Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/Pricasso

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Rcsprinter (chatter) @ 10:19, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Closer's note: I changed the hook wording of penis and scrotum to genitals because I want to avoid a big controversy over having those words on the main page. Rcsprinter (chatter) @ 10:19, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Pricasso

[edit]
(
)

Pricasso at a press conference for Sexpo in Sydney, March 2012

Created/expanded by Russavia (talk). Self nominated at 23:20, 18 June 2013 (UTC).

  • Please note that I am still working some on the article, but in mainspace, but as with all of my articles they are meticulously sourced so please do not worry about this aspect of it still being worked on. Russavia (talk) 23:23, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Somewhere I am suppose to note what article I reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Darrell Tryon. Russavia (talk) 00:24, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Is there any source for the age of this man? The Legend of Zorro 00:33, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
In this interview from 2013, he states he is 63. I've still got more sources to scour for information, but I don't recall any giving an actual date of birth. Russavia (talk) 00:44, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
I will not do a full review, but here are two comments:
  1. Is YouTube a reliable source (especially for a BLP)?
  2. What about WP:CENSORMAIN?
King Jakob C2 01:33, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Youtube is not the source, the source is Metropolis TV, which is reliable, it's just that it's a video source. WP:CENSORMAIN is not relevant here, due to there not being a distasteful image as part of the hook, and the article is about an artist, who just happens to paint with his penis. I have NO DOUBT that if this article is made the lead hook that it could possibly be one of the highest viewed DYKS of all time. I'll report back in a day or two on progress, as I am still adding information, etc to the article. Russavia (talk) 01:37, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
OK, maybe I'm going out on a limb here as WP:CENSORMAIN doesn't say it, but I don't personally think that anything blatantly offensive (say, um, an article of a picture of a guy painting with his p*n*s) should be linked to from a main page (imagine some 8-year-old clicks on it (many will, no doubt), and encounters this file). Note: I'm not saying the article itself should be censored, just that maybe it shouldn't really be on the main page. King Jakob C2 01:47, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
You know, it is not the children who get bent out of shape when they see a penis, especially a penis put to use as a painting brush, but rather some adults, writing on behalf of the straw man 8-yearold. This article is undoubtedly educational, and the subject, amusingly notable. Really, let's not get out of whack over this. It's quite mild, comparing to what else an 8-yearold might encounter on Wikipedia. --Mareklug talk 02:30, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
I do not see how the image can be used on the main page. Clicking on the image, uploaded by Russavia, leads to the Commons file page with its link to the original on flickr. But on flickr an account is required to view this image and possibly any image related to Pricasso, presumably because of flickr's own safe viewing and protection policies. Those policies are far more careful and finely judged than those of Commons. Because of that I believe that if there is a hook (possibly with less "in your face" wording), there should be no accompanying image. It is unclear how stable the article will be, since at one stage it contained an image and content related to Jimmy Wales. The creation history of the file is not accessible to non-administrators, since Russavia requested that the two pages in his user space be deleted. None of that history is viewable. Nor the fact that at a certain stage the article was fully protected by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise. Jimmy Wales found the content relating to himself offensive and harassing. As a consequence, per BLP policies, Russavia was topic banned from all matters related to Jimmy Wales by User:Newyorkbrad. The article should presumably have been moved with the history of its creation intact, which is not the case. Given that previous content in the incubating article has already resulted in a topic ban for Russavia, any decision about placing a link to it on the main page with an image should have a delay of at least a week (or possibly longer) to allow other editors to express their opinions. It is unclear whether this article was created to make a WP:POINT, but its deleted history, the BLP related problems with Jimmy Wales, the topic ban and the previous page protection raise doubts. Mathsci (talk) 03:48, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
The editing history of the article, together with the deleted drafts, has now been restored by The ed17. The article itself currently has the template {{underconstruction}}. Mathsci (talk) 05:45, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
