Talk:Bodo Sperling

LLC books

The book I cancelled is shown here [1]. The publisher LLC copies English Wikipedia-articles and publishes them. Look at the Preview of the book, it's the same beginning as in the article mentioned. Excerpt: Alex Katz Alex Katz (born July 24, 1927) is an American figural artist associated with the Pop art movement. In particular, he is known for his paintings , sculptures , and prints . Life and work Alex Katz was born in Brooklyn , New York . In 1928 the family moved to St. Albans, Queens . From 1946 to 1949 he studied at The Cooper Union in New York, and from 1949 to 1950 he studied at the Skowhegan ... . We had the same problem in the German Wikipedia. --Robertsan1 (talk) 18:56, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

See also Yahoo Answers--Robertsan1 (talk) 18:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

@Robertsan1Have you read the book? --76.76.115.75 (talk) 18:37, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Absurd argument from Robertsan1. That would mean that WP is not suited as a source. This has to be seen as a private opinion of Robertsan1, and has no support in the WP guidelines. Why a book should not quote texts from the WP is a mystery to me? He can open a policy discussion. --76.76.104.107 (talk) 11:10, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Apparently Rob has no desire to tell us whether he has read the book. I suggest to wait a couple of days, and then possibly make the edit undo. --94.230.214.239 (talk) 18:58, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

If you look at the preview shown in the amazon-link you will see that the LLC opies english Wikipedia-articles. This is allowed of course. But there is no sense to put a book to the references-list that has the exactly the same content as the article itself. The only aim is for a self-promoting artist is to feel better seeing a lot of books in the literature-list. But it is not more content for the reader. If you will undo my edit, I will revert. Regards,--Robertsan1 (talk) 19:23, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

76.76.104.107, Wikipedia is not suitable as a source. See WP:CIRCULAR: Articles on Wikipedia, or on websites that mirror its content, should not be used as sources, because this would amount to self-reference. Similarly, editors should not use sources that present material originating from Wikipedia to support that same material in Wikipedia, as this would create circular sourcing—Wikipedia citing a source that derives its material from Wikipedia. TFOWR 19:43, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

TFOWR Thanks for the clarification. But why do Robertsan1 acting as sock puppet of Robertsan? --76.76.104.107 (talk) 20:33, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Alternative accounts aren't necessarily bad: they're only regarded as bad if they're used to evade blocks, or to mislead. I have an alternative account which I use when I'm away from my main computer, for example - like "Robertsan" and "Robertsan1" there's no attempt to mislead - the two accounts are clearly linked.

My concern with this source is: I can't see whether it is or is not copied from Wikipedia. If it is then we definitely should use it here. However, I've been unable to find out for sure whether it is copied. As it's used as "literature" rather than as a reference, I'd be inclined to say that we just leave it out for the time-being - but if we can determine that it's not copied from Wikipedia it can be added later. TFOWR 20:41, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I am inclined to buy me an issue. It would be important for the future, make a rule for the distinction. If a book contains text accompanying shares, authorization as a source should be possible. Otherwise we could pulped a whole lot of books. The more serious Wp is taken, the more often ask themselves this question. What do you think TFOWR? --87.236.194.76 (talk) 21:59, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't buy that book! Books, LLC copy their content from Wikipedia, so it is useless as an independent source. Just read the Wikipedia articles, don't waste your money. Fences&Windows 23:56, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

@IP:Sorry for using Robertsan1. When I first came to English WP I tried Robertsan, but this was not possible (the text said: user Robertsan already exists.) So I chose Robertsan1, and everybody can see at my page that I am Robertsan in de WP and so I am in German WQ. I will put this statement to my page as well.--Robertsan1 (talk) 10:25, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Improvements

Hi all,

I came to this page through the admins noticeboard, and have tried to tidy up the article a bit. I think most of the changes I have made are as a result of translating from German to English, and as a native I hope to have improved it a bit, but there are still some areas where editors with greater knowledge could help.

• Objectivism as an artistic idea needs expansion - at the moment my wp search has articles in terms of literature and philosophy, so it's not clear to me what Sperling added with his book.
• Not clear what "manager of the workspace Neurophilosophy at IFSN" is. Looking at Thomas Metzinger page, is it something to do with Frankfurt Institute for Advanced Studies? Also unclear what Science Arts is.
• Too many refs for the East Side Gallery, can we select two as a maximum?
• It would make sense for the article prose to develop chronologically, but it jumps around a lot. Is there a reason for this?

I need to keep going on the tidy up but will wait for some input from other editors first. Bigger digger (talk) 00:19, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Bigger digger, You were right, it is the Frankfurt Institute for Advanced Studies, I have changed that. (References East Side streamlined) --62.2.182.245 (talk) 09:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi all, we had troubles in German WP as well. The article w:de:Bodo Sperling was done by a user Bodo Sperling, who said he is the artist. In German WP this user (and later several IPs) tried to define a new kind of art, which he referenced by using philosophers (and not art historians, as usual). So we had a lot of troubles, because the user tried to put "Objectivism" and "objectivism in art" in philosophy-articles and articles of the objectivism writer Ayn Rand. The fine art team in German WP (where I am still working with) had some troubles by fixing the things right. Because we think, a new kind of art is not invented by an artist who says "I call my artwork xy". Every arist could do that. We think, an art criticer or art historian must say that and write about it in a (correctly published, not BOD,LLD...) book. Someone uploaded a file called "crystal...xy, "objectisvism" and put the description of the "objectivism" into the files description. In my eyes it is to get the name "objectivism in art" into Wikiepia through the back door. We had the article in the discussion for deleting, but the founding of the w:de:East Side Gallery makes him important enough. If I can help you with my German and (sorry) not so proper English please let me know.--Robertsan1 (talk) 20:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Critics:

• In 1985 he developed the art direction "Objectivism".[1] There is no art direction "objectivism", Bodo Sperling called his own art in that manner.
• The influence of Amsterdam is not verifiable.
• The text says: he invented Objectivism in 1985. The picture shown is dated 1980 and also called Objectivism.
• a video installation that confronted the viewer with the objective documentation of Spacetime ??? which art historian did ever write about that?
• The basis of his work, he sees in line with research by Rupert Sheldrake and his theory of Morphic field.

(I am also seeing a lot of namedropping when looking at this text.)--Robertsan1 (talk) 20:51, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Lawoftheart to Robertsan1

Robertsan1 watch out for you, you have removed National Library sources. Why? You have removed the award, the German Federal President has given the makers of the East Side Gallery. As far as I know, Sperling was one of the four initiators of the East Side Gallery in 1990. It was also immediately removed the source of this, very clever! Senate Chancellery from Berlin. You have removed two major References, one of which is the largest European art magazine 'art, why? Is their strategy, cut the articles at a stub in order to explain then the lack of relevance, as they had tried it in Germany? I once If you have a personal dislike for a living person, perhaps because a Jew or objectivist, then please contact us immediately here:WikiProject Biography. As we can see, you now want to change your username? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Robertsan1 ?...... --Lawoftheart (talk) 11:09, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Lawoftheart, I have reverted your edits as you have removed Robertsan1's improvements to the article. I will go back and see if some of the sources can be added back, but they don't seem very specific. Also, please comment on edits, not editors - please don't assume to know other people's motivations. I think this article could be a useful one, but we must all ensure it conforms to WP:Verifiability using sources.