578:
yes thats why we have a picture on the lead dyk. As neither of the other pictures are out of copyright then its the only option. I must admit I chose the gif over static picture. If you believe that
Kippelboy (who is the Wikipedian in Residence at a Catalan Art Gallery) has created this article without any justification then we need to pull the article, not the hook. If we need to extend the hook to be "DYK that Miros painting was inspired by Duchamps that was inspired by these photos" then I guess we might haver to although I was told that if A caused B abd B caused C then A caused C. (Other points about it being just about 1500 chars or that some of the translation needs finessing are too minor as they can be easily fixed) Can I suggest that changing the hook to avoid criticism is shirking responsibility. If we know this is wrong then we need to pull the article and tell Miro's foundation that they are mistaken. Do we have another Spanish speaking art expert who can investigate?
689:
we do not have expert sources which assert a link between them at the time of creation; only what appears to be a modern comparison"? The collective art commentary of the world would collapse into a short chapter if your standard was adopted. And even then, if we did have sources from a committee of observing authorities who stood behind Miró as he conceived the idea and then worked on the (three) drawings, you would still be arguing they didn't establish they weren't elsewhere having coffee at the exact moment when the drawing was "created". Then you say, 'Changing the hook would not be merely to "avoid criticism", but to avoid saying something which is not supported as factual by the source'. Are you really saying it is wrong to try and find the most suitable hook? It is preposterous to suggest that Miró in 1939 would have been unaware of such a prominent work by
Duchamp's which catalysed so much scandal in Europe and New York. The
623:
convoluted simply to justify the addition of an irrelevant image. Thanks to
Victuallers for doing some cleanup on the article (as well as some by Epipelagic and myself). It started out looking like a very bad, unedited automated translation. Changing the hook would not be merely to "avoid criticism", but to avoid saying something which is not supported as factual by the source. I don't know why you keep mentioning pulling the article. And no one suggested that the Miró Foundation was mistaken; only that their casual remark has been extrapolated in a way which is not supported by what they actually said.
1021:
myself have done this despite being busy elsewhere. Editors are asked to keep these reviews on their watchlists... but there is no reaction to our work. In this case it appears that we are not going with the consensus but just avoiding debate. I'm pleased to see that editors are trying to find a compromise but it appears that the objector lost interest a long time ago. I'm afraid I have joined him/her. But thank you Crsoco and Orlady I admiore your tenavity and dedication, I'll let you decide which to go with or whether to withdraw the nomination.
94:
422:
324:
476:
364:
1277:
697:." There is another source in the Spanish and Catalan articles on this issue, but it is in Spanish. However, it looks like your position is entrenched Mandarax, so as Victuallers suggests above, unless there is more input, preferably from a French or Spanish speaking art expert, there is an impasse about the use of the gif. --
429:, who say "In this representation of a woman climbing a staircase, Miró reversed the concept of Marcel Duchamp’s Nude descending a staircase." The source for the claim that the Duchamp picture is based on the photos is the biography of Duchamp by Tomkins, which is not available online. That is why I AGFed the nomination.
748:. As for whether I'm "saying it is wrong to try and find the most suitable hook", of course not. I never said or implied any such thing. Again, please just reread what I wrote and what I was responding to. And please stop making ridiculous statements about me (such as the "you would still be arguing" thing).
