Talk:Robert Mihaly

Notability tag

Although I'm no expert, and I may well be missing something, I notice that most of the references for this article are uncheckable and those that are checkable seem to have no mention of Mihaly. Perhaps more worryingly, whilst not the sole benchmark of notability, I also find only 101 unique Google hits [1] - which would be very (very) unusual for a notable artist. I'm sure the article has been created in good faith and I like some of the work; but this chap just is not a notable artist and so would not appear to warrant an article. Are there any major exhibitions which could be referenced? Setwisohi (talk) 18:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I can't find an example of a "checkable" reference that doesn't mention Mihaly(?) A number of the references are notable level: Washington Post, Wall street Journal, Houston Chronicle, The News and Observer, Sunday Tribune of Ireland.Michelangeloh (talk) 19:29, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, reference 3 doesn't mention him. Reference 4 doesn't seem to exist. The Duke Chronicle does mention him - but it's a university papers isn't it? Not a major national. So it doesn't really seem to add much to the claims for notability. I cant find him in the Augusta chronicle either. Nor is he in the Irish tribune. The libertariannation source doesnt exist... and so on. Setwisohi (talk) 20:34, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Notability tag

I appreciate your feedback. I hope to address some of the reference issues mentioned.

Re: reference 3, I attempted to update it to:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1154/is_n8_v76/ai_6537540/pg_5

I presume I am making a programming error since the address works only if typed into a web browser.

Re: reference 4, the desired link is this:

http://www.oakdalecemetery.org/docs/Oakdale_newsletter_summer2007.pdf

The link fails when addressed like this:

http://www.oakdalecemetery.org/docs/Oakdale_newsletter_summer2007.pdf;col1

I thought the ";col1" was necessary for the link to function, but this is obviously not correct. Could this be why the links are not functioning? Any assistance would be much appreciated. Carolinequarrier (talk) 01:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: the notability of the Duke Chronicle, the publication is sufficiently notable for its own wiki article. Carolinequarrier (talk) 01:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carolinequarrier (talk • contribs) 22:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Wall Street Journal

The Wall St Journal seems to be the reference upon which this article really turns. But we can't check it. It ostensibly makes reference to Mihaly being the artist in residence at the cathedral and to the controversy there as well as to his having major clients or sponsors. Other than that, the majority of references are to college newspapers with the odd brief passing mention in other newspapers (of the gargoyles being removed). What I don't understand is why - if Mihaly has these important clients and so on - there is no more substantial coverage of him on Google, for example. Has he had any major exhibitions? It seems not. Does he have any significant coverage - which we can check - in art journals or reliable online art sites? Same again, nope. No auction news either.... Hmmm... Could the editor/creator of the article perhaps point me in the direction of such? Setwisohi (talk) 10:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I can check it, via Nexis. Here is the sum-total of what Nexis gives for this article: "National Cathedral (Washington, DC) dismissed Robert Mihaly, artist-in-residence at cathedral's stonecutting studio, in dispute over Mihaly's work on giant marble angel; Cathedral complained that 24,000-pound block of Vermont marble Mihaly has deposited on cathedral grounds was an eyesore and a liability hazard; Mihaly, who plans work-in-progress for private patron in native North Carolina to be his masterpiece, is suing for wrongful termination, seeking $5,000 in damages including cost of moving unfinished sculpture; drawing" WSJ 29/9/1997, p. A1, by Richard Schmidt.

Unless I'm missing something, it's hard to see how this supports the extensive use made of it in the article. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Very useful information. Thanks! That tells quite a different story from the events in the article. Hardly Michelangelo is it? I'd say that unless the creator of the article can provide some more telling references, this looks like an article in need of an AfD to me. Setwisohi (talk) 11:24, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

This is not the text of the full WSJ 29/9/1997 article. The full article is 1,168 words. I accessed it through a library online archive. If you do not have such access I can post the entire text here. The article was center column, 1st page directly below the "S" in Wall Street. Also there are two references to The News and Observer whose circulation wiki cites as 211,245. Each were lengthy articles, above the fold, page 1 of their sections. One N&O article was on the art/the artist. The other N&O article was on Castle Mont Rouge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michelangeloh (talk • contribs) 20:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

But the WSJ is not coverage of Mihaly as an artist. It's just coverage of the argument with the cathedral. Apart from the argument with the cathedral (and another argument over gargoyles) Mihaly has no coverage in the national press as an artist. His art makes no appreciable impact at all. Also, still no explanation as to why a supposedly reputable artist has only a hundred odd g-hits. He may be a bit of a local celebrity - but he's certainly not a notable national or international artist. Setwisohi (talk) 20:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Notability of the News and Observer: It seems noteworthy that the paper has won three Pulitzer Prizes, an American award that is regarded as the highest national honor in newspaper journalism. Though a regional paper, this national recognition makes it a strong source.

