Talk:British painter Lucian Freud dies aged 88

Sources

Great article, but some of the material needs to be sourced, such as the schooling and the names of his children. --William S. Saturn (talk) 20:17, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Also the quotes need to be sourced, such as "travesty" and the pullquote "I paint people not because of what they are like, not exactly in spite of what they are like, but how they happen to be." I can't find these in the sources. Could you point out where they come from? (Perhaps I am missing something.) Mattisse (talk) 21:54, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

The wikipedia aricle Lucian Freud contains both quotes. One appears unsourced and "travesty" is in a 2001 BBC article that says: The Sun calls the portrait "a travesty". Mattisse (talk) 22:48, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

For me, one recurring question on wikinews is: can wikipedia be used as a source for background information? --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:42, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I have inquired at the Water cooler.--William S. Saturn (talk) 23:46, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I just added a large number of sources to the article, and removed some things that were either unverifiable or non-essential. Some of the content remains unsourced; particularly, the first part of the third paragraph, the quotes in the third paragraph and the different museums listed in the fourth paragraph.--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:53, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

• "His work was nominated for the Turner Prize in 1989" comes from the Wikipedia article that has a dead link for a source.[1]. It is not mentioned in any of the sources for this article, even the ones added by William S. Saturn (that I could find.) Mattisse (talk) 12:44, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Review of revision 1262961 [Passed]

Revision 1262961 of this article has been reviewed by Diego Grez (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 20:39, 23 July 2011 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: None added. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 1262961 of this article has been reviewed by Diego Grez (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 20:39, 23 July 2011 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: None added. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

This article is not correctly sourced - how could it be passed?

Were the comments above taken into account. This articles is drawn partly from unsourced material from Wikipedia, and partly from who know where? Mattisse (talk) 22:17, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

The only thing that wasn't sourced was the Sun thing. A source has been submitted. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:39, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Although you plagarized the BBC article sourced in the Wikipedia article, you still have not taken care of the other concerned raised about unsourced material, such as the thirteen children etc. raised above. Mattisse (talk) 22:40, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Did Tom plagiarise Wikipedia, or the BBC; or, are you just looking for an argument? The point within the article has been rewritten, and is neither the words of Wikipedia, the BBC, or the Sun. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 22:56, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Mattisse, what do you mean by plagarized?--William S. Saturn (talk) 23:02, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I didn't bloody well plagiarise Wikipedia. I used facts from Wikipedia. Facts that are well sourced and non-contentious in an obituary. I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition. If you want sources for the fact that he had kids, they are footnoted in Wikipedia: here and here. Shame on me for using that evil, unreliable Wikipedia for all this utterly uncontroversial background material. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:08, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I mean you used, word for word, the BBC report, not even explaining what The Sun is, and there are a multitude of Suns in this world. You should not expect the reader to go to the wikipedia article to find the sources for a wikinews articles. This certainly means that in this case this article relies on the Wikipedia article, which I thought (perhaps wrongly) was frowned on here. In my opinion (obviously the minority) is that all sources for a wikinews article should be listed in the sources. I have been way too conscientious in the articles I have written for wikinews, put way too much work into them. According to this line of thinking, an editors first step should be to consult the wikipedia article (which I don't do) and crib from that. I only write articles from the sources I list. Mattisse (talk) 23:17, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I did not plagiarise BBC News. I took uncontroversial background facts from Wikipedia. Let me spell this out:

Wikipedia says this...

The highest selling tabloid newspaper, The Sun, was particularly condemnatory, describing the portrait as "a travesty".

The BBC says this...

The Sun calls the portrait "a travesty".

I said this...

Most controversially, he painted a portrait of Queen Elizabeth II which was described by The Sun newspaper as a "travesty"...

There are only so many ways of saying the same thing. Yes, it was a paraphrasing of Wikipedia unsourced. That is not the same thing as "plagiarism", that's a reuse of background material. Me not knowing that our rules are anal about sourcing is one thing, but plagiarism is another thing entirely. I accept I was a bit slapdash on the former (and hardly graceful about it after) but I did not plagiarise. Also, I think the word "newspaper" after "The Sun" kind of tells you that it is a newspaper. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:35, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────┘
Tom, don't beat yourself up over this; you, essentially, did nothing wrong – other than omit a couple of sources. Mattisse's ire should have been directed at Diego for giving the article a passing review with information that was not adequately sourced.

An obituary is a case where it is actually most important that sourcing is double-checked, and Wikipedia viewed suspiciously; such articles become targets for vandalism, some of which can be quite subtle.

