Talk:Richard Tylman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
	This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group.

	Richard Tylman is part of WikiProject Poetry, a WikiProject related to Poetry.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

An individual covered by or significantly related to this article, Richard Tylman, has edited Wikipedia as Poeticbent (talk · contribs). This user's editing has included this article. Readers are encouraged to review Wikipedia:Autobiography for information concerning autobiographical articles on Wikipedia.

This article was nominated for deletion on 23 March 2008. The result of the discussion was No consensus to delete.

[edit] Biography assessment rating comment

WikiProject Biography Summer 2007 Assessment Drive

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Yamara 13:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] “#1” illustrator on the West Coast

In March I placed a citation needed tag beside the statement that Tylman has "the reputation as the “#1” illustrator on the West Coast." Unfortunately, the reference since provided fails to meet Wikipedia's policy concerning verifiability. In short, the source is the subject's own website and not a third party source. I have been unable to confirm Tylman's stature in the West Coast art scene and so have removed the claim. Should a reliable third party source be found, I suggest the statement be reintroduced. Victoriagirl 20:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright

I've again deleted the rather lengthy list of assignments sourced through the subject's website. I believe there is some misunderstanding as to the reasoning behind the original deletion. Perhaps my edit summary could have been more clear. As expressed, the removal of the information in question has nothing to do with any analytic or evaluative claim, rather it has everything to do with the fact that it is lifted from the subject's website, a clear violation of WP:COPY.

In the interest of openness, I will add that I have WP:V issues with the inclusion of this resume, but this was not the reason given for its deletion. If this information is indeed verifiable in accordance with policy, I recommend that a rewritten, much more selective list be added.

On a related note, I had also deleted one of the two links to Tylman's website only because... well, I see no real point in having multiple links to the same site. I realize there is disagreement in this and so have let the reinsertion stand. Victoriagirl (talk) 17:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• • I do not wish to engage in an edit war regarding this issue, even though blanket reverting of copy with additional citations already included can be perceived as verging on vandalism. There’s a misunderstanding of GFDL principles taking place here. Please read WP:COPY#Using copyrighted work from others for guidance since “copyright law governs the creative expression of ideas, not the ideas or information themselves.” For that reason, the extended list of assignments provided hereto (with the source of course) does not and never would constitute a copyright issue.

    There’s only one way I might have misinterpreted the intentions behind the removal of data and that is, through WP:PSTS, which I explained in my edit summary. Please read the definitions of primary source providing “an inside view”^[1] into the past when the delivery of physical proof would require rather pointless effort without the custodian. By the same token, I would gladly accept a rewritten, selective list of assignments to be added instead, providing they paint an adequate picture of the past. I insist, there are no WP:V issues here since a number of those internal links have only a historical value.

    And finally, I do not consider two separate links to a Bio and a Gallery of Paintings to be repetitious because the actual article is divided into two separate sections of interest for different readers thus justifying two direct links. Sincerely, Poeticbent talk 19:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

As the issue of vandalism has been raised, may I respectfully point out Wikipedia's policy on the issue. I can assure you that my edits were made in good faith.

On to the topic of copyright. You are correct, of course, that “copyright law governs the creative expression of ideas, not the ideas or information themselves.” However, more than a mere list, the sentences under discussion are virtually identical in both wording and structure to those featured on Tylman's website. Easily fixed, I suppose, as I'll mention later.

I won't speak to WP:PSTS as I have never so much as implied that anything in the way of original research is to be found in this article. I have, however, raised the issue of verifiability. On this topic I offer the following observations on the paragraph in question:

1. No source is provided for the lengthy "list of his assignments". While it has been discovered that the list is derived from Richard Tylman's website, this cannot be used as a source for the reasons laid out in the section titled "Self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves".
2. Two sources (Graphex competition. More on Graphex.) are provided in support of the sentence "He received First Prize award for Illustration at the 1991 Graphex competition." However, neither so much as mentions Tylman's name.
3. The assertion that the award was received "for a series of vignettes used in a promotional campaign" is, again, only supported by an assertion made on Tylman's own website.

