Talk:Frank Gehry

The article needs to stick to NPOV, cite proclamations and avoid editorialized language

Here are some of the issues. I am seeing quite a few direct quotes and I believe that's giving undue voice to opinion statements. There are other issues such as the use of words "famous" and other superlatives that's not part of a reliable source. Also, the long list of external links seems to be foul of WP:EL guidelines. Graywalls (talk) 00:22, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

You do not make major changes, get them reverted, post a single comment on the talk page,, and then go back and restore your changes. Your edits have been disputed, and you now need a consensus from the editors on this page. Make your arguments as to each of the edits you wish to make, and get other editors to agree with you before you make any changes. Just because you don't like Gehry is no reason to change the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:11, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

No, you do not make accusation of this type on Wikipedia. You're aware of this. Graywalls (talk) 02:19, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Just give your arguments for each of the major changes you are attempting to make. You certainly have not "justified" (as your edit summary says) anything yet. The mere statement of the perception of a problem is not sufficient, you must provide evidence and argumentation to support your changes. Otherwise it simply looks like what it appeared to me to be. Show that I'm wrong. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:22, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

When I made one of my edits and said you didn't engage in talk, I didn't refresh it often enough to see it. I retracted that edit summary. Also, I removed the reference to dual citizenship, because that is un-cited. The re-insertion is a violation of WP:BLP without a reference. Graywalls (talk) 02:25, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

• A neutral pointer to this discussion has been posted on the talk pages of all the WikiProjects listed above, as per WP:Canvassing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:31, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

@Graywalls: Let me get something clear: you never edited either the article or this talk page prior to 23 August 2020, is that correct? There's nothing wrong with that, or course, but I'm wondering: what attracted you to this article, and did you come here with the expectation of having to make major changes? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:36, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

• Considering that this sentence "Gehry holds dual citizenship in Canada and the United States. He lives in Santa Monica, California, and continues to practice out of Los Angeles." was in the 9 August version of the article, just before you started editing, and that you attempted to remove it just minutes ago [1], after this discussion had started, I suggest that you do not make any edits to the article while this discussion about your editing is ongoing.
  If and when you have a consensus, then you are free to edit within that consensus.
  So, we await your arguments in support of your proposed edits. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:37, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Instead of posting his arguments here...

Graywalls went to the Neutral Point of View Noticeboard (NPOVN) and poasted (what I preseume is a little of) his argument there. One might call this "WP:Forumshopping before the fact", as NPOVN is not intended to be a substitute for discussion on the article talk page.

Here is what Graywalls wrote there:

My evaluation of the article is that it unduly leans towards embellishing favorable points of view and make excessive use of direct opinion quotes and quotations of subject'self statements. There is an excessive amount of indiscriminate images as well. Furthermore, the article contains editorialized puffery like "prestigious" "famous" that are not properly cited or cited at all. I've made changes to those and left detailed edit, but it has not been a productive engagement with My Beyond My Ken and I would like additional inputs and edit.

" This designation stems from the Los Angeles area's producing a group of the most influential postmodern architects, including such notable Gehry contemporaries as Eric Owen Moss and Pritzker Prize-winner Thom Mayne of Morphosis, as well as the famous schools of architecture at the Southern California Institute of Architecture (co‑founded by Mayne), UCLA, and USC, where Gehry is a member of the board of directors.[citation needed]"

"Gehry is known for his sometimes cantankerous personality. During a trip to Oviedo, Spain, to accept the prestigious Prince of Asturias Award in October 2014, he received a significant amount of attention, both positive and negative, for publicly flipping off a reporter at a press conference who accused him of being a "showy" architect." (this is unsupportable for sources provided within the article)

Graywalls (talk) 02:41, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:51, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