1259:
Thank you all for your efforts. I think we should pull a prompt line under this debate. I'm surprised by the result, but it is your decision. I still think alt 1-3 is the best hook even if it is used without the picture (which is always an option) but I'm willing to accept what is inferred as long as
617:
Yes, there's iconic photography which inspired an iconic
Duchamp painting. But we have no evidence that the Duchamp inspired Miró. No, we do not have expert sources which assert a link between them at the time of creation; only what appears to be a modern comparison. And no, we do not have an article
577:
So we have iconic photography involved in an iconic duchamp painting inspiring an important work by the iconic
Catalan artist and we have expert sources linking these together and an article that explains that. The accusation seems to be that we have added this gif just to catch the readers eye. Ummm
482:
I had seen that source (I had even corrected the citation), but it looked to me merely like the author's comparison of the works. It does not say that Miró was influenced by, or even aware of the existence of
Duchamp's painting. I wasn't disputing the claim about Muybridge's influence on Duchamp, and
374:
s painting – not Miró's drawing – alluded to the photographs of the woman. There is really absolutely no reason to have the gif or the text related to it in this article. The article just barely meets the minimum length requirement, and if that text were removed it would be under. I fixed some things
1077:
I have seen the
Foundation's analysis that compares this work to the Duchamp piece (but does not say Miró was influenced by it). I fully accept that Miró saw the Duchamp work before he created this one, and I think it very likely that his piece played off it, but I have not seen any statement in the
688:
You are exerting much energy, Mandarax, protesting the use of this gif you don't want on the front page. You flatly assert the offending gif is "entirely irrelevant to the article", but don't offer coherent reasons. What unscalable heights of verifiability are you trying to impose when you say: "No,
1117:
and was influenced by. Miró's first exhibit took place at the same gallery 2 years later.(ISBN-84-297-3568-2 p.19). Will add this reference on the entry.-", above, but if the objection is to the picture then why has no one said so! Sure its a "naked lady" but you have Miro, Dali and
Duchamp to tell
1041:
for other opinions, but I'm sure that the majority of experienced, objective, conscientious users would agree with Orlady and myself. You seemed set on the original hook ("changing the hook to avoid criticism is shirking responsibility"), but I'm glad that you were open to Orlady's suggestion of a
1020:
Obviously I'm disappointed by this. We were asked to go away and find additional references to support a link between Miro and
Duchamp which has been done - despite the fact that the worlds leading authority on the subject said it existed - but not explicitly enough for one reviewer. Kippelboy and
446:
The sentence you mention certainly seems nonsensical (with modern art who knows). It is sourced to a
Spanish book which again is not online, and presumably must be AGFed in the absence of good reason do otherwise. Anyway, I've tweaked the alt hook and replaced the offending sentence with something
622:
free image on the Main Page, even though it's entirely irrelevant to the article. No one said the article was created "without any justification". Extending the hook as suggested wouldn't work because, again, there's no evidence that the Miró was inspired by the Duchamp. And a hook should not be
1036:
It's not that I "lost interest a long time ago"; I've been away camping, without Internet access. I don't understand how you can say "we are not going with the consensus". The original reviewer accepted the hook and I objected; other opinions were from the nominator or creator. That's hardly
1138:
article is about. You wrote "As neither of the other pictures are out of copyright then its the only option." Well, no; another option is to use a hook without an image. As I mentioned elsewhere above, "the only apparent reason for the gif to be in the article is to get
1120:
Miro displayed this work at the same gallery where he had seen the same work by Duchamp with exactly the same subject which was to inspire numerous artists including Dali. Dali also chose the change the direction of the woan on the stairs in the same way Miro had before
375:
in the article which were wrong or didn't make sense, but problems remain. For example, the first sentence of the Description section: "The work shows a woman with a long drawn drama and realism with an overly large nose which leaves some small bumps or horns."
949:, by Duchamp, was shown in Barcelona in 1912 at the Dalmau Gallery, where Miró saw it for the firs time and was influenced by. Miró's first exhibit took place at the same gallery 2 years later.(ISBN-84-297-3568-2 p.19). Will add this reference on the entry.--
1112:
There is some objection to the picture per se? No one has mentioned this so far. You may have failed to see "I've found one new reference. Nude Descending a Staircase, No. 2, by Duchamp, was shown in Barcelona in 1912 at the Dalmau Gallery,
483:
that should certainly be in the article about his painting, but it doesn't belong in this article. And even if a source is found which states that Miró knew of and was influenced by the Duchamp, the hook would still be misleading at best.
