute, this seems to be an issue of Conflict of interest and/or Original research, so I've tagged the article accordingly. It is such a great article, though, and I'm not quite sure what the issue is about removing the text that does not have reliable, secondary sources

• She is the daughter of Mary Leslie Jordan Chamberlain, a gardener, and Peter Aims Chamberlain, a sculptor, furniture designer, and retired art teacher. They moved to Rockport, Maine in 1997, after their daughters moved to New York City and Philadelphia. Chamberlain's younger sister, Martha, is a costume designer and dancewear designer for her own Philadelphia-based label Chamberlain Goods.

Took out alot of the details, but deleting more would leave a hole in that section, no? I think the fact that Martha is her sister is interesting, and mentioning her without mentioning the parents is weird.--Aichik (talk) 23:18, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

• The band describe themselves as "French pop / German pop / Italian pop"

 Done Out.--Aichik (talk) 19:48, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

• where she studied with, among other people, Lorraine Howes, in the school's apparel design department and at the Ravensbourne College of Design in London for her study-abroad semester, graduating in 1991.

Please take her word for this. I can to send to you examples of other contemporary artists resumes. They are highly unlikely to make up something like a semester abroad and the institutions in question will NOT have a record of them on their websites as they did not graduate. Actually, most institutions don't even release the names and dates of their graduates as this is considered personal information.--Aichik (talk) 19:48, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

The RISD article shows that she majored in Apparel Design, the RISD faculty link shows Lorraine Howes as head of the department and instructor for the required class for majors during the time Chamberlain was there.--Aichik (talk) 21:37, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

• She is known for her large-scale drawings of early modernist interiors made in ink on a material known as "vintage tracing cloth" that was developed around 1910 to be used as an architectural drafting paper. She started in ballpoint pen—blue or black Bic, diluted—applying it by brush.

• I bolded the bits from the Boston Globe, which are properly cited and can stay. A "she is known for" type of comment should absolutely come from a secondary source.

Large scale is in the TimeOut and NY Sun references, which leaves the bit about the vintage tracing cloth. You sure you want this out?--Aichik (talk) 20:20, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

From Art in America article: 1) "The paintings in this show use reproductions of mid-20th-century interiors as source material," 2)"Chamberlain created a central panel that reproduces [Josef] Albers's Steps (1932)," (Josef Albers was a Bauhaus (modernist) associate 3) "A 2004 single-panel piece, Reception, Chicago 1935–1936." See Modern architecture#Early Modernism for dates to match. All three point to early modernist interiors. --Aichik (talk) 21:37, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I am tagging the article as a potential conflict of interest because that's what it appears to be, rather than an objective third-party. It's a great article, and there so much good content aside from these bits. Are there really no good reliable secondary sources, for instance for the year she graduated, etc.? WP:Biographies of living people is probably the place where the guidelines hold the strictest test for application of reliable, secondary sources.

By the way, I guessing since just one was removed that it was an act of good faith, maintenance tags (like "better sources") should not be removed until they are resolved.--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:52, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay.--Aichik (talk) 19:33, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I think there are responses nested in here besides "Okay" - if so, do you mind, 1) indenting your responses whereever they are and then signing --~~~~ or 2) just putting all the responses below mine, indented. If so, that would be great. It's standard procedure. See Help:Using talk pages. Thanks, we'll get there, I'm sure!--CaroleHenson (talk) 19:41, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Pretty much fixed this as soon as I saw it. You have to apply this standard to yourself: Look at your note about Boston Globe.--Aichik (talk) 20:20, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm having such a hard time reading this and want to ensure that I get all the answers, so I'm putting my responses down here (but thanks so much for signing so that I could jump to each answer using "find":

• The short answer regarding social media: The answer to life, the universe and everything - Reliable sources. It's such a great article, why put in sources that then make a viewer question the validity of the other information? If there's not a good reliable source, then it's probably not notable information.--CaroleHenson (talk) 20:08, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
• I see your point about the schooling and studying abroad... I think that it's better to use info from the artist's website over a CV, but it's still a self-publishing issue and it would be much better if it had been printed in an article. I'll check around and if I find something I'll put it here.--CaroleHenson (talk) 20:08, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Sources

The following sources provide more information about the things we've talked about:

• Banai, Nuit (January 2010). "Boston: Rebecca Chamberlain, Judi Rotenberg Gallery". Artforum.com. -- Specifically

• "Rebecca Chamberlain's intensely labored, monochromatic ballpoint and litho ink drawings of modernist interiors may seem to fixate on the heroic staging of the relationship between form and function, but they are primarily engaged with capturing the residue of the lives that once animated the structures they depict. Though people are entirely absent, their affective traces permeate the artist's elegant renderings of domestic, administrative, and factory spaces; the effect is that of a missed encounter, as if the spectator has arrived a few moments too late and must reconstruct the departed protagonist's identity from only a handful of scattered clues."
• "Chamberlain adopts an undecided position, one that veers between a critique of modernism's tendency toward technocratic uniformity and glowing nostalgia for its aspiration to quasi-religious transcendence."