In the interests of moving forward, I suggest that the list of "assignments" be reduced to two or three of the most significant names, followed by a citation request. As for the Graphex competition, there may be something archived, but I've been unable to find mention. That said, I would assume that the 1991 awards received some sort of coverage in trade magazines. There must be some reliable, independent source to back up the statement concerned.

As I stated in my last post, the issue of more than one link pointing to the same website has been a source of disagreement - personal taste, perhaps. And, as stated above, I'm more than willing to let things stand. Victoriagirl (talk) 20:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Please forgive the implication of bad faith, which – incidentally – is what many blanket reverts of considerable size (-1,821) are. However, in the interest of moving forward, let it be known that Graphex provides no online record of awards beyond the year 2000 not to mention its entire list of former recipients dating back to 1977. Therefore, the only available proof would have to come from the subject. The great many webpages linked from Google to information on Graphex are being discontinued – a possible sign of an internal struggle. Notably, GDC website is also a trade publication with a lot at stake for people whose livelihood depends on good old WISIWIG, so there’s only so much we can do.

I appreciate your desire to follow our guidelines precisely. However, contrary to your own statement, Wikipedia:Verifiability does not prohibit the use of personal websites as Internet sources “when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications,” which I believe is the case. Indeed, WP:SELFPUB informs us that the self-published material “may be used... so long as: it is relevant to their notability; not contentious; not unduly self-serving” etc. I hope you’re not suggesting that the subject might have attempted to misinform the reader? There would be no purpose to that.

I’d love to see, which assignments from the list are in your opinion significant in terms of names, and why? Most of the ad agencies referred to by the subject in his Narrative are no longer in existence. Also, I’d like to point out that the article is better referenced via inline citations than most articles in its own category. Sincerely, --Poeticbent talk 23:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, I fail to see how the deletion of material under copyright lifted from another site can be considered an edit made in bad faith - no matter what the size.

To move ahead: surely there must be some public record from a source independent of the subject that he did, in fact, win the award in question.

To address the two sections you've quoted from the verifiablity. I cannot agree that the "Self-published sources" section has any bearing here. While it is true that the policy states that self-published material "may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications", this is akin to saying that Richard Tylman is an established expert on the topic of Richard Tylman and has published work on Richard Tylman in reliable third-party publications.

Again, I refer to the "Self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves" section, which states that such sources may be used so long as "...it does not involve claims about third parties..." While I don't for a moment believe that the subject has attempted to misinform the reader, I do recognize that it does make claims about third parties.

Which assignments do I consider the most significant? I would side towards those with the greatest profile internationally; names like British Airways and American Express. I admit to being mystified by your comment concerning ad agencies as I see none listed.

Finally, could you tell me whether you yourself are the subject? I ask because Richard Tylman has provided a list of Wikipedia articles he has "written" on his website. I note that you are the original editor of each. Victoriagirl (talk) 03:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

While discussing the article, please keep in mind our WP:TPG guidelines advising us to keep on topic, since: "Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects)..." i.e.: the content of our own User pages. I can only hope that something good will come out of our effort. --Poeticbent talk 04:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I do not see where it is that I have departed from the topic. Please clarify.

Concerning your recent return of the material under discussion. Could you please address the issue of sources? Again, websites are cited which clearly don't support the associated statements.

Lastly, I note that my comments about copyright have not been addressed. If you are indeed Richard Tylman, it would appear my concerns unnecessary. Again, please clarify. Victoriagirl (talk) 05:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Would you please send me an email from my own User page? I will happily answer your personal questions using a secure channel. In fact I’d like to ask your advise also. --Poeticbent talk 14:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I prefer to discuss Wikipedia articles, policies and other matters on the relevant talk pages. However, if you would like to send me an email, you are more than welcome. Victoriagirl (talk) 13:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Following up on verifiability concerns expressed above, I’ve applied citation requests to the following statements:

• ”He received a Masters degree in Painting from the Academy of Fine Arts (ASP) and was chosen to represent Krakow at the national juried exhibition of paintings by the most prominent young professional artists.” The source provided, an uncredited translation from a catalogue found on the artist’s website, does not support either claim.
• ”In opposition to the then leading trend toward post-expressionism in the Academy, Tylman maintained his artistic interest in hyperrealist painting spinning controversy.” The source provided in support of this claim is the artist’s own writing. There is otherwise no indication that controversy was aroused.
• ”He defended his master's thesis at the atelier of Prof. Andrzej Strumiłło”. The source provided makes no mention of Tylman’s name.