824:) 09:36, 30 September 2011 (UTC) Oh I see ... someone had included a pic for illustration above that you removed thinking it may get onto the main page ... I'll have to look elsewhere to feed my persecution complex :-) thx
1133:
Not only has it been mentioned, but you've responded to the concerns. As I explained in my very first comment here, the gif, while relevant to the Duchamp painting, is not directly relevant to the drawing which
888:
codes as organised by Kippelboy (Àlex Hinojo). The curators will not be showing visitors around but Wikipedians will. It would be good to have this on the main page, assuming we can settle the discussion above.
425:
I restored the hooks you struck, Mandarax, since your claims are not altogether correct. The source for the claim that the Miró painting is based on the Duchamp painting comes from the
1118:
you this art. I am confused now as I'm not sure now what the objection is or who is objecting. Is it the picture? Is it the OR? If we cannot "plausible infer" then we can say
1305:
693:(and what other body would be more definitively positioned to assess who and who didn't influence Miró?) explicitly say, "Miró reversed the concept of Marcel Duchamp’s
36:
1078:
article or the sources that indicates that a published source has says he was influenced by it. We can't base a hook on plausible inferences -- that's
884:
the new Joan Miro Exhibition opens in Barcelona. It will have multi-language support for all the main paintings using Knowledge articles accessed via
966:
It is now 15 October and the new exhibition will open in a few hours. Let's try for a hook based on some other aspect of the topic. Here's one idea:
40:
945:
17:
983:
925:
914:
551:
342:
108:
1097:
I personally like the picture, but naturally there would be objections. ALT 4 seems fine by me, and I see no need to reject.
1037:"consensus", at least not of uninvolved parties. As you can now see below, it's not just "one reviewer". Nobody responded to
480:(Sorry for the dueling icons, but I want to make sure this doesn't accidentally get moved to Prep while it's still disputed.)
1209:
ALT4's reference checks out, so if Mandarax and Victuallers have no problem with it the hook can be promoted sans picture.
618:
which factually explains it with proper sources. Yes, the only apparent reason for the gif to be in the article is to get
536:
Okay, though it's most unlikely Miró was unaware of Duchamp's painting. But we are only arguing about the hook. What about
93:
562:
44:
1280:
ALT4 only, since we now have agreement on a hook. I also like the original hooks, but as Orlady says it is still OR.
77:
47:), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
1143:
free image on the Main Page". Sorry to be so repetitive, but unfortunately it seems necessary in order to reply.
690:
1285:
1265:
1214:
1184:
1127:
1102:
1026:
1012:
934:
894:
872:
851:
829:
821:
806:
583:
135:
702:
571:
452:
356:
307:
297:
287:
277:
267:
257:
247:
196:
186:
176:
166:
954:
127:
1242:
1161:
1060:
766:
641:
501:
393:
29:
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below.
989:
1281:
1261:
1210:
1180:
1123:
1098:
1087:
1022:
1008:
997:
930:
890:
868:
847:
825:
817:
802:
579:
426:
131:
61:
929:; however, it would be preferable to actually take a look at the book if it is available.
698:
567:
448:
352:
303:
293:
283:
273:
263:
253:
243:
192:
182:
172:
162:
950:
557:
123:
421:
323:
1299:
1225:
1144:
1043:
860:
816:
You're feeding my paranoia - the photographer died in 1904.... and what was removed?
749:
624:
484:
376:
327:
Seems okay AGFing for the offline sources and with the alternate tweak to the hook...
475:
363:
1079:
977:
908:
545:
336:
102:
842:
It's fairly clear that it was intended by the poster to reach the main page (the
1083:
993:
745:
57:
1276:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as
744:
For answers to your concerns, please reread what I wrote above, as well as
885:
367:
I've struck the hooks as they're incorrect. The article claims that
837:
919:
came indirectly from photos of this woman descending a staircase
113:
came originally from photos of this woman descending a staircase
988:
and her heavy limbs are thought to reflect the tragedy of the
1038:
82:
865:
a woman ascending a staircase as a homage to Duchamp
801:No Fair-Use images on main page or DYK; removed.
976:... that the effort put forth by the subject of
1042:hook which is actually supported by a source.
8:
1306:Passed DYK nominations from September 2011
1007:A little late, but I think ALT4 is okay.
