This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
Okay, I'm at the talk page. Why are you deleting the edit? I have added in a relevant incident involving Northern River, backed up by citations and factual accuracy. You are letting your opinions of the event determine what history is worth telling. This is Wikipedia, not Gardner's. Alexandersouthfield (talk) 16:29, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. As the event is a petty crime of no lasting significance, it is not something that would be covered here. If the painting had been damaged, then it would be relevant - unfortunately - to this article as a permanent change. Similar logic, I suppose, would apply to adding his content to the museum's article (which no one has proposed). You did a good job adding the content with references - it's just that it doesn't belong here, it belongs at On2Ottawa, the protestors' page. I have already added it there[1], which shows that I, for one, am not averse to the event being described, in the right place. Outriggr (talk) 17:00, 4 September 2023 (UTC) P.S. When I heard about this event, I stopped by this article to consider adding it myself! With my experience on Wikipedia, I decided against it: that the painting was not damaged was my main reason, although there are others. Wikipedia articles should not be indiscriminate annotations - described in the selection below WP:NOTNEWS.[reply]
I wholeheartedly disagree. It is a matter of relevance to the artwork and thus belongs on this page. This is not an indiscriminate annotation; rather, the deletion of the edit is an arbitrary decision. Other works that have been the subject of protests have the incidents included. Specifically, it is the importance of the targeted piece in the annals of art history which makes them a target, and thus the protest is itself indicative of the relevance of the piece and the centrality of art - in this case, Canadiana - to the cultural narrative. To deny this small entry is to relegate Northern River to a vacuum, and divorce it from the social, political, ecological, and economic histories through which it is forced to move. No, the history of a piece of art is not solidified at the moment of finalization, nor does it end at destruction; it moves and grows and is coloured by time. As an obvious lover of art, you should know this. What say you? Alexandersouthfield (talk) 17:17, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, WP:NOTNEWS is the obvious standard. A one-day news story in which this painting plays a minor part is not significant enough to warrant inclusion.
Concerning is that the other editor has been edit warring to bring this content onto the page after having been reverted several times by multiple users. Tkbrett (✉)18:35, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