As I’ve not yet received a response regarding identity, I’ve attempted to attempted to address the issue of copyright by rewriting the second half of the "Visual arts" section. In doing so I have:

• shortened the rather lengthy list of “assignments”
• adjusted the formatting of the footnotes
• removed redundant links
• corrected the description of the award received
• removed two footnotes linking to the 2008 Graphex competition (which appear to have no connection to this article).

Victoriagirl (talk) 22:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Generally speaking, I did not see the necessity for the removal of all the little bits and pieces of non-controversial information from the article about the artist’s professional career. The assignments listed could help us draw our own conclusions. They follow Wikipedia’s "objectivity over subjectivity " guideline. Since Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, WP:WIN assures us that "we can include more information, provide more external links, update more quickly, and so on." As far as the now repeated question about who I am please see WP:TPG guidelines about the posting of personal details. My knowledge of the Polish language (thus confirming the reliability of translations) is already listed on my User page; still, there are other editors willing to do that, as per our Category:Translators pl-en. In addition, the above mentioned lack of accreditation of translation referenced by the artist (please confirm) is an overkill, taking into account its purpose. I have edited the above points accordingly, with our common interest in mind. --Poeticbent talk 21:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Although I'm not certain (and if I am incorrect, please forgive me), I presume that what is being referred to by "little bits and pieces" is the record of commercial art assignments. Feeling that this was rather long and trivial, I trimmed the list by roughly three-quarters. While I disagree with the reinsertion - and, again, wish that an independant source could be found - I'm not strongly against letting the information stand. What does trouble me is the unexplained removal of citation requests I placed to support the statements I discussed above:

• ”He received a Masters degree in Painting from the Academy of Fine Arts (ASP) and was chosen to represent Krakow at the national juried exhibition of paintings by the most prominent young professional artists.” The citation request has been replaced by the original source provided. As previously stated, the reference, a translation from a catalogue found on the artist’s website, does not support either claim. In fact, the quotation features no mention of Richard Tylman at all. It would appear that my use of the word "uncredited" has been misinterpreted. What was meant is that there is no indication as to the identity translator, nor is there information as to where the original source of the translation is to be found.
• ”In opposition to the then leading trend toward post-expressionism in the Academy, Tylman maintained his artistic interest in hyperrealist painting spinning controversy.” Again, the only source supporting the claim that the artist aroused controversy is made by Tylman himself on his own website.
• ”He defended his master's thesis at the atelier of Prof. Andrzej Strumiłło”. As I pointed out, the original source makes no mention of Tylman’s name. The citation request I placed has been removed - no alternate source has been provided.

Poeticbent, I'd originally asked whether you might be Richard Tylman as the answer was relevant to my concerns over copyright. In short, we'd both be wasting our time going back and forth over the matter if you were, in fact, the copyright owner. I have never asked for personal details (and point out, as an aside, that WP:TPG prohibits users from posting "what they believe are the personal details of other users without their consent [emphasis mine]"). Confronted with Richard Tylman’s “Selection of articles written for Wikipedia”, and recognizing the heavy reliance this article has on the subject's own website, I do have concerns over conflict of interest. That said, I realize that this isn’t the forum in which to discuss this issue. Victoriagirl (talk) 15:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The issue copyright seems to me easily resolvable if the website in in question can be licensed under a compatible free license - GFDL or preferably CC-AT-SA. For the possible COI I suggest starting a new section, although I think the article is neutral and notable enough not to warrant anything further.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe the issue of copyright was laid to rest with this edit, in which the material in question was rewritten. As stated above, I don't think this is the forum in which to discuss any perceived conflict of interest, and so have filed a report at the conflict of interest noticeboard. Conflict of interest aside, the outstanding issue would appear to be the unexplained removal of citation requests. Thus far, my concerns [1][2] about this particular material remain unaddressed. On this topic, I note that I erred in my previous post in that the words "spinning controversy" have been removed from the second passage under discussion. My apologies. I will be restoring the other two citation requests. Victoriagirl (talk) 15:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I've again restored the two citation requests, which were recently removed. The reasons for their having been applied in the first place have been twice explained.[3][4]Victoriagirl (talk) 00:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proof of acclaim

