Talk:Saatchi Gallery

message: Comment and discussion invited on the points below. Ty 08:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, probably better - I know most people don't like the things at all. Johnbod (talk) 00:33, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Timeline and controversies

message: User:Infoart made an edit, which was promotional in tone, as well as removing valid material. I toned down the promotional element, restored and added material, all referenced. Infoart's last edit then made significant changes with the initial edit summary, "information, better references, removal of unnecessary negative content, streamlining."  I have again restored and added material with refs and edited the promotional content. (The diff is since some technical material added by others re. image deletion and interwiki link.) What follows is my analysis of the last edit (as defined above) by Infoart. Please add comments underneath each point and/or to "overall comment" and/or the "conclusions" section. Ty 08:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. He/she has now been around for a good while but shows little sign of willingness to respect the purpose and policies of WP. Johnbod (talk) 10:13, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Excessive detail on the new gallery added to Charles Saatchi. Ty 13:17, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

text: I have posted at WP:AN/I#Saatchi Gallery complaints and legal threat, to which you may contribute. Regarding your specific points about article content, it would be easier to conduct a discussion if you made each point under the relevant topic in my post above. You have forgotten to log in with your user name. Ty 23:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have reinstated the Saatchi Gallery page to the version that was present before I made any ammendments whilst we continue to resolve the issue regarding edits and the Gallery's legal position. Infoart (talk) 16:11, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately that is not going to work.  If there are legal issues the gallery must handle then through the appropriate channel.  Ty has explained the reasons your edits were reverted.  If something is covered in major media sources, it needs to be included in this article per WP:NPOV.  --Leivick (talk) 17:45, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent edits by [[User:Infoart]]

message: *The history of the Saatchi Gallery is one of controversy. The gallery often creates it with provocative actions and gains considerable publicity from this. This should be reflected in wikipedia, as should the history of the gallery, not just the current image in a sanitised version, which Infoart is seeking to create.  This is a violation of WP:NPOV. Infoart has stated that he has written texts on artists for the Saatchi Gallery web site. He created around 150 articles on artists who all had in common being in the Saatchi collection, every article having an external link to the Saatchi site. This resulted in a massive cleanup of them by a task force from WikiProject Visual arts. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts/Infoart articles.  I think it may be time for Infoart to be cautioned not to edit the Saatchi Gallery article directly, but to post suggestions on the talk page for other editors to review. Ty 08:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. He/she has now been around for a good while but shows little sign of willingness to respect the purpose and policies of WP. Johnbod (talk) 10:13, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Excessive detail on the new gallery added to Charles Saatchi. Ty 13:17, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Conclusions