The article is not stable. It has been moved to Tim Patch and some of the borderline pornographic prose removed. Mathsci (talk) 10:34, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Supplementary rule D6 states "The article is likely to be rejected for unresolved edit-warring or the presence of dispute tags. (Removing the tags without consensus does not count.)" Once the history is restored, it will be clear that there has been edit warring and protection of this article in its recent past. The Jimbo issue is not resolved (though I am pleased that the suggested image is not the Jimbo portrait). Russavia is likely to face further sanction, to judge from NYB's talk page, and this article will not be stable for a while. This nomination should not be approved until the furore over Jimbo's image, the commons deletion debate, and the controversy over NYB's and Russavia's actions are all resolved, and then the article has time to stabilise. EdChem (talk) 04:48, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
I have begun a thread at Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Pricasso. Comment is invited. EdChem (talk) 04:57, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Russavia, did you at any point in your correspondence with the artist promise him with (or strongly hint at) an appearance of his article on the main page, perhaps in exchange for the creation of freely licensed media? --Conti User talk:Conti 12:39, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment Before reading the source, I thought he painted paintings with a little something added to the picture... I did not think that he would actually smear paint on those parts. But I have to admit, it's very well-written. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 13:30, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Just to notify you all at DYK: Russavia has just been indeffed by User:Spartaz and there's now a discussion on WP:ANI. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:01, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Here's the link to the artist website, which is linked to in the article. The first thing you see there is: "STOP By entering my website you agree you're 18+". I believe the artist would not be comfortable with being featured on Wikipedia's main page, which is visited by millions of school kids much younger than 18 years old. 76.126.142.59 (talk) 15:58, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
  • His site contains videos and such. The only adult imagery in the article is him holding his penis so that he can paint, but the paint obscures his genitals to the point where you can only really tell if you look at the enlarged versions of the image. Not an issue in my opinion. You can find more explicit depictions of genitalia in sex education textbooks.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 17:02, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
  • This entire article is a clear-cut case of WP:NOTCENSORED. I think the mere mentioning of "penis, scrotum, and buttocks" should be enough of a red flag about not clicking on this article if you're supposed to be tabulating your company's profits for this month (and a green flag for those looking at DYK and seeing this thing that wouldn't look too out of place if the date were 04/01/2014). Aside from that, and this Jimbo portrait controversy that I've been reading about, I see nothing wrong with the article in its current form. ViperSnake151  Talk  17:21, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Supplementary rule D6 relates to "unresolved edit-warring." Within the last six hours, the contentious link to the Jimbo image has been removed by Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs) with the edit summary "One of the images has caused an editor here to claim that it constitutes Hostile environment sexual harassment. Don't become a part of that," been re-added by Auric (talk · contribs) as an unexplained revert, and re-removed by Tarc (talk · contribs) with the edit summary "we're not linking to the problematic image that started this mess in the first place." This article is not presently stable. There is debate at WT:DYK about notability and an AfD is possible. I think the article is likely to run at some point, but it is not ready to be promoted yet. EdChem (talk) 00:49, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
So of course there's some pornography in the article. Besides that kind of painting is an unsafe sexual practice, and I am almost positive there will be a backlash, if this "Fucking article" as Newyorkbrad calls it, is featured. 76.126.142.59 (talk) 01:41, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Unless we are talking about someone with a paint fetish, then this doesn't qualify as "pornography" by any means. Given that his whole method is built around his penis, it is relevant and informative to note certain foreseeable issues he encounters. Whether the wording could be further improved, I improved upon it a bit from what it was previously, is a separate issue. I think some of the prose could be developed further before considering a front page entry.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 04:53, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
  • The tag has been removed. Optimom (talk) 14:44, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I would note that the editor who added the tag insists, based off a single misrepresented comment in a source, that the subject is a porn star and not an artist, ignoring the multitude of other sources that plainly state he is an artist. Anyone can tag an article with any absurd excuse, and this is just an instance of that ability being misused.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 16:21, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
see http://www.pricasso.com/pricassos_poetry.html

Porn star

By Pricasso
I'd love to be a porn star --now that would make my day

I'd never take a sickly and I’d work for very little pay ...