Could someone translate the citation here that is said to verify "acclaimed" and "contributing to the intellectual climate of the Polish-Canadian community" for Koty marcowe? If it's a publisher's blurb or catalogue entry, it can hardly be taken as neutral verification: all blurbs exaggerate authors' importance. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 22:15, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Note: the original text cached here by http://web.archive.org has been stripped of Polish diacritics in the process. Reading it might pose considerable difficulty for the translator. For your convenience, below is the same text with Polish diacritics mechanically added by auto-speller from the Polish edition of Microsoft Word. You're welcome to confirm its accuracy by right-clicking on the link here and comparing the copy below to the original displayed in a separate window. --Poeticbent talk 22:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

---

Ryszard Tylman (1952) - poeta, eseista, prozaik, tłumacz, autor zbiorów poezji w językach polskim i angielskim (Wiersze wybrane z pudełka po znoszonych butach, Żyjąc w ruchomym pejzażu, Przywilej, Wosk poetycki, Kochankowie z wyobraźni), w latach studiów zdobywca nagrody w Poetyckim Turnieju Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego o Nagrodę Wielkiej Sowy, na uchodźstwie autor artykułów i odczytów istotnie wzbogacających życie intelektualne środowisk twórczych Kanady, polonii kanadyjskiej i światowej emigracji literackiej (Pokolenie utracone, W hiszpańskiej kawiarence, Narodziny kanadyjskiej poezji świata, Nieprzypisany przywilej, Miejsce Polonii na planie Polski Wolnej, Siła poetyckiej licencji). Z wykształcenia mgr sztuk z dyplomem krakowskiej ASP, artysta malarz poświęcający się obecnie studiom nad mitami i osobami bóstw indiańskich zachodniej Kanady, także ilustrator nagrodzony Pierwszą Nagrodą w konkursie Stowarzyszenia Grafików Kanadyjskich. Gość polonijnych klubów literackich, imprez, koncertów okolicznościowych i licznych angielskich programów radiowych na falach Imagine Italia oraz CFRO 102.7 FM w Vancouver. Finalista Festiwalu Poezji Kanadyjskiej w 2001 r., poeta silnie dwujęzyczny, którego styl inspiruje porównania z twórczością T.S. Eliota (F. Jackson).

Poezja Tylmana, erudycyjna, prowokująca do myślenia, obraca się swobodnie w konwencjach traktatu filozoficznego oraz nowej epiki romantycznej. Dostępna jest m.in. za pośrednictwem internetu pod adresem: geocities.com/poetryofrichardtylman. Strona ta prezentuje także malarstwo i odautorską narrację. Powyższa edycja wierszy Tylmana jest wyborem z jego bogatej twórczości w języku polskim i obejmuje utwory powstałe na Zachodzie na przestrzeni ostatnich dwóch dekad.

[edit] Reference for translation

Moved here pending. This is the English Wikipedia, and inclusion smells of WP:POINT. We can include it after translation, if the source - website at rocznik.strumien.pacak-gamalski.com - proves to be sufficiently major to demonstrated "acclaimed" as a general statement (as opposed to acclaimed by some tiny obscure magazine). Gordonofcartoon (talk) 00:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

<ref name=Pacak-Gamalski>{{pl icon}} Bogumił Pacak-Gamalski, „Anonsy wydawnicze”. Strumień, Rocznik Twórczości Polskiej w Zachodniej Kanadzie (Polish Cultural Annual for Western Canada), published by Strumien Pub. Ltd., 2004. Nr 3, p. 29. Vancouver, Canada. ISSN 1488-8513. »Koty marcowe« Ryszarda Tylmana. Wydawnictwo Nowy Świat (Warszawa) 2002. Krajowy debiut wydawniczy poety. Jedna z najciekawszych pozycji poetyckich ostatnich lat w twórczości emigracyjnej. Tylman, który poezją parał się od wielu lat, robił to niejako w zaciszu. Kilka jego poprzednich wydań zbiorków wierszy i poematów miało charakter zdecydowanie ograniczony w zasięgu i lokalny. Ten debiut krajowy będąc więc debiutem późnym sygnalizuje poetę już dojrzałego artystycznie i filozoficznie. Zgadzam się całkowicie z notą wydawniczą na obwolucie książki, że ”Poezja Tylmana, erudycyjna, prowokująca do myślenia, obraca się swobodnie w konwencjach traktatu filozoficznego oraz nowej epiki romantycznej”. Charakterystycznym elementem twórczości Tylmana jest jego refleksja emigracyjna i wynikające stąd konsekwencje pewnych postaw filozoficzno-etycznych.</ref>