923:?, and we can use the citation found at
207:
141:
7:
447:that should not be controversial. --
1115:where Miró saw it for the firs time
138:) at 17:19, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
946:Nude Descending a Staircase, No. 2
836:Hehe. Does your complex want some
24:
832:) 09:44, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
574:) 08:35, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
359:) 01:09, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
18:Template:Did you know nominations
1275:
984:Naked woman climbing a staircase
926:Naked woman climbing a staircase
915:Naked woman climbing a staircase
854:) 09:56, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
809:) 09:18, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
586:) 09:14, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
552:Naked woman climbing a staircase
474:
455:) 04:32, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
420:
362:
343:Naked woman climbing a staircase
322:
109:Naked woman climbing a staircase
92:
69:Naked woman climbing a staircase
1130:) 18:18, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
1029:) 11:23, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
937:) 23:46, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
863:kindly titled his 1973 work or
1288:) 10:05, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
1268:) 07:17, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
1217:) 23:45, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
1187:) 23:40, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
1105:) 15:27, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
1090:) 15:48, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
1015:) 02:37, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
1000:) 01:27, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
957:) 07:06, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
943:I've found one new reference.
897:) 16:44, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
653:20:21, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
513:07:21, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
405:02:18, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
64:) 16:48, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
1:
1173:22:28, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
875:) 17:09, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
705:) 03:42, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
1254:00:14, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
1072:18:41, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
347:came from photos of a woman
335:... that inspiration behind
778:05:29, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
695:Nude descending a staircase
563:Nude descending a staircase
45:Knowledge talk:Did you know
37:this nomination's talk page
1322:
351:descending a staircase? --
907:: ... that the idea for
556:reversed the concept of
32:Please do not modify it.
859:Ascending? Descending?
41:the article's talk page
101:... that the idea for
122:Created/expanded by
1039:my request at WT:DYK
846:is still up there).
691:Joan Miró Foundation
427:Joan Miró Foundation
1224:Sounds good to me.
210:
144:
208:
142:
1260:it is plausible.
1250:
1246:
1234:
1230:
1188:
1169:
1165:
1153:
1149:
1080:original research