message: Thank you very much for your feedback re: the Saatchi Gallery page. Constructive criticism is always welcome, and still learning. Is much appreciated. I would like to clarify a few concerns however:
1) I do NOT work for the Saatchi gallery. I am an independent art critic who has researched the collection intensively for 10 years. Consequently I have very good relations with the gallery and access to very up-to-date and factually correct information concerning the collection.
2)The reasons deletions were made to some of the content of the site is because the Saatchi Gallery have contacted me directly raising concerns over how their gallery is being represented on Wiki. Far from being a balanced argument, or presentation of historical fact, some of the information in the article is little more than gossip mongering, reguritating sensational lore from tabloid-orientated press. It has nothing to do with the collection or gallery as a serious subject, and does not facilitate an understanding of the gallery as an important international institution, and for a large part, serves to undermine its integrity. 
The section comprising the quote from Damian Hirst is irrevlevant and inappropriate. Hirst is only one artist of the several thousand who have been featured in the collection over the years, and by no means the most important. The Hirst pieces referred to are no longer part of the collection. The representation of the "disagreement" over the Hirst exhibition is very biased, and is more relevant to Hirst as a topic than Saatchi. That there is a picture of Hirst placed next to it is again, off-topic.
Saatchi's quote re: YBAs as "footnotes in history" is taken entirely out of context. In this interview he is referring to an historical contextualisation of art in general -- in any generation there are but a very few who will be remembered in 20, 50, 100+ years time. The text as it appears in the article suggests that he is dismissing the YBAs which is incorrect and insulting.
And again, the reference to Stella Vine's work and Saatchi's response is out of context as well as misleading. Vine is a well-respected artist who has shown extensively internationally, and her work - like any other artist -- has received mixed reviews over the years. Vine launched her career off the back of the Saatchi show, which is something that would only be possible if her work was well received.
The David Lee quote is biased as well. Saatchi has never denied selling work -- however this is an integral part of his methodology of collecting. Saatchi is not and never has been a dealer.
The section on the County Hall court case, is again, a biased report. This was, in the grand scheme of things, a reatively minor event in the gallery's history, and is given too much emphasis, especialy considering there were many other factors not mentioned that instigated the move.
3) Additions about the Duke of York's HQ space are from a selection of the most recent publications about the site. Please do edit/expand if you feel this is biased. 
3) The Saatchi Gallery's concerns are that the Wiki page should accurately and factually represent their activities in an unbiased light. They are very concerned that people accessing gallery information through Wiki are being bombarded with out of date or incorrect information, and would like their Wiki entry to be very current and concise. The gallery has asked me to pass on the message that unless this page is cleaned up and edited they will remove all Saatchi related content from Wiki and possibly instigate legal action. 
4) The Saatchi Gallery have also raised a concern about the user Ty. Ty has previously been in contact with me regarding Saatchi content, often censoring or arguing my contributions with his own poorly researched opinions. This user's knowledge of contemporary art is apparently questionable and it is evident he has a malicious agenda when it comes to Saatchi. Consquently, The Saatchi Gallery have asked that he be barred from making edits on any Saatchi related pages. I fully respect Wiki's open contribution policy, however, I do believe any disagreement should be resolved through constructive debate, and not aggressive messaging or bullying -- something which appears to be an increasing concern with the user.
Please message me back at your earliest opportunity. And if you would like to speak with someone at the Saatchi gallery directly, please leave your email on my talk page -- a gallery representative will be in touch with you directly.
Many thanks.--81.159.113.122 (talk) 16:06, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have posted at WP:AN/I#Saatchi Gallery complaints and legal threat, to which you may contribute. Regarding your specific points about article content, it would be easier to conduct a discussion if you made each point under the relevant topic in my post above. You have forgotten to log in with your user name. Ty 23:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have reinstated the Saatchi Gallery page to the version that was present before I made any ammendments whilst we continue to resolve the issue regarding edits and the Gallery's legal position. Infoart (talk) 16:11, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately that is not going to work.  If there are legal issues the gallery must handle then through the appropriate channel.  Ty has explained the reasons your edits were reverted.  If something is covered in major media sources, it needs to be included in this article per WP:NPOV.  --Leivick (talk) 17:45, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Reply From InfoArt

message: Following the unexplained removal of a large amount of text by an IP editor with this his/her first article edit, I reverted to the earlier version (my usual practice when that is done). I was then asked to semi-protect the page, but as this is a content dispute that is usually not considered appropriate, so I've protected the article fully for 72 hours.  If anyone wants to make an edit through protection they can request it by using the template at the top of the article. If any Admin wants to change the protect level, they may, I will not consider it wheel warring. Doug Weller (talk) 12:22, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As an uninvolved admin, I support this protection and I hope that the representatives or agents of Saatchi Gallery will use this time period to discuss any desired changes to the article. Attempting to force changes by unilateral edits will not work. When faced with content disputes, Wikipedians evaluate proposed changes using a consensus-based discussion process to interpret and apply our core content policies (Verifiability and Neutral point of view).  SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 21:43, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection 

message: I have copied specific content points from the post above by  81.159.113.122 above, and put them in separate sections, so they can be discussed. Users should be aware of the core editing policies: WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR.  Content must be derived from secondary sources deemed reliable per WP:RS. These sources should be represented objectively. Personal knowledge, opinion and evaluation are not valid to create content. There is also policy on user conduct per WP:NPA, namely that editors should focus on content, not the alleged defects of other editors' characters. (There are other places on wiki to raise user conduct.) Any other points concerning the article can be raised by adding new section(s) below the existing ones. Ty 01:42, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hirst is one of the most famous artists in the world and hugely significant for the Saatchi Gallery and contemporary art in an interaction for over ten years constantly in the media. The article says Saatchi sold Hirst's shark and can easily include more details on work no longer being in the collection. The representation of the "disagreement" follows the sources. Hirst's rejection of his past major patron is relevant to this article, as is an image of the artist. Ty 02:45, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

text: Needs to be included. Hirst and the Saatchi Gallery are intimately linked. To say that he was just another artist who happened to be featured in the collection is ludicrous and blatantly revisionist.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 23:52, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

text: You might like to suggest how this should be phrased, deriving from acceptable sources. The Sunday Times article said, "He [Saatchi] said last year most Britartists would be likely to prove "nothing but footnotes" in the long term." Other sources report this similarly, including an interview with Stuart Semple on the Saatchi site. Ty 02:45, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

text: What exactly is misleading? By "it received a hostile reception", I meant the New Blood show in general, not specifically Vine's work in it. Is this what the problem is? It can be clarified easily enough. Ty 02:45, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

text: Agree with Ty. I don't read this as a criticism of Stella Vine at all. If all controversial exhibitions were removed from the article what would we be left with :)--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 23:30, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