Re this edit: you mean to say, foreign language reference points are no longer acceptable around here? really

No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying the quality as a verification for a general description of "acclaimed" needs checking out before it's used, because it looks like an extremely obscure publication. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 01:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

• »Koty marcowe« Ryszarda Tylmana. Wydawnictwo Nowy Świat (Warszawa) 2002. Krajowy debiut wydawniczy poety. Jedna z najciekawszych pozycji poetyckich ostatnich lat w twórczości emigracyjnej. Tylman, który poezją parał się od wielu lat, robił to niejako w zaciszu. Kilka jego poprzednich wydań zbiorków wierszy i poematów miało charakter zdecydowanie ograniczony w zasięgu i lokalny. Ten debiut krajowy będąc więc debiutem późnym sygnalizuje poetę już dojrzałego artystycznie i filozoficznie. Zgadzam się całkowicie z notą wydawniczą na obwolucie książki, że ”Poezja Tylmana, erudycyjna, prowokująca do myślenia, obraca się swobodnie w konwencjach traktatu filozoficznego oraz nowej epiki romantycznej”. Charakterystycznym elementem twórczości Tylmana jest jego refleksja emigracyjna i wynikające stąd konsekwencje pewnych postaw filozoficzno-etycznych.

Independent translation of the above text. Independent opinion of its content: seems like an overkill to me in gloryfying the subject, so typical for appraisers from the bygone commie era. Borders on paranoia. Rather unedible, it has even a name in Polish - buttery butter, still I was asked by a fellow Wikipedian to translate it, so be it:

>>Cats of March<< by Ryszard Tylman. Editor Nowy Swiat (Warsaw) 2002. National editorial debut by the poet. One of the most interesting poetic entries in recent years in emigree poetry. Tylman, who writes poetry since many years, manages it somehow far away from the crowd. Several of his previous editions of the collections of his poems and poem writings was definitely of local and limited scope. It means that his national debut was a late debut by an already matured poet, both artistically and philosophically. I completely agree with the editor's note on the cover of the book that "Poetry by Tylman is literate, inspires to think, spins freely inside the convention of the philosophical treaty and the new Romantic epic". The characteristic element of Tylman's creative power is his emigree afterthought and its consequently delivered philosophical and ethical profile. greg park avenue (talk) 17:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Not wanting to get involved in the merits of the topic, just a few notes to editors; please do not assume that you know a particular subject if you dont, dont make general assumptions in a field you are not familiar with and consider you opinions as opinions, not statements. This is first time I have heard that a review written in a Polish art magazine about a Polish author is a "buttery butter" - does it apply to other nationalities? The translation from the "Strumien" annual is lacking in understanding literary and editorial terminology. It begins with wrong translation of the title: "Strumien" is not "Polish Cultural Annual for Western Canada", the title is: " Polish Art (Creativity) Annual for Western Canada". Typically, such publications are not published in large editions as more popular (and less serious)"cultural" publications. The editorial board consists of people of such stature as: A.J. Wroblewski (former President of Academy of Fine Arts in Warsaw and Professor Emeritus of Univesity of Illinois, A. Gradowska ( former professor and organizer of Dep. of Fine Arts at the Central University in Caracas), B. Pacak-Gamalski (poet and essaist). I am not sure whether it warrants calling this annual "extremely obscure publication". The terms used to decribe it smack at best as , well, not elegant ones, perhaps even arrogant. The remaining translations of the text in question is less than satisfying in both accuracy and terminology. As a literary text about a literary work it demands more effort than a colloquial translation. Best regards to all of you. (bepege (talk) 09:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)).bepege (talk) 09:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure whether it warrants calling this annual "extremely obscure publication".