1068:
1064:
1052:
1048:
990:Spanish Civil War
841:
774:
770:
758:
754:
649:
645:
633:
629:
509:
505:
493:
489:
401:
397:
385:
381:
314:
313:
203:
202:
139:
130:). Nominated by
1313:
1279:
1252:
1248:
1244:
1240:
1235:
1232:
1228:
1179:Cue objections.
1178:
1171:
1167:
1163:
1159:
1154:
1151:
1147:
1070:
1066:
1062:
1058:
1053:
1050:
1046:
835:
776:
772:
768:
764:
759:
756:
752:
651:
647:
643:
639:
634:
631:
627:
511:
507:
503:
499:
494:
491:
487:
481:
478:
424:
403:
399:
395:
391:
386:
383:
379:
373:
366:
326:
211:
145:
121:
96:
52:The result was:
34:
1321:
1320:
1316:
1315:
1314:
1312:
1311:
1310:
1296:
1295:
1294:
1292:
1243:
1238:
1226:
1162:
1157:
1145:
1061:
1056:
1044:
882:15th of October
867:- Ive cited it
767:
762:
750:
642:
637:
625:
502:
497:
485:
479:
394:
389:
377:
371:
316:
231:
226:
221:
209:Article review
205:
98:
89:
87:
83:Article history
71:
65:
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1319:
1317:
1309:
1308:
1298:
1297:
1290:
1289:
1272:
1271:
1270:
1269:
1256:
1255:
1219:
1218:
1206:
1205:
1204:
1203:
1202:
1201:
1200:
1199:
1198:
1197:
1196:
1195:
1194:
1193:
1192:
1191:
1190:
1189:
1107:
1106:
1094:
1093:
1092:
1091:
1075:
1074:
1073:
1017:
1016:
1002:
1001:
968:
967:
961:
960:
959:
958:
901:
900:
899:
898:
878:
877:
876:
856:
855:
811:
810:
798:
797:
796:
795:
794:
793:
792:
791:
790:
789:
788:
787:
786:
785:
784:
783:
782:
781:
780:
779:
723:
722:
721:
720:
719:
718:
717:
716:
715:
714:
713:
712:
711:
710:
709:
708:
707:
706:
669:
668:
667:
666:
665:
664:
663:
662:
661:
660:
659:
658:
657:
656:
655:
654:
600:
599:
598:
597:
596:
595:
594:
593:
592:
591:
590:
589:
588:
587:
538:
537:
523:
522:
521:
520:
519:
518:
517:
516:
515:
514:
463:
462:
461:
460:
459:
458:
457:
456:
437:
436:
435:
434:
433:
432:
431:
430:
411:
410:
409:
408:
407:
406:
329:
328:
312:
311:
301:
291:
281:
271:
261:
251:
240:
239:
236:
233:
228:
223:
218:
215:
201:
200:
190:
180:
170:
159:
158:
155:
152:
149:
119:
118:
90:
86:
85:
80:
78:Back to T:TDYK
74:
72:
70:
67:
50:
49:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1318:
1307:
1304:
1303:
1301:
1293:
1287:
1283:
1278:
1274:
1273:
1267:
1263:
1258:
1257:
1253:
1236:
1223:
1222:
1221:
1220:
1216:
1212:
1208:
1207:
1186:
1182:
1177:
1176:
1175:
1174:
1172:
1155:
1142:
1137:
1132:
1131:
1129:
1125:
1122:
1116:
1111:
1110:
1109:
1108:
1104:
1100:
1096:
1095:
1089:
1085:
1081:
1076:
1071:
1054:
1040:
1035:
1034:
1033:
1032:
1031:
1030:
1028:
1024:
1019:
1018:
1014:
1010:
1006:
1005:
1004:
1003:
999:
995:
991:
987:
986:
985:
979:
975:
972:
971:
970:
969:
965:
964:
963:
962:
956:
952:
948:
947:
942:
941:
940:
939:
938:
936:
932:
928:
927:
922:
918:
917:
916:
910:
906:
896:
892:
887:
883:
879:
874:
870:
866:
862:
861:Salvador Dali
858:
857:
853:
849:
845:
839:
834:
833:
831:
827:
823:
819:
815:
814:
813:
812:
808:
804:
800:
799:
777:
760:
747:
743:
742:
741:
740:
739:
738:
737:
736:
735:
734:
733:
732:
731:
730:
729:
728:
727:
726:
725:
724:
704:
700:
696:
692:
687:
686:
685:
684:
683:
682:
681:
680:
679:
678:
677:
676:
675:
674:
673:
672:
671:
670:
652:
635:
621:
616:
615:
614:
613:
612:
611:
610:
609:
608:
607:
606:
605:
604:
603:
602:
601:
585:
581:
576:
575:
573:
569:
565:
564:
559:
555:
554:
553:
547:
543:
540:
539:
535:
534:
533:
532:
531:
530:
529:
528:
527:
526:
525:
524:
512:
495:
477:
473:
472:
471:
470:
469:
468:
467:
466:
465:
464:
454:
450:
445:
444:
443:
442:
441:
440:
439:
438:
428:
423:
419:
418:
417:
416:
415:
414:
413:
412:
404:
387:
370:
365:
361:
360:
358:
354:
350:
346:
345:
344:
338:
334:
331:
330:
325:
321:
320:
319:
318:
317:
309:
305:
302:
299:
295:
292:
289:
285:
282:
279:
275:
272:
269:
265:
262:
259:
255:
252:
249:
245:
242:
241:
237:
234:
229:
224:
219:
216:
213:
212:
206:
198:
194:
191:
188:
184:
181:
178:
174:
171:
168:
164:
161:
160:
156:
153:
150:
147:
146:
140:
137:
133:
129:
125:
116:
112:
111:
110:
104:
100:
99:
97:
95:
84:
81:
79:
76:
75:
68:
66:
63:
59:
55:
48:
46:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1291:
1140:
1135:
1119:
1114:
982:
981:
973:
944:
924:
920:
913:
912:
904:
902:
881:
864:
843:
694:
619:
561:
550:
549:
541:
368:
348:
341:
340:
332:
315:
204:
143:Hook review
120:
114:
107:
106:
91:
53:
51:
31:
28:
1282:Crisco 1492
1262:Victuallers
1211:Crisco 1492
1181:Crisco 1492
1124:Victuallers
1099:Crisco 1492
1023:Victuallers
1009:Crisco 1492
931:Crisco 1492
891:Victuallers
869:Victuallers
848:Crisco 1492
826:Victuallers
818:Victuallers
803:Crisco 1492
580:Victuallers
238:Plagiarism
235:Neutrality
154:Neutrality
132:Victuallers
921:(animated)
844:(pictured)
699:Epipelagic
568:Epipelagic
449:Epipelagic
353:Epipelagic
349:(pictured)
304:Epipelagic
294:Epipelagic
284:Epipelagic
274:Epipelagic
264:Epipelagic
254:Epipelagic
244:Epipelagic
227:citations
222:citations
193:Epipelagic
183:Epipelagic
173:Epipelagic
163:Epipelagic
115:(animated)
951:Kippelboy
544:... that
225:Formatted
157:Interest
151:Citation
124:Kippelboy
1300:Category
980:'s 1937
911:'s 1937
903:Perhaps
560:'s 1912
548:'s 1937
339:'s 1937
232:sources
230:Reliable
220:Adequate
217:Newness
105:'s 1937
54:promoted
886:QRpedia
880:On the
558:Duchamp
369:Duchamp
214:Length
148:Format
1241:
1237:
1160:
1156:
1084:Orlady
1059:
1055:
994:Orlady
765:
761:
640:
636:
500:
496:
392:
388:
58:Orlady
838:gudeg
542:ALT2:
372:'
333:ALT1:
16:<
1286:talk
1266:talk
1245:XAЯA
1233:ARAX
1215:talk
1185:talk
1164:XAЯA
1152:ARAX
1141:some
1136:this
1128:talk
1103:talk
1088:talk
1082:. --
1063:XAЯA
1051:ARAX
1027:talk
1013:talk
998:talk
992:? --
978:Miró
974:ALT4
955:talk
935:talk
909:Miró
905:ALT3
895:talk
873:talk
852:talk
830:talk
822:talk
807:talk
769:XAЯA
757:ARAX
746:WP:V
703:talk
644:XAЯA
632:ARAX
620:some
584:talk
572:talk
566:? --
546:Miró
504:XAЯA
492:ARAX
453:talk
396:XAЯA
384:ARAX
357:talk
337:Miró
308:talk
298:talk
288:talk
278:talk
268:talk
258:talk
248:talk
197:talk
187:talk
177:talk
167:talk
136:talk
128:talk
103:Miró
62:talk
1121:him
56:by
43:or
1302::
1249:ИA
1229:AN
1168:ИA
1148:AN
1067:ИA
1047:AN
773:ИA
753:AN
648:ИA
628:AN
508:ИA
488:AN
400:ИA
380:AN
310:)
300:)
290:)
280:)
270:)
260:)
250:)
199:)
189:)
179:)
169:)
73:(
39:,
1284:(
1264:(
1251:M
1247:b
1239:•
1231:d
1227:M
1213:(
1183:(
1170:M
1166:b
1158:•
1150:d
1146:M
1126:(
1101:(
1086:(
1069:M
1065:b
1057:•
1049:d
1045:M
1025:(
1011:(
996:(
953:(
933:(
893:(
871:(
850:(
840:?
828:(
820:(
805:(
775:M
771:b
763:•
755:d
751:M
701:(
650:M
646:b
638:•
630:d
626:M
582:(
570:(
510:M
506:b
498:•
490:d
486:M
451:(
402:M
398:b
390:•
382:d
378:M
355:(
306:(
296:(
286:(
276:(
266:(
256:(
246:(
195:(
185:(
175:(
165:(
134:(
126:(
117:?
88:)
60:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
