Janefirst2000

Welcome!

Hello, I would really appreciate some clarification here.

I did not realize that on Wikipedia a family member was not supposed to update a section with historically documented information. I am a biographer of my Grandfather, who was a significant American Jewish Politician and Judge, in Pennsylvania. What is at issue is the following: Anti-Semitic historical omission, and misstatements of fact about Herbert Cohen and Family.

If I can provide all of the historical documentation to another contributor, who could update the section on Herbert Cohen with the biographical facts and references I provide, that would be a way for the section on my Grandfather to be resolved, accurately, and show the depth of his career.

My intention was not to eulogize a family member. Writing historical facts about a key political figure in PA State History was the intention. I began collecting historical documentation of his life and work at the York Heritage and Trust Museum, in 2016, where there are many articles and a large archive about Herbert Cohen's political and judicial career, and family.

Previously, the brief Wikipedia blurb contained very little information about his career.

There is also a strange link (that I did not post) at the top of the page to the Cohen Baronets, who have nothing to do with Herbert Cohen.

Additionally, there is a link to an article in the York Daily Record, "Noted York Family...," published in 2007, that cites a tract from a History of York County, that contains error. Donn Cohen, Herbert Cohen's son, attended Harvard Law School, not the University of Pennsylvania. There were other historical ommissions in that article/history of The Cohens. The link to that "reference" should clarify those errors.

As many are aware and can attest to, Herbert Cohen was a prominent, highly respected and impactful political figure in the State, and did achieve National Prominence. As stated, there is a large archive covering his life in the York Heritage and Trust Museum, as well as on PA government sites and in many newspapers, not only in Pennsylvania. There is also a book, HEX, by Arthur Lewis, that prominently features one of Herbert Cohen's early cases, and him, and his political and legal career. The brief Wikipedia article does not represent this accurately.

Secondly, my writing is original. I do not plagiarize. I am a published writer.

Both visual and written work by me is Copywritten in the U.S. Library of Congress, and I can provide Wikipedia with proof of that.

In fact, I have been the victim of IP Theft, myself.

In fact, if I submitted what I wrote about Herbert Cohen and LACE, to the Library of Congress, I am sure that it would be approved. So I would appreciate it if everyone at Wikipedia understands, clearly, that I write the content myself.

Thirdly, in terms of the LACE addition, my art was exhibited at LACE in 1988, in an exhibition that was libeled in the publication Klik Magazine, in 1988. This is documented.

I am certainly not defaming anyone. I was the target of the defamation.

I am also supporting and defending the integrity of LACE and other Artists who show there, because in libeling an Artist in one of their exhibitions, LACE itself was being libeled in Klik. If you would like historical documentation, witnesses, and references from both CalArts and LACE, that can be provided, as well as the libelous article in Klik.

I do understand the importance of not self-promoting on Wikipedia, and agree with that.

I have no intention of putting up a page about myself, of course.

On other hand, it is defamatory to omit portions of art history that are relevant to contemporary art.

The current section on LACE only covers a narrow portion of that museum's history.

The section on LACE only provides examples of exhibitions from 1999 onward. The Annuale was a prominent show. The section on LACE not only leaves out the show that I was in, it fails to mention American Artists of great importance to LACE and to post-modernism.

Morover, it is an art historical omission, and does a disservice to LACE, to not cover what occurred in the press with regard to the 3rd Annuale.

Journalistic ethics, ethical art history, and the post-modern philosophical issues that Artists at LACE have addressed, are the issue here, not my ego.

The reason for covering the libel in Klik that occurred in 1988, is to defend LACE and all Artists from such defamation, not to self-promote.

I am happy to rewrite the portion on the LACE page, so that it does not cover my work specifically, and simply covers the 3rd Annuale, in 1988, cites the Artists in it, (which I had already done,) and cites the fact that the Klik article about it, "LA Art," included libelous statements, along with valid documentation of that fact.

One of the foremost themes in post-modern art and in exhibitions at LACE has been to deconstruct mediated mythologies and media fictions. It is therefore relevant to cover the 1988 LACE Annuale and the ironic fact that that exhibition became the target of a media fiction.

I have a copy of that article and all documentation.

I want to also restate, again, that it is odd for the section on LACE to only list shows from 1999, onward, at the bottom. That neglects to represent over two decades of art history, on display at LACE, during the 80s and 90s.

Again, my writing is original at all times, and anything I stated is documented by institutions, and in respected newspapers, as well.

I look forward to hearing your reply.

Thank you, Jane Rubin

Janefirst2000 (talk) 17:05, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Jane Rubin

Hello, Janefirst2000, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or , and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:05, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Janefirst2000. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places, or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic, and it is important when editing Wikipedia articles that such connections be completely transparent. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, we ask that you please:

• avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your family, friends, school, company, club, or organization, as well as any competing companies' projects or products;
• instead, you are encouraged to propose changes on the Talk pages of affected article(s) (see the {{request edit}} template);
• when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
• avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or to the website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
• exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Please take a few moments to read and review Wikipedia's policies regarding conflicts of interest, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies.

Also please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:05, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

October 2017

Hi Janefirst2000, just as Wikipedia is not the place to eulogize family, neither is it the place to pursue a self-promotional agenda while defaming others, as you've done here [1]. If such edits continue, either by this or related IP accounts, I'll ask that all be blocked. I hope you'll take the time to read our guidelines and edit in a neutral manner, without adding copyright violation text and supporting all content with WP:RELIABLE sources. Thank you, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:22, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:24, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

• This refers to persistent WP:COI edits, copyright violation of a 1970 newspaper article, as well as aforementioned personal agenda. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:24, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello,

Please be clear:

I never plagiarize.