So what's its circulation? Does it have a verifiable reputation? Gordonofcartoon (talk) 10:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

As catalogue searches indicate that no issues or copies of Strumien, the "Polish Art (Creativity) Annual for Western Canada", are held in the libraries of the University of Saskatchewan, University of Calgary, University of Alberta, University of British Columbia and the public libraries of Regina, Calgary, Edmonton and Vancouver, I think the description "extremely obscure publication" is very apt. Victoriagirl (talk) 19:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Verification of data is available through Polish information bureau in Warsaw, Poland.[5] The magazine is written in Polish, thus aimed at Polish readership and available there, regrettably not in Canadian circulation even though it is registered by Min. of Finance and Corporate Relations, B.C., according to source. --Poeticbent talk 20:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: I would like to encourage Mr. Bogumił Pacak-Gamalski (editor of Strumień), to take into consideration comments about his magazine’s web presence made in good faith by User:Gordonofcartoon yesterday at User:Greg park avenue’s Talk page.[6] I’m referring to Gordonofcartoon’s remarks about the apparent lack of text based material there.[7] I believe, this could be fixed with little difficulty by copying and pasting text from “pdf” files (used in printing) right into “html” client or perhaps by uploading and linking some of them directly from website (in addition to graphics). Since the actual magazine seems to be missing from Western Canadian libraries as noted by Victoriagirl already, I suppose expanding on its web presence could add to its credibility as a source now already removed from the article. --Poeticbent talk 17:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Not really. Having citations in publications of demonstrable notability would help. Google Bogumił Pacak-Gamalski. Oooh, this guy is so famous: 249 Google hits. We should treat that as proof of general acclaim. I'm so convinced. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 01:33, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

It's probably more than you have ever done, "Gordon". It's pathetic to see people who "edit" wikipedia trashing people who have actually done something valuable, interesting and successful with their lives. I'm sure this makes "Gordon" feel big but it makes Wikipedia seem so terribly small. 206.248.158.66 (talk) 19:14, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Um, to keep this factual, "Gordonofcartoon" gets 493 Wikipedia-related Google hits, not counting any additional hits for his real-life identity. Art LaPella (talk) 21:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

So "success" is measured by Google hits? 70.51.247.144 (talk) 21:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Not necessarily (Poeticbent, Richard Tylman and Art LaPella all out-Google Gordonofcartoon). I just wanted to clarify "more than you have ever done", which can be interpreted as an inaccurate response to the 249 figure. If we can agree on arithmetic, we are more likely to agree on intangible value judgments. Art LaPella (talk) 22:13, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

It is sad how the level of literary and archival discourse have evolved into personal "this and that". It really changed the way how I view the entire Wikipedia experience as a source of credible information. An encyclopedic entry does not consist of opinions. It gathers facts and sources of information. The sources are obviously subjective in their respective opinions - as is always the case in literary and art reviews. These are artistic maters, not scientific ones. Google is a very valuable tool in researching a subject, yet hardly a sole source of information. As you all know very well, it is only what you or others put in the world wide web. Not all researchers, readers do work in electronic media. A lot (majority) is still done in actual archives and not in on-line catalogues. The art annual "Strumien" is mainly geared to Polish literary and research academic institutions. It could be found (among other places) in the Main University Library of Warsaw University, Jagiellonian University, Nicolaus Copernicus University, in the Departments of Polish Philology and Polish Literature of same and others. It received commendations from Prof. A. Mencwel, Director of Institute of Polish Culture in Warsaw ( I have no idea though how many "hits" Mr. Mencwel has on Google), Prof. Danuta Knysz-Tomaszewska, Director of Institute of Polish Literature in Warsaw, Prof. Boleslaw Klimaszewski (Director of Polish-American Studies Institute in Cracow) was a contributing author in this annual. It does not make the magazine "famous" or widely known, but it appears to make it a relatively credible source of information. The opinions about authors or events published in this magazine are just that - opinions. As they are in every other publication of this character. Whether the reader or author wishes to use it as source - is for the reader and author. As for the editor, Mr. B. Pacak-Gamalski - you are of course entitled to your opinions about his work or reviews. If you want to read his review, perhaps I can suggest visiting pages of maybe not so "extremely obscure" titles as: Muzyka21, a leading Polish musical monthly ([8])- issues from March 2008 and from Spring 2007; or in the main Polish Theatre web source at[9]. It has little (or nothing) to do with the subject of poetry of Richard Tylman, but than as I noticed, so is a lot written previously in these posts. I wish all of you all the best and gladly leave the space for more enthusiastic editors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bepege (talk • contribs) 20:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

