Talk:Association for Research into Crimes against Art

Major Revision
I have cleaned up the over citations on the old version of this article which survived the Afd trying to keep those that were agreed upon and others which attest to the text reworked. Where possible, I have tried to use online sources even though this likely weakens the article. I also ran this article by the Teahouse to ask if there was a protocol regarding a major rework after an article survives an AfD and incorporated their suggestion.

Hoping others can smooth out the remaining bumps my tired eyes can't see. Avignonesi (talk) 20:51, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Paywalled sources
As this has survived the AfD, I am trying to clean this up. These are all paywalled/physical excessive citations, but it's possible they mention ARCA usefully in some form so for the purposes of future reference I will retain them here. Feel free to add them back if you verify that they support a specific statement in the article.

PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:32, 2 March 2024 (UTC)


 * I reverted your removal of these sources. The fact that sources are paywalled or not online is absolutely not to their detriment per WP: SOURCEACCESS. Using this as a criterion for removal is completely arbitrary. You might as well remove all sources that start with the letter A. Each source must be evaluated on its own merits and if that requires the use of a library then that's what it requires. Central and Adams (talk) 14:55, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Central and Adams Considering there were 10+ sources on each statement, that is why I removed them. There is no way these sources were actually evaluated to have mentioned ARCA because they were added so fast. Several other sources that were added to this article in this time frame do not mention them at all. They are also not necessary to support the content in the article, so why have them at this stage in time? You added them back and now (at least a bit) there's still excessive citations. Paywalled sources are fine but the issue is we had so many sources on a single statement. Best to trim it down to one that verifies the content, no? PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:59, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, but don't use the fact that they're paywalled as a criterion. Central and Adams (talk) 16:03, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Central and Adams Them being paywalled was a criterion because I couldn't check the content and there were online sources supporting the same content that did. PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:17, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. This wasn't expressed in your edit summary. I self-reverted. Central and Adams (talk) 16:23, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah my bad for not explaining that well. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:32, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I object to the statement ''"There is no way these sources were actually evaluated to have mentioned ARCA because they were added so fast." This is blatantly false not to mention a gross understatement of how long it took to look up the refrences..
 * I used reference books that I personally accessed which absolutely mentioned the Association. The speed of which I did so is hyperbole which does nothing to fix what still needs fixing on this article and implies I acted on bad faith.
 * After I originally adding the offline citations, and further into the AfD debate, it became clear that some of them were insufficient mentions, but they were in fact mentions when at the start of the whole process two editors said there were no mentions.
 * But implying the citations were speedily added without checking is disparaging and I would encourage @PARAKANYAA to reflect on their comments came across. Avignonesi (talk) 20:42, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry if that came across as cruel. There were an excessive amount of citations on several statements to the point it impaired the reading experience.
 * Also I'm going to make a redirect for the "Journal of Art Crime" linking to that section. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:05, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * If I perceived your comment as cruel isn't the issue. Critiques should focus on improving Wikipedia article defects, such as this last one, which noted that the previous number of citations "impaired the reading experience." This is a reasonable point of criticism where adjustments have been undertaken. Adding opprobrious conjecture regarding another editor's work process moves the discussion away from improving the article and incivilly towards the editor. Its disruptive to the editing process. Avignonesi (talk) 07:33, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:49, 4 March 2024 (UTC)