• You are so right about Ravensbourne / 1991 graduation. I tweaked the citation info a bit and added a cn tag for the information I didn't see covered by the source. It's a slippery slope using self-published info, but I think just used lightly and for graduation / school data can work.
• I see that there are more places without cn tags, so I am going to add some.--CaroleHenson (talk) 20:33, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

That is really not fair. Of course if you keep staring at any Wikipedia article you will everything. Have you looked at other artist's articles on Wikipedia?--Aichik (talk) 20:45, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Known for...

Regarding:

• She is known for her large-scale drawings of early modernist interiors made in ink on a material known as "vintage tracing cloth" that was developed around 1910 to be used as an architectural drafting paper. She started in ballpoint pen—blue or black Bic, diluted—applying it by brush.[3][5]

I bolded the bits from the Boston Globe, which are properly cited and can stay. A "she is known for" type of comment should absolutely come from a secondary source.

Please explain here how descriptions in the Boston Globe, Art in America, the New York Times, the NY Sun, TimeOut and Artforum do not constitute "She is known for". Large scale is in the TimeOut and NY Sun references, which leaves the bit about the vintage tracing cloth. You sure you want this out?--Aichik (talk) 20:20, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't want anything out that can be properly cited with reliable sources and is notable information for an WP:BLP article... not sure where that came from.

If you have a source that says she's "known for" it... then cite it. Boston Globe does describe this work... and I added that in the Talk:Rebecca Chamberlain#Sources section. I think it just needs a little wording so that there is no extrapolation.

Listen, I have let a couple comments slide where you are scolding me, but enough already, I am trying to help and your suggestion that I'm trying to take something out of the article just because I want to is insulting. I'm going to tag the places in the article where there is new content that is not cited and will stay away for a bit so that you can work on this without interruption.--CaroleHenson (talk) 20:44, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be insulting. Just thorough, like you. I cited Art in America, the New York Times, the NY Sun, TimeOut and Artforum for constituting "She is known for" and bolded it in the comment above because you missed it. I am not saying she's famous. I'm saying WHAT she's known FOR.--Aichik (talk) 20:48, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Again, If you have a source that says she's "known for" it... then cite it.

Of the papers you mentioned, only Boston Globe was there, I didn't "miss it" - and her biography isn't the right source for a "known for" type of comment. Your close, it just needs to be properly cited and worded so that there is not extrapolation. I will let you have some peace with the article and talk page for now.--CaroleHenson (talk) 20:54, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Like I've already said MULTIPLE TIMES AT THIS POINT: I cited Art in America, the New York Times, the NY Sun, TimeOut and Artforum for constituting "She is known for" and bolded it in the comment above because you missed it. I am not saying she's famous. I'm saying WHAT she's known FOR.--Aichik (talk) 21:01, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Forget it, it's not worth the fight.--Aichik (talk) 23:28, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm wondering if we're having a terminology issue here. What I mean is, add citations / references for the other newspapers following the "known for..." sentence(s)... so that it is properly cited in the article (i.e., with the Boston Globe).--CaroleHenson (talk) 02:09, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Third opinion and noticeboard postings

I'm going to try to make this briefer:

• I am a bit surprised that there was outreach to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive826#Blocking or warning an editor and then Wikipedia:Third opinion.
• This started when I stepped to help in the absence of User talk:SarahStierch to address User talk:SarahStierch#Your tagging of Rebecca Chamberlain for additional sources, who I've been working with on Women artist's articles.
• There were issues with the use of social media, the artist's CV and a couple of other things, which I thought would be resolved quickly once the editor was given some of the guidelines.
• Because I felt that the rhetoric was not always civil, I thought it best to finish up our ongoing conversation and then bow out for a bit.
• When editing a citation, I needed to add a citation needed tag for a portion of the information that was not cited by the source. Out of habit, while there I became more aware of the number of places where there was uncited information. I do a good deal of copy editing, most lately on Wikipedia:WikiProject Women artists/Notability concerns. I added more cn tags out of habit (automatic pilot mode) - even when I wrote that I was going to do it, in my mind it was a heads up... but just a continuation of the BLP sources discussion.
• On hind-sight, it would have been better to have the issues that we had discussed resolved first... and I thought we were getting close... it's been a tough day for me personally and I thought we just needed a bit of space to breathe.