If that is a criticism of me, I have a degree in mathematics, so of course I speak more confidently of numbers than of poetry. Art LaPella (talk) 23:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Poetry as such is a lot closer to mathematics than any other literary genre, as brilliantly explained by William Carlos Williams. Art, you have nothing to worry about. This is about subjectivity of personal opinions expressed in literary as well as art reviews, as oppose to scientific matters. Personal opinions is what we need to check at the door around here. The suggestions you made at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Richard_Tylman are our only hope for a lasting and peaceful resolution. --Poeticbent talk 02:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Third-party

Since the subject of Google hits has been accentuated somewhat disproportionately in this discussion, I’d like to add an extra item to search results quoted above by Art LaPella, i.e.: "Ryszard Tylman: Koty marcowe."

• A Polish Google listing of 2,250 [10] Polish bookstores and booksellers' webpages (Polish: księgarnie) offering Koty marcowe by Tylman following its 2002 publication by Nowy Świat. Description: Ryszard Tylman, Koty marcowe, Wydawnictwo Nowy Świat, Warszawa, 2002, wydanie I (first edition), 120 pages, hard cover, ISBN 83-88576-94-1.
• A different Google listing of 1,220 [11] Polish bookstores and booksellers’ webpages featuring the same volume Koty marcowe with short supplementary introduction about the author (Polish: opis) and book description borrowed from the back cover of Koty marcowe. (English translation below).
  Opis:
  Poezja Tylmana, erudycyjna, prowokująca do myślenia, obraca się swobodnie w konwencjach traktatu filozoficznego oraz nowej epiki romantycznej. Powyższa edycja wierszy Tylmana jest wyborem z jego bogatej twórczości w języku polskim i obejmuje utwory powstałe na Zachodzie na przestrzeni dwóch dekad.
  Translation (sounding conspicuously familiar):
  Poetry of Richard Tylman, intellectual and thought-provoking, moves freely between the conventions of philosophical treatise and the new Romantic epic. The above edition of poems by Tylman is a selection of his ample work in the Polish language and features poetry created in the West over the last two decades.

--Poeticbent talk 14:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Request edit

{{Request edit}} Due to conflict of interest (being the subject of this article) I invite editors browsing Category:Requested edits to please be so kind as to familiarize yourself with the few remaining issues brought up in this Talk as well as via the most recent comments made at WP:COIN#Richard Tylman and please, help out with whatever improvements you'd find sufficient enough for the removal of residual {{cleanup}} tag from this article thus putting an end to a month long debate. Thanks in advance. --Poeticbent talk 16:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] More refs

Any of those would be helpful, perhaps? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Third-party view on remaining issues

After receiving a request by Poeticbent I've read the discussion here, at the COI noticeboard and the AfD page. I have not gone through the page's history, but I think I have a decent idea of the concerns. As far as I can tell, most of the earlier concerns have been addressed, and only two, fairly minor questions remain: the sentence "He defended his Master's Thesis at the atelier of Prof. Andrzej Strumiłło in 1979" and the list of clients. I can see both sides of the argument here. On the one hand, common sense would indicate that there is no reason to doubt the accuracy of these statements, and their presence in the article provides useful context to Mr. Tylman's artistic career. On the other hand, there are legitimate concerns about verifiability — and, of course, the criterion is verifiability, not truth. So let's see what Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves has to say:

Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves, so long as:

1. the material used is relevant to their notability;
2. it is not contentious;
3. it is not unduly self-serving;
4. it does not involve claims about third parties;
5. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
6. there is no reasonable doubt as to who authored it;
7. the article is not based primarily on such sources.

