Talk:Jacqueline Hassink

Discussion regarding the dining table photo

Is there an issue? Let's discuss it :-) -- — Keithbob • Talk • 00:43, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Keithbob! Thanks for creating this discussion. The photo could be seen as a nice extra but unfortunately, I believe that if we take this photo out of its context/project, it's difficult for a person to understand what this is about if she or he is not familiar with JH works. In a way, I found that the photo leads to confusion. Also, I found it difficult (and almost impossible to be honest) to chose one particular photo to resume or illustrate an entire life work or even a single project: why would we choose this photo over another? Do you understand my point of view? This is why, to remain as neutral and objective as possible, I believe we should remove the photo.Jacobien kyoto (talk) 19:08, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi there, If there are some reliable sources that explain the project then we could add that info and create a context for the photo. What do you think of that idea? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 06:45, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure. In my opinion, choosing a single photo (this one or another) to define an artist that has been working for numerous years is absurd. Why would one project trump another? How is it possible to quantify a photo's importance over the others? Even if the text underneath the photos explains the project perfectly well, it's still very restraining towards her whole body of work. I think that without the photo there would be no debate as to which photos of her works should be seen on Wikipedia. If the viewer/researcher wants to go further and see more photos, he or she is more than welcome to browse the official website. Plus, if we look at some other wikipedia pages of living artists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rineke_Dijkstra, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taryn_Simon, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roni_Horn etc), the editors also chose to not upload a photo on the article. I hope that you understand my point of view.Vincent.toussaint (talk) 14:10, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

HI Vincent, I'm glad to see you now have your own WP account. WP rules say its not proper for two people to use the same account OR for one person to use two different accounts (sock puppet). So its good you are sticking with this WP account now. Regarding the photo I'm not sure I agree but I am open to the idea. What I'd like to do is get some input from someone on the Arts and Biographies project to see what they have to say.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:31, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok Keithbob, I'm sorry about this, I'll only use my account from now. I'd be happy to discuss about the photo situation with someone of the Arts and Biographies project! In the meantime, is there anyway we could remove the photo until we found a common ground?Vincent.toussaint (talk) 21:00, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes I understand that you were not aware of WP's policies about account usage. I know it was an innocent mistake. No worries :-) And yes, I'll move the photo here to the talk page and we can continue our discussion. I've asked a few others to chime in. If they don't show up soon. I'll ask for input on the BLP noticeboard. This new ground for me and I'm interested in hearing what other experienced editors have to say. Even after 4 years and 24,000 edits, WP is still a learning process for me (and everyone). Happy Holidays! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:06, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Parking photo here [File:Elham M. Zeadat.jpg |thumb|400px|Dining table photos by Jacqueline Hassink] until consensus is reached about what to do.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:08, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Keithbob! Happy Holidays to you as well :-)Vincent.toussaint (talk) 10:11, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I noticed that Featured Articles of artists usually include images of examples of their work. I would think that for any article (on any subject) images will always capture only a snapshot of the subject being covered. Only if the subject's paintings were all almost identical would it be possible for one image to capture the body of their work.

However, a good compromise could be to add a gallery at the bottom of the section with a few paintings, instead of just one. CorporateM (Talk) 14:03, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Corporate, I've asked for some additional input at BLPN since I'm not sure what the policy is on something like this Interested parties may join the discussion [1]. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 23:02, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I entirely agree we should have multiple images representing the artist's work. However, we don't have that choice. We can only use images that have been released for modification and reuse, like the rest of the Wikipedia. This is the only image we have like that. So our only choice is to use it or not, and out of those choices, I say we use it. That is the issue with the other artists linked above, not that editors chose not to put in images, but that there aren't released images we can use. We shouldn't let the best be the enemy of the good, and for an artist whose medium is visual it is far better to have one representation than none. --GRuban (talk) 15:33, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm also in favor of using the picture but I hesitated as this is an issue I had never come across before and thought there might be a precedent or policy. I then posted at BLPN [2] and the response was that its up to the editors here on the talk page to decide that there is no policy for or against the use of the photo. I'll wait a few more days but it appears the general consensus is to include the photo and if the subject wishes to contribute more photos via Wikimedia to create a fuller representation, then they may do so.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:41, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I've readded the photo since the consensus of comments over a period of more than a month seems to be in favor of inclusion and there does not seem to be any policy, guideline or precedent that favors its exclusion from the article. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:44, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jacqueline Hassink. 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://archive.is/20130209005409/http://www.wallpaper.com/art/the-table-of-power-2-by-jacqueline-hassink/5629 to http://www.wallpaper.com/art/the-table-of-power-2-by-jacqueline-hassink/5629
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.huismarseille.nl/en/exhibition/jacqueline-hassink-the-power-show

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:08, 5 December 2017 (UTC)