Further, the argument that a subject is not notable based on failure to meet some of the criteria that can/may be used to establish notability is not a valid one. The number of google hits and variety of national/international press are not obligatory qualifying criteria, but are examples of criteria that can establish notoriety/notability.

Carolinequarrier (talk) 21:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC)carolinequarrier

Re: WSJ article The subject of the wikipedia article is Robert Mihaly, not just as an artist, sculptor, and painter, but as a notable individual.

Carolinequarrier (talk) 21:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)carolinequarrier

Yes, but he's neither a notable artist nor a notable invididual. Where are the major exhibtions? Where the national reviews of his work? Why is he not on Google? All of these questions need answering with sources not just debate. I dont make the rules, they are what makes Wikipedia. Please offer the sources which show these things. Setwisohi (talk) 23:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Is there a notability standard specifically for artists? I'm inclined to think there isn't a problem with WP:N here. If articles on artists are supposed to meet a different standard, that's fine -- but I can't find a separate guideline. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The first proposed criteria for artistic notability was not passed (see [2]) - but if used as a benchmark, Mihaly clearly falls a long way short of the mark. As that set was not passed, however, the recommendation is to use the same criteria as that which "creative professionals" are judged by (see, [3]). Again Mihaly clearly falls a long way short of the mark. In other words, as an artist, he's just not notable. I'll move this to AfD to let other people decide whether or not he is notable in himself? Setwisohi (talk) 18:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

EVERY RUNNER-UP for the the last SIX YEARS on America's NEXT Top Model model has an INDIVIDUAL wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ANTM#Cycles Although I'm no expert myself, it is hard for me to think a serious artist like Mihaly "clearly falls a long way short" of ALL these "creative professionals".Michelangeloh (talk) 22:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Previously Proposed Notability Criteria in Wikipedia for Artists:

It is not relevant whether the subject meets "proposed criteria for artistic notability" which "failed to attain consensus within the wikipedia community". Carolinequarrier (talk) 22:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)carolinequarrier

Re: Criteria for Notability of Creative Professionals:

1) Addressing Setwihosi 23:07, 1 April 2009 entry - Please see Additional Criteria in Notability for Creative Professionals that you reference. To quote, "Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included."

2) Possible qualifying criteria for creative professionals: The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument. Wade's Angel, Castle Mont Rouge, and perhaps even a mausoleum may qualify this artist under this criterion. Carolinequarrier (talk) 22:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)carolinequarrier

The 'Castle'

There are several problems with this; i. No-one 'plus a few mates' can make a castle in one lifetime. It used to take several hundred people two or three generations to make a castle. ii. The scale is questionable. How tall are those trees supposed to be? If the 'Castle' was full size, that would make those trees many hundreds of feet tall. Which they are not. iii. Having worked with stone myself, I can assure you it would take many hundreds of trailerloads of stone to make a 'castle' - probably several thousand. This article claims it took just four. That's just not possible.

Overall, I reckon I know the truth about this 'Castle'. The roof isn't right. Those are not real tiles. The window openings are model like. But fair enough, it's a nice leg-pull and quite attractive. Setwisohi (talk) 21:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The windows show it is the size of a normal house. I don't think there is any defined size for a "castle". Ty 11:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe. Maybe not. Personally I have doubts that this is even as big as a normal house. Setwisohi (talk) 13:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I have been there, and it is the size of a large house. Castles are not defined by size. Some European castles are quite small. Anywhoo, now there is a page for the castle at Castle Mont Rouge. -- 2602:306:C53C:C0E0:2954:44A6:3A12:4111 (talk) 21:07, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Two Mihalys?