• I'll have responses to all of these points in time, but let's start with "an excessive amount of indiscriminate images".
  Frank Gehry is an architect. An architects builds buildings, and every single article who has an article on Wikipedia has in the article images of the buildings they designed, more or less, depending on the size of the article and the availability of imagaes. Frank Gehry is one of the major architects of the last 20th and earth 21st centuries, so there are many images of his buildings. His career has taken place in the era of public relations and the widespread dissemination of information, so his article is much more detaailed than one about, say, a early 19th century architect would be. So certainly his article is going to have many images. Further, Gehry builds weird buildings that are almost impossible to describe, and the only way to get a sense of what they look like is to see a picture of them, so Gehry's article is going to have more images in it then the run-of-the-mill architect's.
  So, Graywalls believes that there are an excessive amount of indiscriminate images" in the article, but his solution to this was not to discrimate more finely, his solution was to completely elinminate the gallery of images, and then to remove almost all of the remaining photos. What he left was not visually interesting, nor did it tell the reader anything important about Gehry's style, it was simply a long article with minimal visual information. It, in fact, totally ruined the article.
  Why Graywalls thinks his decimation of the visual aspect of the article was an improvement is completely beyond me. Again, all I can think is that there is some ulterior reason for damaging this article that Graywalls is not telling us.
  I will deal with other "points" that Graywalls makes later. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:02, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Earlier, you left message on my talk page with what was rather accusatory Special:Diff/974768827 and makes me uncomfortable engaging with you, and I wouldn't call it CANVASSING as it was done so transparently.

The issue with gallery was raised here, with no opposition to the argument and I find it to be the same issue. Talk:Frank_Gehry#Image_gallery. Per WP:IG, articles are not a collage of various images; and as that other editor suggested, I find the current large list of images to be that issue. Nonetheless, this isn't a reason to fully revert everything with a broad stroke, including the restoration of uncited BLP related claim. The article claimed he has dual citizen ship. I added a source saying he's naturalized. You reverted that too.

As for a lot of other things removed, they were not cited, or contains editorialized weasel like "prestigious", "famous" that weren't. Removal of these weasel words is an obvious improvement.

Graywalls (talk) 03:12, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

If you're referring to the notices on WikiProjects, it's specifically not canvassing, as you would know if you read WP:Canvassing, which I pointed you to above. Weasel words can certainly be edited out, but your edits were much more broad-ranging that that: there were certainly not 7,667 bytes of "weasal words" [2].

Please be specific, do not make general claims -- other editors cannot profitably wrestle with general claims, we need specific claims, i.e. this word here, this lack of citation here, and so on. Maybe make a list that other editors can go through and agree or disagree with. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:31, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

BTW, a comment from a single editor, with no additional comments from any other editor does not make a consensus, so I wouldn't continue to cite Talk:Frank_Gehry#Image_gallery, as it carries no weight. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:48, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

• I favor keeping the images of Gehry's designs including the gallery. Key to understanding Gehry's career is to visually take in the flamboyance of his body of work, which I consider great art. Minor changes in wording should be discussed here, with the goal of creating consensus. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:13, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

• The irony here is that while articles about all architects are improved by images of their designs, Gehry's designs cannot really be understand except through photographs. There are others this is true about as well, and one could make the case that Gehry started that "school", but Gehry is probably the most important. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:23, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

The reference to dual citizenship is NOT cited. Per WP:BLP, anything of possible contention should be removed. The cited source says he's a naturalized citizen. The statement should remain off until sourced. The way it works isn't status-quo remains. per WP:PROVEIT, If something uncited is questioned, they need to be cited before they come back especially for things relating to living people. A significant part of removal was a long lift of accolades/awards that maybe insignificant. A whole page of awards/accolades that are mostly unattributed is a balance of view issue just as it would be to list someone's entire list of traffic citations. I left the ones that are properly attributed. With your casting of aspersions like I'm trying to damage article, it is creating a hostile environment. Graywalls (talk) 03:54, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Disagreeing with your edits is not casting aspersions. If we do not have a good reference to dual citizenship, then it should be changed to naturalized citizen until a reliable source for the assertion can be found. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:10, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

@Cullen328:, absolutely. Disagreeing is not aspersion, however following instances are an aspersion

In my very first interaction with BYK, he left a talk page comment: "They also appear to be based on an animus against the subject." Special:Diff/974768827

Making allegations that I'm editing articles because they think I don't like the subject person "Just because you don't like Gehry is no reason to change the article." Special:Diff/974795352

"Again, all I can think is that there is some ulterior reason for damaging this article that Graywalls is not telling us.