In my opinion, the use of the word 'plagiarism' to describe any part of this article is a most insulting slur; were you a full-time, professional journalist, this would be one of the most serious allegations which could be laid against you. It is not the case here, nor - as far as I am aware - in any of your other submissions. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 07:14, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The editor of this article copied a complete sentence from the 2001 BBC article, not even bothering to link The Sun, since there are hundreds of newspapers with that name, or varying the wording at all. He did not source "travesty" but merely copied it from the wikipedia article. Likewise the pullquote, which Pi zero has removed. It was unsourced in any event in both the wikipedia article and the wikinews article. Glad the editor finally added a source for all those children after publication, although the added source says "atleast fourteen", rather than the figure reported in this article and in other ways The Daily Mail does not support the article. Did the editor who added it actually read The Daily Mail article before its publication?

Further, I am glad to know that it is ok to take (unsourced) "facts" from a wikipedia article, as was done here. Makes writing an article for wikinews a heck of a lot easier that all the effort I had been putting into writing articles here. Just go to the wikipedia article and cop that. I do not dare criticize Diego, as he blocked my nomination for reviewer, though he has been criticized multiple times for his poor reviews. Mattisse (talk) 13:59, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Before you, once again, repeat the allegation of plagiarism, please provide side-by side the text alleged to be copied. And, do not willfully twist what I have said to infer you may copy content from Wikipedia without fact-checking; this issue has been covered here, and on the Water Cooler, several people habve been chastised regarding this. Given the current disruption seemingly arising from inadequate reviews by Diego I will be asking him to stand for reconfirmation of his reviewer rights. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 15:53, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Mattisse, You are getting tiresome. If you think I have plagiarised something, please explain what. You said that I "used, word for word, the BBC report, not even explaining what The Sun is", and I've shown that with regard to The Sun's comments on the QEII pic, my words clearly differ from both Wikipedia and BBC News. So if you want to allege I have plagiarised, please tell me where or kindly retract the allegation. Also, if there are plagiarism concerns, may I remind you that there is an edit button. It is a wiki after all.

Regarding disambiguating The Sun, doesn't context do that well enough? A British painter does a painting of the British monarch, and a newspaper called The Sun (as I pointed out by including the word "newspaper" after The Sun) says something negative about it. What, you really think it was going to be the Winnipeg Sun or the Las Vegas Sun? If you need a link to disambiguate, feel free to click that little button that says "edit" and add it. It is a wiki after all.

And The Daily Mail? Of course I didn't read that source. I wasn't the one who added it, as you could tell if you used the "view history" button which reveals the exact pattern of editing that led to the article as it currently stands. It is a wiki after all. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:55, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I added the Daily Mail source, but did not change 'more than thirteen' to 'more than fourteen' because 'more than thirteen' includes 'more than fourteen'. I believed that the author perhaps had an unlisted source that said 'more than thirteen', so I thought it best to err on the side of caution.--William S. Saturn (talk) 16:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

┌─────────┘
(Stepping back a bit to address the shape of this discussion rather than its content; I'm sure everyone will have one or another reason for yelling at me for this.)

Mattisse, you appreciate, I know, the importance of positive atmosphere to a wiki; you've commented on it many times, and seems to me you've contributed to getting us here into more of a habit of thanking each other for stuff, which had lately gotten scarcer than I remember it as having once been. (I'd rather see us thanking reviewers for reviewing an article rather than for publishing it, but that's a subtlety. :-) Here's a thought on the subject of atmosphere. Although we're necessarily very big at Wikinews on mutual (and self) criticism, how one says things can make all the difference in whether it helps, and causes people to do better, or merely creates an incivil atmosphere that discourages participation. Consider the different likely effects of the following styles of remark.

1. This work should have been done better; it isn't up to the standards it should be. How can we (or, here's how we can) rectify this problem, and how can we (or, here's how we can) do better in future.

   This is positive, and may have a good effect. The long-range objective is to cause people to do better (granting, occasionally withdrawal of privileges may have to be contemplated), and the short-range objective is to identify appropriate mitigating measures for the specific incident. Even if the criticism were to turn out to be wrong, this style of criticism would help to minimize any offense taken.

2. This work is crap. The author/reviewer(/project) has no journalistic standards.

   This is negative, and is unlikely to promote the objectives. Instead, it's likely to offend people, put them on the defensive so they feel like victims rather than feeling motivated to do better in future, and discourage them from participating.

3. It's good to know Wikinews has no journalistic standards. That will make it so much easier to contribute here.

   This type of comment is, especially when repeated, poisonous to the project atmosphere.

--Pi zero (talk) 16:37, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit

Should be "with" in "after an affair wth the Bloomsbury Group member Lorna Garman". Heavy Water (talk) 02:35, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Corrected and sighted.--Bddpaux (talk) 21:05, 30 June 2023 (UTC)