Talk:Woodlands style

Untitled

This page contains no discussion of aesthetic philosophy and presents an entirely eccentric history of the "Woodland School" based only on websites sources with equally dubious credibility. The page needs to be started again from scratch. -76.68.123.58

• Why don't you register an account on Wikipedia and help to improve the page? --Clausewitz01 (talk) 02:05, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Wrong title

I agree the page needs to be started from scratch. The first step however, should be a renaming of the current title to Woodland School of Arts. The current title, Woodlands style, doesn't quite fit the subject matter, it is too generic, and as such misleading. I don't believe there's anything wrong with the given information except that it needs a little spice to it.

Zhaawano (talk) 21:51, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not need "spice". Please keep things neutral. freshacconci talktalk 16:30, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

As I understand it, articles should be written in a tone that is interesting and engaging without expressing a specific point of view. "Spice" isn't a bad thing as long as it isn't excessive or biased. vıdıoman 03:18, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Continuous insight

I am in the process of rewriting the article, in a way that the original title, woodlands style, can be maintained - by incorporating the term Woodland School Of Art in the bigger context of woodlands style/woodland art throughout the ages. See chapter 'A continuation of ancient traditions', in which I interpret the 'New Woodland School Of Art' within the macro framework of archaic Woodland tradition.

Zhaawano (talk) 15:06, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

You shouldn't be interpreting anything. This is not the place for original research. Keep in mind, providing references does not necessarily negate original research. You cannot make any new claims based on the sources. You can only include what the sources say, not what you think. I've tagged the article for general clean-up as it badly needs copyediting. As well, do not replace the text I have removed as it is complete OR and does not maintain a neutral position. freshacconci talktalk 16:29, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect, but you are making no sense. Have you ever considered the possibility that I, as someone who is part of the art movement called Woodland School of Art and who knows the topic inside out, might BE a pretty valuable source of first hand knowledge? Do other sources have more credibility? And where do you get the idea that I do not maintain a neutral position? It seems to me that you are misusing so-called Wikipedia standards to lecture me. Zhaawano (talk) 18:25, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

As I understand it, someone involved in a topic should not be editing the Wikipedia article on it. (For example, The Rolling Stones themselves should not edit their article, Richard Florida shouldn't edit the articles about his theories on New Urbanism, and so on.) Also, everything added to Wikipedia should have an independent source to go with it. You shouldn't by putting "new" knowledge on Wikipedia, it should be published elsewhere first, and then Wikipedia can mention that publication. It seems like a roundabout process, but that is what an encyclopedia is.

I think this may be more of a conflict of interest than a violation of neutral point of view. But I am not an expert editor. vıdıoman 03:17, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

First of all, the rejected paragraph did NOT explicate my personal (interpretation of a given) theory. And it HAD an independant source to go with it. But, if the Wikipedia standard says that someone who has great inside knowledge of a certain topic and is willing to share it in a neutral fashion, is not qualified to write about it and the editors want to play it formal, I will bow my head and surrender. The fact remains that a wealth of valuable inside information is lost for the public. The way I see it, Wikipedia should, first of all, provide information. What information does the original article provide about the topic of Woodland art? Because of an extremely technical approach by some, the baby (a well-written, consummate and pertinent article) is thrown out with the bathwater. Which I believe is unnecessary and a pity and not in the best interest of the public. Zhaawano (talk) 09:14, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

You're a guy on the internet. We have no idea who you really are. Should we just take your word on this? No, this is why Wikipedia can only use information that has already been published. It's a tertiary source of information, like all encyclopedias. If you have inside knowledge on this topic then you should write a book. Wikipedia cannot publish original ideas only what has been published. It's not an "extremely technical approach by some"; it's the way things are done in an encyclopedia. It's the only way we can ensure that information is reliable. freshacconci talktalk 13:59, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

And as for the information that you wrote and then reverted, some of it was useful and sourced and we will probably use that to expand the article. freshacconci talktalk 14:03, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