I will deal with other "points" that Graywalls makes later." Obvious asperson. Special:Diff/974800723

Graywalls (talk) 20:31, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Graywalls, if speculating that you do not like Gehry's work is an aspersion, then it is a very mild one. You could respond by assuring us that; you do like Gehry's work, or that you truly do not care much one way or the other about his designs. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:54, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

I removed the unsourced dual citizenship claim as an admin action under the BLP rules. It stays out unless a reliable source can be attached. Zero^talk 05:08, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

I've restored it with 4 sources. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:14, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, thanks for finding and adding those sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:23, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

All in a day's work volunteering. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:26, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

To editor Beyond My Ken: thanks for sourcing it. But four sources looks silly; please reduce it to the one or two which seem the most reliable. Zero^talk 10:08, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

OK, the ipolitics source is the best. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:18, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

In the past, I've found that a disputed fact is best sourced to more than one RL -- it helps convince others that it's legit. 21:25, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

@Zero0000:, I believe what I removed in Special:Diff/975017319 is appropriate per BLP rules, but Beyond My Ken restored it, asserting "no consensus" and did not include source with their restoration. I think my removal was reasonable and proper within the application of BLP. Would you care to comment as the admin who intervened on the previous re-insertion of BLP violation? Thank you. Graywalls (talk) 07:38, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Re. images, I wouldn't describe them as excessive. I count 27, including the gallery, which happens to be the exact number in William Burges, an Architect FA. I think there is now a clear consensus that articles on the visual arts need images and, as BMK says, Gehry's work can be quite hard to render in prose! It is also the case that Gehry has designed a large number of major buildings. In a comprehensive article, I'd expect them to be covered, and illustrated. For me, the acid test is whether they assist/interest the reader - in my view, they do here and the article would be poorer without them. As to direct quotes, I personally like them, they are properly attributed, and they convey useful information. It is worth knowing, for example, that Philip Johnson called the Guggenheim "the greatest building of our time". On puffery, I think there may be more of a point, although a small one. I personally don't think it is necessary to introduce Johnson as "legendary architect Philip Johnson", or to embellish the "phenomenal success" of the Guggenheim. Phrases such as "vaulted to a new level of international acclaim", have a slight air of journalese - "reputation rose further"? More significantly for me, the lead could do with a bit of a re-write. Its core is a straightforward list of buildings; I'd look for more of an overview of Gehry's life, career, works and reputation. Hope these comments are helpful. KJP1 (talk) 06:36, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree with KJP1 about the images and the quotes. I just read the lead and agree that it is overly dependent on a list of buildings he has designed. Good observation. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:43, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

The type of input by KJP1 is what I was hoping to get from asking in a forum like NPOV. Glad to have an input from a fresh perspective. Graywalls (talk) 07:14, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

But what we've not gotten is any real

input from you, Graywalls, justify your edits, You continue to re-insert them as if thay have been approved by consensus (they have not been) with your offering anything but the most superficial of explanations. That is not sufficient. Please post here any section you are concerned about, explain what you think is wrong with it, and allow other editors to discuss your concerns here and nto in edit summaries. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:25, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm not require to justify edits to YOU or seek your approval to make any changes from status-quo. Please cut it out with your personal attacks like snide remarks discrediting my editing judgment. I'm concerned that you continued to revert everything citing "no consensus" and even restoring contents that are un-cited, ignoring WP:BURDEN. Graywalls (talk) 07:03, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

To editor Beyond My Ken: Where did you get the idea that consensus is required to remove unsourced text? Read carefully, this is core policy: Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. And that is not even the BLP policy, which says that All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source (my emphasis). The only way to get unsourced content back into the article after someone has removed it, even if you don't like the removal, is to source it. You and Graywalls both are millimeters away from an edit-warring block. Both of you, stop it right now. Zero^talk 09:34, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Broadly agree with Graywalls in that the article shouldn't be too cluttered with images and that there is far too much gushing sentiment over the architect in question - support a general purge of superfluous adjectives, as the tone of the article is often more an opinion piece in a magazine than an encyclopedia. VeritasVox (talk) 21:22, 11 September 2020 (UTC)