Definitely. Automatic pilot is not helpful on a live article: No one likes to be challenged in real time while they are trying to address the issues you yourself brought up.--Aichik (talk) 16:30, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

It seems like this entire discussion has been a sensitive issue to the user, which caused me to wonder if this is a WP:COI issue.--CaroleHenson (talk) 01:52, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Nope, not COI issue: I feel attached only because I started the article. You started a bunch of articles too, Carole, from which you've incidentally erased Refimprove notes on. Should I put COI notes on those?--Aichik (talk) 16:26, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

This is most probably not a COI issue. The tag was an obvious misunderstanding and I hope both parties have nothing left to address now. Both of you here are editors with really significant contributions in this field. If this is resolved, I'm sure Aichik can go back to addressing these issues. Good day to both of you, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 17:49, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Yep, I removed the COI tag after seeing Aichik's message and will let Aichik address the issues.--CaroleHenson (talk) 18:18, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Third opinion

From request at WP:3O

Ideally, each and every part of an article needs to be attributed to a reliable source with the exception of everyday knowledge and common sense. Other than the Featured article criteria, this is rarely forced and it best to keep at least statements which are likely to be challenged well-sourced (specially in case of this WP:BLP). However, when any part of the content is actually challenged, it is expected that a reference be added in spite of how "obvious" the statement is—if a source says "A", the second says "B" and another says "C", by no means we can write "A + B = C", this counts as original research.

Unless there's some part of this discussion I didn't follow, the two things which are an issue here is whether the {{cn}} tagged content is weakly sourced and specifically, the statement "She is known for...", under the section "Visual art career". This statement carries a lot of weight here and needs to be immediately backed up inline citations, currently there is none for it—I think this is what the editor is trying to say: Assuming that the remaining inline citations of that para support this statement, they need to be moved to it. I've only been able to check reference 7, 8, 9, 10 and all contain just a passing mention of the subject. As such, no where do they say explicitly state, she is known for x...this makes all of them together a bit pointless there. If there are no sources for it, I would suggest the statement to be shortened by simply removing the "she is known for" part and just stating the rest (since the remaining seems referenced).

I request both parties to relax, remember that the one who challenges the content is not doing this with the sole intention of having it removed but to strengthen this article's overall references and quality by addressing the {{BLP-sources}} maintenance tag. I can still see an a reference to Facebook—this is almost never used and is not a reliable source. If there is indeed no references for the tagged content, it can be removed...this is a rule and there cannot be any argument for keeping weakly sourced/unsourced content. Sincerely, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 07:18, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look and your articulation. I feel like Carole and I are talking in different languages. My other concern is that she gave me another list of where citations are needed AFTER I started addressing these issues. Can editors even do this?! I don't think Jeff Koons or Richard Serra's articles have warranted this much referencing. And the fact that she was streaming commentary when I was trying to edit and accuses me of being uncivil: Isn't that weird?--Aichik (talk) 15:51, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm surprised that you are upset that I responded to your messages asking me to clarify or explain. Perhaps it was the quick responses to your adds to the talk page, hmmm, I can absolutely slow that down a LOT. It is very likely that we're not speaking the same language.

As you know from the postings to your user page, your tagging those articles was not helpful editing. In one case there were absolutely no uncited statements. In another, I think you misunderstood the placement of a citation at the end of a bulleted list and thought that meant the other bullets weren't cited - and there was one that had the source in the statement, which is now an inline citation, one of my early articles. But all the source info was there.

I wish I hadn't add the citation needed tags at that time - if I had known that this would have made you so upset I wouldn't have added them. The BLP sources at the top of the page covered it. Because it is upsetting so much - and the BLP sources covers it, I will remove the citation needed tags.

Good to know that it's not a COI issue. I absolutely get involved in the articles I work on, too, and so I understand wanting to tell as much of the story as possible.

Is it possible for this to be a "new day" where we let things go from yesterday?--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:44, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm glad to be of help. C'mon relax...there is really no hurry here. I'm sure Carole didn't mean to bombard you with work by continuously picking out flaws over here, she's merely took up an unresolved task and is a bit strict in scrutinising the refs as she has mentioned above. In any case, the issues that have been brought up, can be answered whenever you want...there is no deadline—after you do address all of them...this article would definitely have a strong foundation in terms of sourcing, increasing its potential for becoming possible future GA/FA. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 17:49, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Chamberlain Goods

I have added a failed verification tag to the content about Chamberlain Goods. The Facebook page (already marked as not a great source) does not say the owner's name at all, and the magazine article says "Martha Chamberlain's company", not Rebecca's. LadyofShalott 17:50, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I replaced the Facebook reference with a reference in Pointe magazine so let's quit harping on that. Chamberlain Goods IS HER SISTER'S COMPANY. THAT'S WHY IT'S IN THE FAMILY SECTION. Made this more clear and took out your note.--Aichik (talk) 19:27, 16 January 2014 (UTC)