I am a published Visual Artist and Writer. A number of pieces by me are in The Library of Congress. I also wrote art criticism for national magazines, after completing my MFA at CalArts in 1988.

Everything I posted about Herbert B. Cohen was from verifiable sources, such as PA Government sites, newspapers, and the book HEX, by Arthur Lewis, which covers his career and a famous early case that he fought, well documented in the news.

I had included links to substantiate every fact.

The York Country Heritage and Trust Museum has a large, historical archive about my Grandfather. I was there last year and have many articles about him. There are also multiple institutional web sites with documentation of his work and career, not only the PA House of Representatives web site. I have many news clippings from the archive, that I can provide.

Here is one example from the PA Attorney General's Office site:

https://www.attorneygeneral.gov/uploadedFiles/MainSite/Content/TheOffice/OfficialAttorneyGeneralOpinions/1955_1956_AG_Cohen_McBride_opinions.pdf

I am happy to send all of my sources to you, here, if you want to check it yourself.

I would like the section on my Grandfather to represent the historical depth of his career, as he was a significant person in the history of state politics, and had national impact as a politician and judge.

This is not to eulogize a family member.

This is to record history and represent the ideals, and ethics, to which he contributed.

Lastly, in the current section on Herbert Cohen, there is an irrelevant link at the top of the page to the "Cohen Baronets" that has absolutely nothing to do with Herbert Cohen. I do not know who placed that there. But it is misleading and should not be there at all.

Please reply, and I will provide you with all documentation and sources for what I had posted. I will not repost any of it, at this time, but would like to have the section revised and expanded to include these historical facts. IF another contributor does this, that would be fine.

On the topic of LACE: I did not add to it to self-promote. And I certainly will not publish a page about myself.

The section on LACE, Los Angeles Contemporary Exhibitions, omits a great deal of LACE's history. It only cites exhibitions from 1999 onward, failing to cover over two decades of art history, from the 80s and 90s.

Additionally, the 3rd Annuale, in 1988, was a major show at LACE and it was libeled in Klik Magazine. I have a copy of the article, of course. It is relevant to art history to mention this, and it is a statement of fact.

Post-modern Artists at LACE have often deconstructed media fictions.

It is ironic and relevant to art history, that LACE (and myself) became the target of a media fiction in Klik, in 1988.

I do not know who was suggesting that I was "defaming" or "vandalizing."

That is wrong to say about me, and I would appreciate it if my integrity were respected.

Like my Grandfather, I maintain integrity at all times, in all things I do.

I was the target of defamation in Klik, in their coverage of that exhibition.

I would like to see something in the LACE section about the libel in Klik and the important topic of journalistic ethics, but it does not have to mention anything about my art, specifically.

Rather, it could cite all of the Artists in the show, (which I had already done,) and the libelous Klik article, with documentation of that article.

With all due to respect to veteran contributors, here, I have been commended in print both for my originality and my honesty.

The current LACE Section is narrow and does not represent the history of post-modern art shown at LACE since the late 70s, in an accurate way.

I can also provide the documentation of the Annuale and the libelous article in Klik to another contributor, to post.

It was not about me. It was about ethics and history.

I look forward to your reply.

Best regards,

Jane Rubin

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:38, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

• Hello, Janefirst2000, welcome, again, to wikipedia. I'm sorry that your edits to your grandfather's page have caused a bit of a stir. Unfortunately, they were not completely in line with a few of our most important policies. Yes, we do have them-! I know lots of people think we are a repository for all the world's knowledge, but, in an attempt to maintain encyclopaedic discretion, we actually do have certain conditions for inclusion here. The most important, for this purpose, are probably that a) everything needs to be cited to a reliable source- that is, a piece of secondary matreial that has been written independently of the subject. I have no doubt that what you know of your grandfather is true; but, another thing that leads on from the sources, is that what we include must be verifiable, rather than the absolute truth. Thirdly, there is the question of neutrality (and its cousin, 'conflicts-of-interest'). Now, there's absolutely little harm in you editing that article (even in spite of your close connection to the subject), as long as you can manage to stick to the previous two points- that is, source your additions and do so impartially. But unfortuantely, if you don't, then the conflict-of-interest becomes overly apparent and your edits are likely to be seen as unreliable. Perhaps most importantly is copyright- as you know, in real life , this can have legal implications and I'm afraid it's no differnt here. In fact, Wikipedia is probably more strict about it than anywhere else on the internet. Breaches of it you see can get us into a (worse-case scenario) lot of trouble. I'm not suggesting you're doing it on purpose, just that extra care needs to be taken to attribute the source of information, not to copy others' text, and to be careful when paraphrasing them. There's a discussion taking place elsewhere- pop in and explain your ideas- as a new editor I assure you you will be cut a lot of slack! Wikipedia is the sort of lace that looks kind of easy on the outside, but is rather a labyrinth of rules and regs the deeper into it you get. Well done on taking the plunge though. I tell you what, since you have a sandbox to experiment in, how about I move your material there so you can work on it in your own time, and at your own pace? That way it is incubated from other people editing it (although you are always free to call upon other editors for advice and commentary when you like)- and the good thing is, that on Wikipedia there is no deadline!. Sorry about all the blue links- they go to other Wikipedia information pages; they're important to read to garner an overview of what's important around here. Like I said, we have plenty of rules I'm afraid... Any further questions, feel free to leave me a message! But like I said, pop into that conversation that's taking place elsewhere, if you can. Cheers! Take care, — fortunavelut luna 17:18, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

My talk page

Hello Janefirst2000,

I have responded to your message on my talk page. You can see your original message and my reply at the very bottom of my talk page, which is the proper place for new conversations. I am willing to assist you if you will commit to following our policies and guidelines. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:06, 9 October 2017 (UTC)