" 
 == Royal Statistical Society - unreliable source? == 

 User Modernist had deleted the link to an article from Royal Statistical Society magazine, calling it an unreliable source 

 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abstract_expressionism&action;=historysubmit&diff;=438457789&oldid;=438456006 

 So what is reliable?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by     
 :Its also spam...   
 What is spam? Any scholarly article which dissagrees with your opinion?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by     
 ::Actually your website and blog is spam...   
 That is not my website, but belongs to Royal Statistical Society. In addition it is not a blog, but a magazine.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by     
 :::They have too many advertisements and pleas for comments - blog like, and ads for subscribers, but most importantly your article is garbage - its about chimps, elephants, and other animals and kids who paint like the abstract expressionists - oh wow! Some people (67%) even think that the major abstract expressionists are better than the chimps and the elephants - WOW!!!!...   
 The only valid objection to linking a blog is that anyone can post anything he likes in his blog. And this is an edited magazine. The objection that articles allow comments and that this somehow makes it a blog can not be taken seriously. Regarding ads - almost all popular websites have them. And those sites already linked in the Wikipedia article do have ads.  I picked two at random:  
 Ref. 17 has Google ads, 
 Ref. 19 advertises exhibition, which asks £10 for admission. 

 The  article that I linked is discussed widely in the media (see, for example, http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/26882/ ) and therefore meets Wikipedia criteria for importance.  
 So far you did not offer any logical objections to its conclusions.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by     

 There is a lot of repetition in this article (i.e. mentioning several times that some think Abstract Expressionism was ""nihilistic."")  To say that deKooning's Women paintings were ""grotesque"" is subjective and judgmental, and not consistent with the artist's vision of that body of work. This may have been the opinion of some critics, however as it is written in this article, the description is not attributed to a specific critic, making it sound like a general comment to be taken as fact.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by   •    

 ==Question== 
 ""As an example, in 1958, Mark Tobey ""became the first American painter since Whistler (1895) to win top prize at the Venice Biennale. New York's two leading art magazines were not interested. Arts mentioned the historic event only in a news column and ARTnews (Managing editor: Thomas B. Hess) ignored it completely. The New York Times and Life printed feature articles.""[9]"" 

  
 Footnote 9 is not specified with a page number and in my opinion is incorrect. I read the whole catalogue and could not find the quotation by Seitz! Who made this common or where is the quotation orginally from? 

 ASH257  — Preceding unsigned comment added by