text: It is Lee's bias then. Wikipedia is just reporting it per WP:NPOV.  He is a well known critic of Saatchi and often quoted in the media, so it is legitimate to include that. It would also be legitimate to include someone contesting Lee's view. Ty 02:45, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would add that Saatchi would really help themselves if they offered a public response.  They could just as easily publish a press release indicating their view or anyone could find a newspaper article in response.  Like Tyrenius said, that would be legitimate to include. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:30, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with Ty and Ricky.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 23:24, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

text: It is a notable event, when a major international gallery is taken to court and evicted, followed by the liquidation of the company administering its tenancy for failure to pay £1.8 million as ordered by the court, especially with the allegations that were made on both sides. This is revealing about the way the gallery operates. There is plenty of coverage in sources. The wiki text is restrained, bearing in mind the first paragraph in this Guardian report. Ty 02:45, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Also, for the "other factors not mentioned", do you a reliable source as to them?  Perhaps a press release or a response of some type from the gallery? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:31, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The claims and counter claims of a court case aren't appropriate because they have already been played out in court. The court made its decision, that decision was reported and it should be included in the article. The specific reason for finding against the gallery, as reported in The Guardian, was the two-for one deal: . All the rest is the usual flim-flam of a high stakes court battle. WP's committment to neutrality shouldn't consist of giving both sides of an argument that has already been settled in court. So, the part about the landlord's representative kicking artwork, although its kind of funny, should go; but the reference to the gallery's "deliberate disregard" for the landlord's rights should also be rephrased so that it specifically refers to to the two-for-one deal. The other Guardian article used to support the claim that the company running the gallery went into liquidation  makes it clear that this was involuntary, and although the WP article uses the phrase 'forced into' it gives the impression that the gallery cut and run to escape its debts. The Guardian article states that Charles Saatchi has offered to settle approximately 90% of the debt, presumably from his personal resources, but the issue is still ongoing. All in all the the whole thing can be summarized in a couple of sentences (A court judgement forced the gallery out of County Hall, finding that Donova, the company formed to run the gallery, deliberately disregarded the terms of its tenancy by offering a two-for-one deal. Donova was subsequently wound up with debts of £1.8m, of which Charles Saatchi has offered to pay £1.6m as a full and final settlement).--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 23:13, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed content 

message: The section comprising the quote from Damian Hirst is irrevlevant and inappropriate. Hirst is only one artist of the several thousand who have been featured in the collection over the years, and by no means the most important. The Hirst pieces referred to are no longer part of the collection. The representation of the "disagreement" over the Hirst exhibition is very biased, and is more relevant to Hirst as a topic than Saatchi. That there is a picture of Hirst placed next to it is again, off-topic. -- Excerpted from post by 81.159.113.122 above.
:Hirst is one of the most famous artists in the world and hugely significant for the Saatchi Gallery and contemporary art in an interaction for over ten years constantly in the media. The article says Saatchi sold Hirst's shark and can easily include more details on work no longer being in the collection. The representation of the "disagreement" follows the sources. Hirst's rejection of his past major patron is relevant to this article, as is an image of the artist. Ty 02:45, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Needs to be included. Hirst and the Saatchi Gallery are intimately linked. To say that he was just another artist who happened to be featured in the collection is ludicrous and blatantly revisionist.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 23:52, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Damien Hirst 

message: Saatchi's quote re: YBAs as "footnotes in history" is taken entirely out of context. In this interview he is referring to an historical contextualisation of art in general -- in any generation there are but a very few who will be remembered in 20, 50, 100+ years time. The text as it appears in the article suggests that he is dismissing the YBAs which is incorrect and insulting. -- Excerpted from post by 81.159.113.122 above.
:You might like to suggest how this should be phrased, deriving from acceptable sources. The Sunday Times article said, "He [Saatchi] said last year most Britartists would be likely to prove "nothing but footnotes" in the long term." Other sources report this similarly, including an interview with Stuart Semple on the Saatchi site. Ty 02:45, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  YBAS "footnotes in history" 

message: And again, the reference to Stella Vine's work and Saatchi's response is out of context as well as misleading. Vine is a well-respected artist who has shown extensively internationally, and her work - like any other artist -- has received mixed reviews over the years. Vine launched her career off the back of the Saatchi show, which is something that would only be possible if her work was well received. -- Excerpted from post by 81.159.113.122 above.
:What exactly is misleading? By "it received a hostile reception", I meant the New Blood show in general, not specifically Vine's work in it. Is this what the problem is? It can be clarified easily enough. Ty 02:45, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with Ty. I don't read this as a criticism of Stella Vine at all. If all controversial exhibitions were removed from the article what would we be left with :)--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 23:30, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stella Vine 