His work has been featured in advertisements for clients such as Petro-Canada, Canadian Pacific Airlines and Sun-Rype, published in newspapers and magazines such as Time,[9][10] Maclean's,[11] and Chatelaine.[12]

If we replaced the full list of clients with the ones specifically used in these verifiable sources, I think that the issues in this article would be resolved. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please replace paragraph

I'm grateful to Josiah Rowe for his analysis of the remaining issues. Your summary enabled me to focus on what could be challenged under extremely strict interpretation of WP:V. One of the main concerns is the verifiability of the client list. I copied and pasted that entire paragraph below and added to it "unarguably verifiable" print references. I appeal to editors who follow this discussion to please copy and paste below paragraph in its new form back into the article using edit mode. Straightforward citations cannot possibly be seen as "aggrandizing" and yet, the text is almost exacly the way it was. Thanks in advance. --Poeticbent talk 02:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

While in Canada, Tylman pursued a career in commercial arts as an airbrush illustrator. His illustrations have appeared on billboards, bus shelters, the covers of several corporate annual reports and in brochures. His work has been featured in advertisements published in newspapers and magazines such as Time,^[1][2][3] Maclean's,^[4] and Chatelaine.^[5] Amongst the corporations for whom he provided illustrations are Petro-Canada, BCTel,^[6] and the British Columbia Lottery Corporation, as well as Canadian Pacific Airlines^[7][3] with Wardair,^[7] Pacific Western Airlines^[1] with American Express,^[8] Energy Mines and Resources Canada,^[9] Tourism British Columbia for Expo 86,^[10] West Edmonton Mall, Tetra Pak, Sun-Rype,^[5] The Province and others.

Looks good, I am moving this to the article. There are still a few publications missing citations, can we expect them in the near future? From my perspective, this is useful not only for verifiability, but for interested readers who would like to track down and read the poetry/reviews/etc. in question.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

This is good work. I'm inclined to remove the {{cleanup}} tag at this point, but I'd like to hear from the editors who were critical of the article in its earlier form. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the overall problem is one of undue weight. In part, there's an expected correlation between importance of subject and depth of documentation. This is an encyclopedia article for general readership, not a CV, and we don't need a laundry list of citations to every piece of commercial artwork. But also, the whole topic fails a fundamental test of notability: we don't have a single third-party source about this work, so its significance is unproven and such detailed coverage inappropriate. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 22:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Notability is a determining factor for inclusion of a topic in Wikipedia, not for level of detail once inclusion has been decided upon. See WP:NNC. Notability is not a criterion for the level of detail: since Wikipedia is not paper, ideally any topic considered worthy of inclusion would be covered in encyclopedic detail. The article has verifiable and reliable sourcing; I don't see a problem with the level of detail. Notability is relevant only to whether a topic is worthy of coverage; there was no consensus at the AfD, which defaults to "keep", so for the time being notability arguments are moot here. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:COIN

For the record. Below is a copy of the final decision reached at WP:COIN in this matter. Poeticbent talk

Resolved. COI editing has stopped; editors below are satisfied with the neutrality of the current version of the article. EdJohnston (talk) 02:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Even so, the above decision has been withheld following a query [12] by User:Gordonofcartoon. See WP:COIN explanation [13] by User:EdJohnston. --Poeticbent talk 15:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

As I said at WP:COIN, I have no problem with the closure itself: WP:COI issues have been well dealt with.

I objected only to the concluding statement that editors are satisfied with the neutrality of the current version - which doesn't reflect the final statements of disputing editors in the WP:COIN discussion, and is prejudicial to remaining cleanup on grounds of neutrality. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 00:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Are there elements of the article which you think do not represent a neutral point of view? If so, can you specify them? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it's aggrandizing overall by excess of detail in relation to notability. I go with your earlier suggestion - Third-party view on remaining issues - to cut the commercial art section to the most notable verified clients. Snip the "line of descent" bit - this is only worth mentioning if the ancestor(s) had separate notability and/or specific relevance to the subject's work, and just comes across as some kind of implication of merit in having multinational roots. Trim the student history too: when people are seriously famous, their early formative works and actions become of interest; but not before. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 22:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

These are fairly minor content questions. My editorial judgement would tend to agree on deletion of the "line of descent", but not on the list of clients, since the cited advertisements are verifiable and the list of clients is relevant to Tylman's work as an artist. Neither of these concerns really justifies the cleanup tag, in my opinion; I'm going to make an executive decision and remove it. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)