Just a quick question, are there two Robert Mihaly's here? Because on the one hand we have, allegedly, an extrememly efficient and reasonably competent sculpturer (capable of making mausoleums, statues and castles all by his early 40's) and yet, on the other hand, he produces stuff like those "paintings", the toothbrush and the rag doll. I've never, ever, seen an artist so capable on the one hand and so utterly inept on the other. I'm guessing he has off days. Am I right? Or is there some other explanation which could perhaps effect the content of this article... Setwisohi (talk) 22:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

That's editorial POV and not at all relevant. Ty 11:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Ha, maybe so. But it's true all the same. No-one who could produce the Fallsoleum (if indeed he has) would then produce the doll thing or the toothbrush. You know enough about art to know that - just as well as I do. Setwisohi (talk) 13:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Two Setwisohis? On 06April, Setwisohi Setwisohi, on 06April, you removed a statement from the article that addresses this question about which you he is so confused express so much confusion. This edit by you should could be reverted for clarity. He claims You stated 06April "there's nothing atypical about the conceptual art; but now, it's so atypical it's impossible? Carolinequarrier (talk) 14:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)Carolinequarrier (talk) 16:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

The only atypical thing about Mihaly's conceptual art is that it is not conceptual. He doesn't even seem to know what conceptual art is. So I took that out because it was comical. And I wouldn't put that back if I were you. Not unless you actually want to be laughed at.... On another subject, please stop referring to me in person as you have done here. (Again! Having already been warned about it). I am not the subject of an article. I haven't put myself or my "art" in the firing line for editing. I know that most of what is in this article is BS. As do you. But others have bought into your story. I'd leave it at that if I were you. Setwisohi (talk) 16:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Setwisohi, I've made adjustments to my comment above per your response out of respect for your wishes to be treated professionally. I've included strikethroughs for convenience of review. I am not into edit-warring. The adjustments you made to the article over the last 24 hours could be reverted upon review against the citations by more experienced editors. Carolinequarrier (talk) 16:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou for that. I've also removed the bold. (It was not necessary). As to the edits: they could indeed be reverted. On the other hand I could just as easily make some more - for example, to the claim to have been 'artist in residence' at the cathedral, which I happen to know is not quite the truth of the matter. But, as I said above, others are convinced by you/the article/the sources and I have neither the desire nor the inclination to re-open that debate. So, overall, as I said before, I'd leave it as it is if I were you. For both of us, there are plenty of other articles on Wikipedia to work on. Good luck with them! Setwisohi (talk) 18:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Once again, I have no intentions of reverting your edits. I invite more experienced editors to review the modifications you made to this article from 06Apr2009 - 08Apr2009. A review against the citations for verification would restore much of the information you censored/assaulted (and I use the latter term sparingly as your own editorial comments have been very subjective). Carolinequarrier (talk) 18:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you "jog on" as the English put it? You have an article about yourself. Which you youself created. Which is contrary to Wiki procedure as far as I am aware. It made scores of spurious claims - some of which remain and some of which have been deleted. And those which were not wholly spurious are substantial exaggerations. (eg. artist in residence). You know that and I know that. So overall I'd be pretty chuffed with that if I were you. Or do you have to have the last word? Move on. Setwisohi (talk) 19:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

You are making a accusations and innuendos but not providing proof. If material is in a reliable source it is valid. If it isn't then it can be removed. Please be specific about your points in line with wikipedia policy, namely WP:V. Personal opinions are not helpful. Ty 11:14, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikiquette request