He's a porn star wanabee and has said so directly more than once. He works almost exclusively at Sexpo's and similar venues. Don't ignore reality. Smallbones(smalltalk) 13:11, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Since the nominator has been indefinitely blocked, who is taking his place? there is almost always some back-and-forth between the nominator and commenters usually resulting in some adjustments in the article or hook. I'd like the responsible person to make adjustments to 1) the name of the article, which has been changed; 2) the use of the term "artist" when he is clearly a porn show performer; and 3) "gained fame" in the hook, when it should be "gained notoriety." Smallbones(smalltalk) 13:11, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

No one is going to ignore the preponderance of reliable sources describing him as an artist and relabel him a porn star as that would violate WP:BLP. Your evidence of him being a "porn star" or "porn star wannabe" is a poem and a misrepresented quotation. That is nowhere near enough. I asked you to stop repeating this accusation and yet you continue.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 16:19, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Google search "Pricasso Porn" 185,000 hits, "Pricasso artist" 53,000 hits. Essentially all the articles on him are about Sexpo or similar exhibitions. He performs for 20 minutes for $50-100, includes a video, and btw includes a canvas with paint on it. No way he is an artist and nobody is *seriously* calling him an artist. He is a porn performer. Presenting him in the article and in the hook as an artist is just misleading our readers. Smallbones(smalltalk) 21:53, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Ok, let me make this perfectly clear, either you provide a reliable secondary source that explicitly and unequivocally says he is a porn star or stop bringing it up. Should you assert again that he is a porn star without providing such a source, then I will report you at ANI for violating WP:BLP. You are free to your opinion, but your opinion is not fact and you have not shown any indication that said opinion is supported by any reliable source.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 22:36, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
The Devil's Advocate, the person says he's a pornstar. See the quoted poem above. King Jakob C2 22:54, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
He does not even say he is a porn star in the poem, which shouldn't be taken literally in the first place as it is a poem.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 23:22, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

The Devil's Advocate is pretty aggressive in saying he's not a porn performer. He's seen this before but denies that it (and Pricasso) says that Pricasso is a porn performer. "I have sold thousands of paintings but probably would not have sold to much without also becoming a soft porn star which might be a contributing factor of why I feel they dont really know how to judge me."

Do you often visit shows and events to paint pictures in front of the audience. You do not feel embarrassed about it ?

"I have just finished a 4 day Sexpo in Australia and I will be going to Macau in a few days to paint at the Asian Adult Expo and then to Taiwan for another 4 day show then one in South Africa Spain and Germany I am pretty busy. And I have spent the past 7 years doing this so it feels really natural to be the only person naked holding my penis in a hall with 5 or 10 thousand other fully clothed normal people." [1]

Or just google "Pricasso porn" - half the sites say they are selling Pricasso porn videos. Smallbones(smalltalk) 04:31, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Smallbones, if the consensus here and at the article talk page is different from your view, will you accept it? EdChem (talk) 04:51, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I cannot see any particular consensus at the moment. I see Newyorkbrad suggesting that pushing this article as a DYK os not a good idea. One problem with the article is that the novelty of Patch's artworks seems to have dwindled lately. Outside the world of Australian Sexpo and other soft porn conventions, there seems to be very little recent coverage in reliable sources. He advertises his services on vimeo,[2] giving his location as Gold Coast, Queensland near Brisbane. He has posted the Jimmy Wales video there and writes, "I started painting naked using my Penis as a brush in 2005 and now travel around the world performing at adult shows, parties and clubs." His entries for the Bald Archy Prize (2011-2013) do not seem to have received any significant media coverage. On page 231 of the Dictionary of Erotic Art: Painters and Sculptors by Eugene C. Burt (2010),[3] there is a short entry: "Patch, Tim (Australia). Contemporary builder and painter based in Brisbane. He has been called 'Pricasso' because he creates paintings of landscapes, portraits, and female nudes using his penis as a brush." There are no proper independent recent sources. The BBC source relied on the Sydney Morning Herald. The Sun article is very short, full of smutty puns. But the use of "adult shows" by Patch himself is in an indication that this is not safe material for DYK. Most of the "meticulous sourcing" claimed by Russavia does not bear close scrutiny. It is a BLP cobbled or patched together from interviews. That makes the article hard to distinguish from a promotional piece—free publicity through wikipedia. Several sources, including the dictionary above, describe Patch as a builder. That is not properly discussed in the article. Mathsci (talk) 06:05, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Mathsci, I meant on the question of artist v. porn star, though of course consensus will also determine whether or not a main page appearance happens. I think the consensus on the artist question is pretty clear. EdChem (talk) 06:13, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Here is what the source says with the important parts Smallbones has consistently left out in bold:

Art Critics consider your work seriously ? They consider your painting as an Art ?

