Talk:Dana Schutz

message: This page reads like an advertisement for Dana Schutz, it is not in an encylopedic style, and it will need to be entirely rewritten.  For now I'm going to make it a stub with just the barest information about her, as I know nothing about her.  Anyone with more information can feel free to add more.  --Xyzzyplugh 00:06, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Might one be sublimated into the other? Lots of redundant info--A21sauce (talk) 22:53, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exhibitions v. Solo Exhibitions categories 

message: It seems tendentious to list the percentage of white people living in Livonia, Michigan—its only relevance is likely to be to the controversy over who has the right to make representations of African American trauma. I think it should be removed. If similar instances in the biographies of others can be shown to exist, I for one would be happy to be pointed at them for comparison.
Second, I believe that Coco Fusco is no longer at Parsons but is at the University of Florida.
This article seems to me to not quite maintain a neutral POV but could be easily rebalanced.   Actio (talk) 03:09, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's fine. Why even list Livonia, if we can't characterize it? I've travelled quite a bit around the US and had no idea what kind of suburb that is. It's like characterizing someone's parents. Wiki writers sometimes do that: It's not entirely necessary but it does add to one's understanding of the subject--A21sauce (talk) 01:37, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It is more than just tendentious - it is OR editorializing. While tendentiousness can be a matter of discussion about the appropriateness of inclusion, original research (in this case using US Census Bureau data for pov editorializing) is not allowable on Wikipedia under any circumstances. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:34, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Livonia, Michigan's own article cites the 2010 Census here. Why are you not bothering with that cite? Or excluding the use of that and the prior census in the article of every town or city that uses it? And link "OR editorializing" so you're not just throwing your own expertise around to cover for your own POV.--173.56.236.146 (talk) 00:13, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is not about Livonia, Mitchigan, it is about Dana Schultz. To argue for inclusion, you first will need to present a RS source that is making assertions about Dana Schultz's ethnicity or outlook or what she should or should not be painting based on the ethnicity of her home town. I am not required to teach you how to edit Wikipedia or explain what original research or synthesis or editorializing means. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:05, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: My, my overly scoldy, revealing your own POV. A21sauce (talk) 21:46, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are too ignorant to understand what original research or synthesis or editorializing means, my advice to you is that you do not edit until that ignorance is dispelled. All you are doing here is wasting everyone's time trying to insert unsupported material. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:15, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi —concerning this edit, why are you adding that material? Do we need to know that "According to the 2010 U.S. Census, Livonia is 92% white"? Why do you want the reader to know that? Bus stop (talk) 01:18, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't the one who originally added it. If you go back in the history you can see that an anonymous IP added it, with a more bitter tone, and the Tiptoethrutheminefield deleted it.A21sauce (talk) 01:35, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: —why is that information called for in this article? Bus stop (talk) 03:50, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

text:  Why not? It illustrates the cultural background that informs Schutz's position on "Open Casket," despite working in New Haven and living in Brooklyn. A21sauce (talk) 00:43, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Why are you failing to understand that this is your OR? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:23, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would ask the same of yourself.--A21sauce (talk) 04:04, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: since you seem incapable of learning what OR is, either drop this or start a RfC and get many more people to tell you the same thing. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:35, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  shades of the latest controversy, and a probable correction 

message: —you say "this intro was EXTENSIVELY debated, so please don't unilaterally change it after we worked so hard to come to a consensus". What is that a reference to? Please provide diffs or specific quotes. Bus stop (talk) 14:36, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Hm looking it over, you're right that the consensus on this lede was only between the two of us. It was the Hannah Black article where a wider consensus was reached. But in this article you and I hashed it out extensively and came up with a compromise that was tolerable for both of us for months. Why rock the boat now? Let's not use Wikipedia as a battleground. Aroundthewayboy (talk) 15:15, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Please articulate your objection to this sentence: "Her painting of the corpse of Emmett Till, titled Open Casket, drew protests when shown in the 2017 Whitney Biennial, and there were demands that it be removed from the show." Bus stop (talk) 15:31, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: See section DIRECTLY above this, as well as the continued long and pointless debate in the linked separate discussion that you started. Do you really want to turn Wikipedia into a battleground? That is not the purpose of Wikipedia. Aroundthewayboy (talk) 15:38, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: If a surplus of three independent editors could agree that your proposed change to the lede is better than what is currently there, I would bow to the consensus. Alternately, vice versa if three more agree than disagree with me, we don't change the lede. How about let's not change the article until we hear from other unbiased editors, so we can avoid an edit war? Aroundthewayboy (talk) 15:49, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: —please articulate a reason for reverting my edit. I understand that you object to my edit. I am asking you what your objection is. I am trying to add to the lede "there were demands that it be removed from the show". To my way of thinking this should not be a big deal. Sources are in abundance supporting that specific assertion or related assertions. Bus stop (talk) 16:18, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  lede