Perhaps it would be best to request Wikiquette. Discussion on talk pages is to be centered on article improvement. It is not a place for emotional, partisan wrangling. An Editor's personal opinion of what is good or bad art is irrelevant. WP articulates a widely respected policy in this regard.[4] So hopefully we can henceforth stick to facts of references and citations and the party that's given us “Hardly Michelangelo,” “supposedly reputable,” "stuff like those ‘paintings,’" “No-one who could produce the Fallsoleum (if indeed he has) would then produce,” “He doesn't even seem to know what conceptual art is,” “so utterly inept,” etc. can end the static of this ongoing hostility to the article's referent.Michelangeloh (talk) 05:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Such remarks are not acceptable. Ty 11:17, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Wrong. This is the talk page - not the article itself - and critical opinion is pretty commonplace on talk pages. Does what I have said relate to improvement of the article? Yes. To recap, from that critical point of view (as in art critic) I see a miscellany of works in this article which are not, in my opinion, the work of one artist. The 'Dickensian' statue, for example, is almost certainly not the work of the same artist who might have made the Fallsoleum. And certainly not by the same hand that made the toothbrush piece. There are also faults in the text and in the facts as stated. For example, Mihaly was never an artist in residence at the Cathedral. He was merely involved in a program about being artist in residence. Setwisohi (talk) 13:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The September 29,1997 front-page, above-the-fold, center-column WSJ twice refers to Mihaly as Artist in Residence. Is there really no recourse on WP for a spreader of disinformation like Setwisohi? He makes baseless, un-cited claims. Another in this very post is the claim that Mihaly's artworks, as described in significant newspapers, are not his. This is all sand-in-the-gears of a discussion of sourced information. Highly unprofessional. Early he removed the statement in the article that said Mihaly's breadth was unique. Setwisohi claimed it was quite typical. Now he claims Mihaly's mastery of various techniques and styles is so unique as to be impossible. His constant, unreferenced attacks on this article certainly rise to the level of vandalism. Even on a discussion page there should be an understanding that we proceed from citable sources, rather than the mysticism, bias, or general speculation that seems to underlie Setwisohi's claims.Michelangeloh (talk) 16:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Michelangeloh, you could request dispute resolution per policies WP:D [5] and WP:turnip[6]. Carolinequarrier (talk) 18:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect to Setwisohi, a clear understanding of the principles on which Wikipedia works would indicate that "works in this article which are not, in my opinion, the work of one artist" is not the sort of thing required. The opinions of Wikipedia editors are not the criteria on which decisions are to be made. The criteria are to do with verifiable coverage in independent reliable sources. The use of such expressions as "I see" and "in my opinion" indicate a failure to grasp this point. Then consider "The 'Dickensian' statue, for example, is almost certainly not the work of the same artist who might have made the Fallsoleum". What are the grounds for saying this? If there is a significant amount of independent, published coverage by recognised authoritative sources expressing this opinion, then that is a justification for mentioning the view in the article; if there is also not a significant amount of independent, published coverage by recognised authoritative sources expressing the contrary opinion, then that is grounds for rewriting the article to reflect only that one opinion. However, the fact that one Wikipedia editor, or ten Wikipedia editors, or a thousand Wikipedia editors, believe that view is not grounds for any change. That is how Wikipedia works. I personally do not know enough about Robert Mihaly to judge how notable he is, but I know what the Wikipedia criteria for notability are, and it is quite clear that they are not being followed here. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't have much to add to that. But on your point "What are the grounds for saying this?" - I use the same judgement as any art critic would use when assessing whether or not two pieces are by the same hand. Naturally there are no sources available when making such a judgement. It is more a professional opinion. And, in mine, these works are not by the same hand. Setwisohi (talk) 21:25, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

But the whole point is that in a Wikipedia article you are not supposed to be expressing a critical judgement: that is the point of the original research policy. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:56, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Request for Editor(s) Reversal and/or feedback of Setwisohi Change #1

I would like to begin asking for feedback on many well-referenced deletions to this article made by Setwisohi. Change #1: Setwisohi asks, “where is the source showing Edwards as patron?” [7] Here are two references. There are others. ref one: Edwards,Elizabeth (September 2006). Saving Graces: Finding Solace and Strength from Friends and Strangers. P.141-2 (includes photo of sculpture) Broadway. ISBN 0767925378. ref two: News and Observer, August 5, 1997,[8]Michelangeloh (talk) 05:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Request for Editor(s) Reversal and/or feedback of Setwisohi Change #2

Setwisohi changed the Castle Mont Rouge description to “miniature.”[9] This is contradicted by cited source, The News and Observer/Durham News which describes CMR as a “four-story building” and “spacious” in its Nov.3-4, 2007 cover story, which included 4 photos, interior and exterior.[10] and [11] CMR was featured in at least 4 other articles over a 2 year period.[12] Each of these 5 separate publications included photos. 2 were cover stories. Setwisohi's remarks such as “leg-pull,” “scale is questionable,” “model like,” “very small scale building,” and “miniature” seem inapplicable at best. Unless citations can be produced, the “miniature” edit should be reversed. Additionally, at the time of this change Setwisohi argued with statements made by a journalist regarding what he considers the architectural style, "i cant see how this very small scale building resembles a rhine..."[13] Is not Setwisohi's personal art analysis an unacceptable reason to remove cited references? Michelangeloh (talk) 05:48, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the fact that it is only small has something to do with all of that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.233.212.12 (talk) 22:14, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Angel-2.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Angel-2.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests May 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Angel-2.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 04:36, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:59, 26 June 2013 (UTC)