A lot of Artists only exist from being awarded grants paid for by the tax payer because their work is considered exceptional by a small number of Art experts which I guess is fine as it’s all part of the system as I do believe Art is a business dependent mainly upon rising prices and I rock the system a bit, I have never been awarded a grant and have entered many art compertitions but never won any . I have sold thousands of paintings but probably would not have sold to much without also becoming a soft porn star which might be a contributing factor of why I feel they dont really know how to judge me.

Mind you, Small is not only insisting Pricasso is a porn star, but that he is not even an artist. However, the very source being cited starts out by calling Pricasso an artist and he explicitly refers to himself as an artist and calls his work art with that being the description favored by every reliable secondary source I have read. As it stands, this is the only reliable secondary source Small seems to be able to provide to even conceivably support the first part of the assertion, but it isn't all that explicit in context. Given his comments about "rocking the system" and "not knowing how to judge me" in the context of discussing whether his work is considered art by critics, the mention of porn there should not be treated as some sort of admission to being a porn star.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 05:28, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
If you can't understand 2 direct quotes from the subject or the obvious reality of his videos, then there is no point discussing it further. As far as me approving this for inclusion in DYK, no way. Smallbones(smalltalk) 17:07, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Smallbones (talk · contribs), if the consensus here and at the article talk page is different from your view, will you accept it? EdChem (talk) 00:41, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
It's the 2nd time you've asked this, so I think you deserve an answer, but also deserve to know why this question could be seen as offensive. You're asking whether I will follow policy - do you have any reason to believe that I won't? AGF, please. You also seem to be asking whether the other editors on this page can understand 2 direct quotes - I see no reason to believe that they can't. Smallbones(smalltalk) 03:16, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Just to be clear A) Russavia's "vote" doesn't count, in fact somebody needs to step up to fill his place as the nominal "nominator" - who is that? B) It's this page that counts for DYK, there are discussion on this spread across at least 3 pages. Anybody who wants to weigh in on the DYK can do it here. I'll deal with the article page when I have time. Smallbones(smalltalk) 03:25, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

The article is now locked down, following apparent edit-warring. Smallbones(smalltalk) 04:03, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

And now the article is really not going anywhere. Per criterion D6, we don't feature articles with huge disputes, and the dispute on Pricasso is apparently so huge that the article got full-protected. So can someone maybe close this? King Jakob C2 12:29, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
It isn't even a huge dispute. The whole thing is terribly petty at this point as the link to the Commons cat doesn't even have the image pictured. You have to go through another link to get to the image. As this is the only issue, it should be given time to be sorted out. We aren't going anywhere.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 17:36, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
I support the request for closure. Mathsci (talk) 02:30, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
  • So what even if he is a "porn star"? Don't porn stars also deserve their right to notability? And certainly this "porn star' would qualify as notable... Look at the media coverage this "porn star" has got! I see no problem with the neutrally written and reliably referenced biography of this "porn star". Seriously, the guys who want to fail this are just pissed off at Pricasso for painting a majestic portrait of Dear Founder Jimmy Wales. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 13:28, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
The point about the claims about this person being a pornstar is that the article presents him as an artist, which is misleading. Also, see WP:Did_you_know/Supplementary_guidelines#D6. {{Pp-dispute}} on the article indicates a dispute if anything does. King Jakob C2 13:58, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I am very uncomfortable with the Bonkers The Clown approval, especially in light of how damning Mathsci's review of the article's current state on June 30:

Despite pruning, the article is still poorly written and poorly sourced. There is too much reporting of non-events in the article (e.g. unsuccessful entries in competitions, Patch's activities as a builder). A lot of the content is not neutrally written, with uncritical and direct reporting of Patch's own statements in interviews. Much of the tone seems promotional. The quality of the prose is very variable, with some parts perhaps reflecting too closely the original gutter press or sex industry sources: "one celebrity was OK with it," "Pricasso hit back," "a canvass which concealed his brush," etc.

