Talk:Augustus John/Archive 1

Archive 1

Vandalism

Unilateral and unannounced removal of valuable non-spam links to an article is an act of vandalism unless a consensus has beem reached through discussion, or at least some attempt to reach consensus has been made. Niether conditions apply in this case, therefore the valuable links have been restored.Peter morrell 06:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

• A desire for conscientious editing has been misinterpreted as vandalism, which is defined as a "change in content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia". The intent was quite the opposite. Rather, it was, and is, to avoid repetition and include information of the best quality. To that end, please note that of the remaining images, the portrait of Yeats and both portraits of Lawrence are already represented on the links to the Tate and the NPG. The portrait of David Lloyd George is of poor quality, and the study for "Moses and the Brazen Serpent", while serving as an indication of John's youthful brilliance, is not a work of his finest level--many more of those (seven or eight pages' worth) are included in the museum links. Several other images that I deleted are of fine works of prominent individuals; again, my rationale was that links had already been provided to more than seventy works, and that these provide ample and encyclopedic representation of John's finest drawings and paintings. JNW 12:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree and it appears that since August, 95% of your wiki activity has been focused solely on the negative process of removing links, which you do not seem to justify, and many of which are perfectly OK as they are. Considering the time folks spend in finding decent links, a process that generally enhances articles, I would suggest that the links in question are better left unless they genuinely are spam links. Even the so-called spam-link you removed from the Augustus John article is a good link because, although it is a pub, he lived neary for a while and it acknowledges some aspects of his life. Therefore, many may not construe it strictly as spam but of interest to readers of the article. Perhaps you can suggest a compromise plan? thank you Peter morrell 13:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

• Your characterization of my activity is not accurate, and since we are encouraged to act in good faith, I must assume that you just did not research my activity carefully: I have most actively removed links only in the last twenty four hours. Prior to that, my editing was confined to corrections regarding spelling, syntax, vandalism, and information--a study of my contributions page makes this clear. Editors are, of course, at liberty to re-connect links that they feel are deleted in error, and I realize that there are those who will disagree with my choices (often such links are replete with both information about artists, and commercial advertising), and sometimes with good reason.

To assert vandalism is to maintain a 'deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia', which, if untrue, is a more damaging action than my deletions, and might be forwarded to another forum--if a consensus of objective and experienced editors find my corrections overzealous, I will respect that. But, since this is the discussion page for Augustus John, this probably is not the best place to either assert or deny such claims.

That your links are made in good faith I do not doubt; as much is suggested by your rich enhancement of the biographical information. Regarding the pub, I suggest it could reside under a 'trivia' heading; including it as a link actually trivializes the subject. Such is my point

Claim regarding beard and service in WWI

As a war artist, John was allowed to keep his beard and he and King George V were the only Army officers in the Allied forces to have beards, apart from pioneer sergeants and those who were allowed unshaven for medical reasons.

Although there is a citation to an Augustus John biography given for this claim, I have reservations that it is factually the case as it is written. The biographer may have overlooked the presence in the British Empire forces of Generals Louis Botha and Jan Smuts, also that the largest Allied army of WWI, Tsarist Russia, had bearded senior officers a plenty from the Tsar downwards. George V's beard usage arose from his service in the Royal Navy in which he primarily trained (and would have pursued an active career but for his elder brother's death putting him into line of succession). Pioneer sergeants would be NCOs not commissioned officers.Cloptonson (talk) 20:51, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

It should probably be changed to "British Army" rather than "Allied forces", and the source named. It would be OR just to dismiss it, if the source is generally an RS. Johnbod (talk) 03:41, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Suggestion would be check how the source reads, it may have been misquoted or paraphrased by the user who put the information on this page. When I initially saw the sentence part of it then read that John and the king were the only Army officers in the Allied forces to have facial hair, which would have been factually inaccurate as facial hair is a category that would have included moustaches, which were commonplace in all armies. I therefore changed it to beards to improve the accuracy. I would not delete the sentence without reason hence the flag-up.Cloptonson (talk) 06:44, 12 September 2021 (UTC)