Talk:Arthur M. Sackler Museum

Recent changes
In my opinion, the article is not just about the collections but about the architects (including James Stirling) and the various collections and the entity/people (Harvard University, curators,etc) who run it and who 'own' it. Any other editors have thoughts about this? Shearonink (talk) 19:16, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * It's difficult to consider the Guggenheim without noting the buildings by Wright and Gehry. I don't think discussion of the Sackler's architect is out of line here.--Vistawhite (talk) 19:54, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * All of these topics are appropriate, if WP:RS can be found. Lentower (talk) 22:10, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Recent removal of sourced material
A recent series of edits here has removed (at least somewhat) sourced material (like this one). I'm not saying this article & some related articles couldn't do with some updating but a new editor (see their talk page) seems to have gotten off on a rough start around this article and some others, including Harvard Art Museums, Fogg Museum, and Busch–Reisinger Museum. Shearonink (talk) 20:23, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I suggest you carejully restore just the sourced material, after reviewing the Edit Summaries on, e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arthur_M._Sackler_Museum&action=history, and in your Edit Summary, ask for discussion on the Talk Page. Lentower (talk) 01:14, 26 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, I'll be honest...I do not have the time at present or the inclination to totally restore/renew/eviscerate/whatever this group of associated articles. When I posted on this talkpage, I was actually hoping someone else happening along would notice and then decide to fix the articles up to Wikipedia standards (re: sourcing, etc.). Shearonink (talk) 04:40, 26 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't have the time either. It's not clear anyone else will.  I agree that the removal of properly cited material could be an issue here and a violation of WP:RS, WP:NPV. etc.


 * So, you can:
 * do nothing more
 * (noting you'll reach more editors doing this) copy this section over to the other talk pages, perhaps listing all the edits of concern on each talk page, and changing the history link to that page's.
 * review/restore/renew/eviscerate/whatever one of the edits every day or every few days until you're done.


 * Encyclopedic editing can be hard work. More so in the barly constrained environment of WP. Lentower (talk) 11:12, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

A broader question
As a new participant still getting the sense of things here at Wikipedia, I've been following some of the talk about this article with interest. Figuring out how to describe an institution like a museum objectively and appropriately for an article like this raises some interesting points. I think we can all agree that a museum is more than its administrative organization. And, in the case of an art museum, information about its architecture may be appropriate and helpful in giving a sense of the museum itself. I'm curious about how others feel about appropriate descriptions of a museum's collection. I see that describing this collection as "world-renowned" has been deemed inappropriate for Wikipedia (even though sources exist to back up this claim). Would it be considered too subjective and inappropriate to use "world-renowned" to describe the collection at the Louvre or MoMA? Would describing an art collection as "important" be too subjective? How about "popular" or "respected"? How does one write about an art collection or, art works, reasonably and appropriately without some (backed up and properly cited) subjective descriptions? I'd like to know what other more experienced participants think.--Vistawhite (talk) 15:29, 29 July 2012 (UTC)