I don't see how an article with this many problems in its current version can be approved at the present time. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:34, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I have initiated an RfC on the Commons link issue. When that concludes, presumably resolving the main problem, I will be happy to handle the other issues.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 16:45, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I have re-opened the discussion because of what The Devil's Advocate said on my talk page. SL93 (talk) 22:45, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment The RfC has failed to get a consensus on the link, which means the link to Commons is staying out for now. So, the main reason for editors objecting to the nomination has been addressed. I will try to begin resolving the concerns BM raised tonight.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 22:56, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
    • If this fails to get a regular nomination, I encourge you to pursue an April 1 nomination.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 23:30, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
      • I honestly cannot figure out whether that was a sarcastic comment or not. --Conti ✉ 23:34, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
        • Not at all. This nom almost got closed out the other day. At the DYK talk page I was suggesting that this be reopened as a discussion about an April 1 nomination. It seems to be unable to get support for a regular nomination, but this type of topic would fit right in with the main page on April 1, if it can't get support for a regular run.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 01:08, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment The close was correct. Reopening discussion will only waste more volunteer time. The intention of the original DYK has not altered: it was to bring en.wikipedia into disrepute. Not only has the original creator Russavia been indefinitely blocked, but, because of inappropriate comments on his user talk page, talk page access has very recently been revoked. The nomination was opened two months ago so the close was timely. The many problems with the article have not gone away. It was not dropped as a possible DYK because of some small technicality. Mathsci (talk) 04:50, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
    • I think Mathsci is correct. After 7 or 8 weeks with no consensus, there is little reason to resume the same discussion. That is why I proposed reopening the discussion as a consideration of this article for April 1 when WP avails a host of odd subjects on the main page. Reopening the prior stalemate is not likely to lead anywhere. If people agree that the prior close was valid, then I think it would be best to open a new discussion regarding making this article an April 1 hook.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 05:22, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
  • A big reason the discussion has lasted as long as it has is because we had to wait for the RfC to establish something with regards to the Commons link. Since it is a clear stalemate on that point we can move on and address other concerns about the article.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 05:43, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I just know that this has been around a while and been through extensive discussions. If you don't feel like it can attain support for a regular nomination you should go for April 1. If you want someone else to handle that nomination, I will do it. If this is not going to be a regular DYK nom, go for April 1. It will fit right in.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 05:49, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I am giving this three more days for any remaining concerns to be addressed. If they are not addressed, I will close this nomination. SL93 (talk) 23:06, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Given the back-and-forth above. What would the protocol be for an April 1 nomination. Do I make that before the three days or after. I am not sure if there are policy issues to be addressed or if this is just an issue regarding the propriety of the subject. I am on record saying that simply reopening the same nomination was not likely to lead anywhere.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 00:02, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Some of the issues Blue Moonset raised were actually addressed before this closed. I have handled the close paraphrasing I could identify and have made an effort to balance the article a bit.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 04:49, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I personally find it a waste of time to have such a long nomination period over one fact on the main page, but a new reviewer is needed to identify any other problems. SL93 (talk) 04:52, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I am not associating myself with this nomination anymore because of this reason and because I don't want to be hounded about an April Fools hook. SL93 (talk) 04:57, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Proposing this as an alternative to make it more hooky and reflect something beyond a simple "x is y" factoid.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 05:16, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Not sure what the point of that would be as I believe I have done sufficient work to address the remaining concerns.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 15:39, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Let's get it over and done with, new hook cited and online, all reference to you-know-who seems to have been removed. -- Hillbillyholiday talk 03:14, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Pricasso&oldid=1022066785"