Talk:Alexandra Grant

Biography vs. resume

This article is written as a resume instead of a biographical note.

I have some suggestions that I would like to discuss before editing.

The first part of the page reads like a resume for an academic job offer. I think too much of the same is said, I would suggest one line removed:

"Grant examines the process of writing and ideas based in linguistic theory as it connects to art and creates visual images inspired by text and collaborative group installations based on that process.[3] "

Also the list with selected exhibitions, awards and collections, even though appealing for a resume or the "bio" section of a personal website, seem a bit too extended.

Clearwater48 (talk) 13:51, 24 November 2019 (UTC)Clearwater48Clearwater48 (talk) 13:51, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Concerning Cartier lawsuit

This is something that definitely belongs in a biography, however it should be added in a "Controversies" or "Legal issues" section by an editor who can word out a legal issue.

If anyone is interested, here is the gov link of the suit: http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=91193555

Clearwater48 (talk) 17:01, 24 November 2019 (UTC)Clearwater48Clearwater48 (talk) 17:01, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

It does not "belong" unless it was covered in a reliable secondary source per WP:BLPPRIMARY. I.E. If all you have are court records or similar then it shouldn't be added anywhere. If it is covered in reliable secondary sources then it probably belongs, although I don't think we can say it's "definite" without looking at the sourcing and other details given all the issues that may arise e.g. WP:UNDUE. Nil Einne (talk) 01:29, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place for gossip and paid content

Please read the following article if you need help understanding what makes a reliable source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Potentially_unreliable_sources

Gossip about relationships from paid content publications are genarally not considered ideal wikipedia source material Clearwater48

Wikipedia is also not a place for violations of WP:MULTIPLE. Your editing history looks an awful lot like User:Tarteàlafraise45, User:Fighttoright123 and User:BlackOpsPom who were all making the same kind of edits and arguments you have made.

One thing is certain: Wikipedia is built on WP:SECONDARY sources. People magazine is a secondary source, so it's fine. Your comment about "paid publications" would most likely be appropriate if we were talking about prweb.com which publishes your public relations material for a price. People isn't that.

I added three more sources to build out the Keanu Reeves bit: articles published by ArtNet News, Vogue and Elle magazines. The latter is only four months old, so we can see the relationship is ongoing. Binksternet (talk) 22:36, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

My opinion on this entry is that since there is no personal announcement and the articles cited make third person reference to it, it needed to be changed. Attacking me because my entries may remind you of other peoples entries is apart from absurd, also disheartening and against what this website represents. Clearwater48

Those articles about the “relationship” are actually paid PR articles by Alexandra. People, Elle, Vogue, to name a few, are known PR magazines. They are no longer known for being reliable for quite a while. Keanu nor Alexandra have confirmed anything. Therefore shouldn’t be put up on either of their pages that they are in a relationship. The Meg reference is false too since it wasn’t her that said that. Someone else did and was told to for PR reasons.

Agree with you Clearwater48 Stormriders09 (talk)

Paid content? Complete nonsense. Hogwash. Totally ridiculous. Binksternet (talk) 20:14, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it’s paid for. No, it is not hogwash, totally ridiculous or complete nonsense. Doesn’t take much research to find this out or can easily talk with people that work in PR. They are more than happy to tell people how it all works. Apparently not many do research anymore. Stormriders09 (talk) 21:21, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi protected edit request

Please remove the birthdate as there is no source backing it up. 2600:100C:A21A:B5A1:C129:FA75:F9E9:DE72 (talk) 23:43, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I am treating this request as a catalyst to find her birth year at least.

I looked around at the literature and found two conflicting years of birth, and nothing saying the month or day. I would rather leave a sufficiently cited year in place than remove the whole birth date as requested.

The first piece of information is that Saschailao created this biography on Wikipedia in 2011 with a birth year of 1973, no month or day listed, and no reference to support the date.[1]

Vox website said in November 2019 that Grant was 46 years old,[2] meaning that she was born in 1973. But Vox may have simply pulled 1973 from Wikipedia, which displayed just the year at that time, no month or day. The Woozle effect could be at work here. Same problem with the People magazine piece in 2020 saying she was 47 years old.[3] People probably looked at Wikipedia to get the birth year.

In July 2020, an IP editor from the UK added the birth month and day to create April 4, 1973. No reference was cited.[4]

Before all of this stuff ever happened, AsianArtNews published an article about the exhibit called "From and About Place: Art from Los Angeles", saying that Grant was born in 1970. The same article was published by the Jerusalem Post in October 2008 in a piece titled "Seven from Los Angeles", again saying 1970 birth. So we have a decently supported birth year of 1970. Binksternet (talk) 02:30, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

1973 seems to be correct though. Here is an interview from 2010, where the interviewer asks her directly about her first solo exhibit at the MOCA at 33 years old. That exhibit was in 2007, so depending when her birthday is that would be the year she turned 34.

http://bigcityforum.blogspot.com/2010/06/big-city-portrait-alexandra-grant.html 2A00:20:B053:B794:4B0:7AE1:1DE8:9051 (talk) 21:17, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

I would trust a traditional newspaper source more than a blogspot post. Which means I think 1970 is more authoritative. Binksternet (talk) 21:43, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

But this person talked TO HER, not someone just writing about her. Also if she got her Bachelor Degree in 1995, that too would suggest she was 22 at the time, unless she spent 3 years doing something else in between. Seems unlikely? 2A00:20:B04E:C8EB:A8A0:ED18:77A6:C53E (talk) 22:15, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

@Binksternet: I'm also thinking the 1970 birth year is wrong. Here's NBC News on the age gap in 2019: "Reeves, 55, and Grant, 46". There were a bunch of stories about her 50th birthday party last year, such as Life&Style "...the artist, who turns 50 on April 4...", there's her OCMA bio (via LAist): "Alexandra Grant was born in 1973 in Fairview Park, Ohio", and LACMA's: "Alexandra Grant (United States, Ohio, Fairview Park, born 1973)". But the clincher for me was her 'Letter to A Young Woman artist' post to Instagram last August, "Writing this to you, today, at 50 years old..." The last would be a WP:SELFSOURCE, but taken together with the others I think we can reasonably consider restoring the 1973 birth year. gobonobo ^{+ c} 12:43, 28 March 2024 (UTC)