No, you won't do that and I tell you why. All information in the article is sourced, and there is not one single piece of information that hasn't been published before. I repeat, and repeat again: there is not one single piece of information in the article that isn’t sourced or hasn't been published before.* How many times do I have to repeat this? So, who are you to decide what is useful and what is not? You cannot just tear apart the article and use bits and pieces the way YOU see fit. If what you say were true - I'm just a guy on the internet who could be making things up - than you cannot possibly be sure which information is 'useful' and which is not. If what you say were right - the article produces 'original ideas' and therefore resembles a book more than it does an encyclopedia - then it would be very foolish to use any information – as it is 'inside' information and therefore ‘suspect’ - that I produced. So, arguing along that line of (in itself nonsensical) argument, the article is my intellectual property and therefore I give you no permission to use ANY of the information I produced – except for the image, which falls under Public Domain.

• Except maybe for the list of artists, which I compiled in close collaboration with Woodland artists, close family of Norval Morrisseau mostly, from Native communities in Southwestern Ontario. Yes, inside information!

Zhaawano (talk) 21:29, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I was only talking about one paragraph which I removed which had one source that was sketchy at best. The rest needed copyediting but beyond that seemed fine. As for your intellectual property, no, you waived that by publishing it on Wikipedia. When you save anything on an article page there is a clear disclaimer right above the save button that reads: "By saving, you agree to irrevocably release your contribution under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License 3.0 and the GFDL." It also states, right below the save button: "If you do not want your writing to be edited and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here." This is a collaborative project. No one owns anything here. It's not your intellection property, nor mine. It's licensed as a share-alike license which you can read here and the free document license here. You should also read WP:OWN as it outlines what Wikipedia is and is not. Sorry. freshacconci talktalk 21:40, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Don't say sorry when you don't mean it, Freshacconci. I rest my case for now but not without giving you my opinion on your moderating "style", which I think is characterized by a fairly blunt top-bottom approach. Although I am just "a guy on the Internet", I have written several articles in the Dutch Wikipedia - one of which is a featured article. While the process of writing and publishing was never devoid of conflict and contrary opinions, no moderator has ever done what you did: erase a complete paragraph containing the core of the article (a serious, source-based analysis of the aesthetic philosophy of Woodland Art) without first approaching the writer and suggesting, in a constructive manner, possible improvements in terms of correct sourcing et cetera. If you had done so I would have done my best to meet your objections and follow Wikipedia standards by providing clearer sources; thus it would have become clear that the given paragraph is not as opinionated as you think, let alone the fruit of my "own personal ideas" but in fact based on profound research by others. Now you accomplished the opposite; a shallow, non-informative article that does no justice to a fascinating topic. What we have here is not a conflict of interest (as Vidioman suggested the other day), or a violation of neutral point of view, or a question of right and wrong; the conflict lies in your style. In your rigid diligence to maintain high standards and save Wikipedia from dilettantism, you – as I said before – risk throwing out the baby with the bathwater. By using a blunt axe you contribute in turning Wikipedia into a clear-felled area instead of a vivid source of well considered texts based on substantial, real, reason-based knowledge.

Well, that is my opinion.

P.S. After completing the article I received some positive reactions from Keewaywin/Sandy Lake Reserves and Manitoulan Island - communities with the highest concentration of Woodland artists; messages like ‘thank you’ and ‘bless your beating heart’. Why? Because these artists recognize themselves and their art, which has long remained misunderstood by the outside world, in the article. Realizing that our little conflict is not in the best interest of the public and certainly not of these artists, I propose we bury the hatchet, and, in due time, restore the article including the rejected paragraph, be it in an improved and well-sourced version. Zhaawano (talk) 12:34, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment – We should welcome the participation of subject matter experts, and be patient with newcomers Their insights can and should guide the development of articles, particularly in early stages, as this one is. As always, all facts and opinions appearing in the article should be independently verified from reliable sources other than the individual. Senator2029 “Talk” 01:58, 29 April 2018 (UTC)