message: The David Lee quote is biased as well. Saatchi has never denied selling work -- however this is an integral part of his methodology of collecting. Saatchi is not and never has been a dealer. -- Excerpted from post by 81.159.113.122 above.
:It is Lee's bias then. Wikipedia is just reporting it per WP:NPOV.  He is a well known critic of Saatchi and often quoted in the media, so it is legitimate to include that. It would also be legitimate to include someone contesting Lee's view. Ty 02:45, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would add that Saatchi would really help themselves if they offered a public response.  They could just as easily publish a press release indicating their view or anyone could find a newspaper article in response.  Like Tyrenius said, that would be legitimate to include. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:30, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with Ty and Ricky.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 23:24, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  David Lee quote 

message: The section on the County Hall court case, is again, a biased report. This was, in the grand scheme of things, a reatively minor event in the gallery's history, and is given too much emphasis, especialy considering there were many other factors not mentioned that instigated the move. -- Excerpted from post by 81.159.113.122 above.
:It is a notable event, when a major international gallery is taken to court and evicted, followed by the liquidation of the company administering its tenancy for failure to pay £1.8 million as ordered by the court, especially with the allegations that were made on both sides. This is revealing about the way the gallery operates. There is plenty of coverage in sources. The wiki text is restrained, bearing in mind the first paragraph in this Guardian report. Ty 02:45, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Also, for the "other factors not mentioned", do you a reliable source as to them?  Perhaps a press release or a response of some type from the gallery? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:31, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The claims and counter claims of a court case aren't appropriate because they have already been played out in court. The court made its decision, that decision was reported and it should be included in the article. The specific reason for finding against the gallery, as reported in The Guardian, was the two-for one deal: . All the rest is the usual flim-flam of a high stakes court battle. WP's committment to neutrality shouldn't consist of giving both sides of an argument that has already been settled in court. So, the part about the landlord's representative kicking artwork, although its kind of funny, should go; but the reference to the gallery's "deliberate disregard" for the landlord's rights should also be rephrased so that it specifically refers to to the two-for-one deal. The other Guardian article used to support the claim that the company running the gallery went into liquidation  makes it clear that this was involuntary, and although the WP article uses the phrase 'forced into' it gives the impression that the gallery cut and run to escape its debts. The Guardian article states that Charles Saatchi has offered to settle approximately 90% of the debt, presumably from his personal resources, but the issue is still ongoing. All in all the the whole thing can be summarized in a couple of sentences (A court judgement forced the gallery out of County Hall, finding that Donova, the company formed to run the gallery, deliberately disregarded the terms of its tenancy by offering a two-for-one deal. Donova was subsequently wound up with debts of £1.8m, of which Charles Saatchi has offered to pay £1.6m as a full and final settlement).--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 23:13, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  County Hall court case 

message: Attempts to turn this article into a promotional piece have been going on for well over 2 years. See Talk:Saatchi_Gallery/Archive_1 and AN/I discussion. Ty 03:54, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Also see The Observer, 26 October 2008 - scroll to "Tales of mystery at the gallery"! Ty 03:57, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Crikey! I was not aware this had got press coverage. If that doesn't demonstrate that abusing Wikipedia is likely to bring an organisation into disrepute then nothing does. --DanielRigal (talk) 09:46, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: History of this article

message: Recent edits I've posted re: ruling in the Danovo court case have been reinstated, along with the court file reference number if you care to look it up. Also please note, Danovo is spelt with an "o" not an "a" -- has been corrected. You are completely misleading Wikipedia readers by deleting my point about this. Perhaps you would like to put your name and email here so that the Saatchi Gallery’s legal representatives can contact you and clarify your ‘confusion’. In the meantime it appears you are hiding behind anonymity to obfuscate the facts in order to support your own anti Saatchi agenda.--Infoart (talk) 11:17, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said on your talk page you are not supplying reliable sources - unless you can provide reliable links, and a court case number which no information on how to look it up is not one. Yet again with the legal threats and the complete misunderstanding of how wikipedia works? As I also pointed out you should really be concentrating on proving you can release the uploads you have performed on behalf of the gallery under the GFDL as you need the artist's permission and not just the gallery's, something Saatchi's legal wizards should understand. --Blowdart | talk 11:40, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  RE: Court Case Edits 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Saatchi Gallery. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071009230920/http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/article2027070.ece to http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/article2027070.ece
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:24, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Saatchi Gallery. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added  tag to http://canadianpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5h2n0_uU4_uFB_So2dIh3VbROZzSg
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060926080243/http://www.royalacademy.org.uk/exhibitions/usatoday/ to http://www.royalacademy.org.uk/exhibitions/usatoday
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:04, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified