Talk:Mdvanii

Article tone
This article is currently a magazine puff piece and not a neutral, encyclopedic entry. Active Banana    (bananaphone  13:37, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Is there still a problem with the articles tone or style? It seems neutral. If there are no disagreement I will remove the tag from this page. Muotinukke (talk) 21:01, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest
The two major contributors to this article may have personaItalic textl and/or professional relationships with the subject matter's creators. Alan Poole 8 (talk) 15:08, 25 December 201 0 (UTC)

Our unique goal is to make a neutral encyclopedic article. The article is being given citations and all necessary material to make it as unbiased and as neutral as possible. We are currently asking advice of senior wikipedian editors and have asked for help. There is no conflict of interest as we do not feel the need to create any other type of article than an encyclopedic one on wikipedia. All of the information so far can be specifically citated in past articles, tv appearances and documentation (such as musuem acquisition forms etc) and we are slowly adding them as we learn the correct way in which to do so. If you feel you can guide us to an editor, by all means, we'd be very happy. As soon as other senior wiki editors intervene with a neutral point of view, I am sure whatever aspects of it which seem the contrary (and biased) will be ironed out. I do find it unusual that you'd make this comment because it leads me to believe you are not at all familiar with this particular artwork. Our goal is precisely to make it as neutral as possible for people who infact do not know the subject's rich history. I have been slowly adding appropriate citations as you can see and will continue to do so. My association to the subject is entirely irrelevent. I see you have never edited a wikipedia article nor have you contributed to wikipedia so I would interested to know why you have decided to make such a comment as you have left without any apparent association to the subject whatsoever. It seems rather biased to me infact, much more than the article in itself. Kind Regards AJ Alec jiri (talk) 23:20, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This article has some very serious neutrality and tone issues, not to mention considerable amounts of unsourced material. Please do not remove the tags without first gaining consensus here that they are no longer appropriate. --Leivick (talk) 17:33, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * For the record, I told the user it was ok to remove, being it appeared vandalism from a user whose only edits were the tag. Can you give me a few examples where there is a COI? C T J F 8 3  chat 17:42, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Aside from the fact that Alec Jiri wrote the article and that he works with the artists making these dolls? I don't want to be rude, but the article is riddled with peacock terms and unsourced generalizations about the significance of the art.  It is very obviously written by someone who knows the artists personally. --Leivick (talk) 17:55, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I am working with Alec to clean it up. Being that the users who tagged it COI, those are their only edits, it was likely from my point of view to be vandalism, especially User:Brucejenner who does everything in his power to vandalize any LGBT related page, include my talk page several times. C T J F 8 3  chat 17:59, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That is great that you are working to clean it up. I see that Alan Poole 8 is a SPA, but his edits are absolutely correct. Alec jiri is also a single purpose account with a clear personal, financial and professional interest in this subject.  There are many things that need to be fixed  in this article.  If I have time in the next I will see if I can't clean up some of it. --Leivick (talk) 18:07, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

As stated on the 25th, the two major contributors to this article may have personal and/or professional relationships with the subject matter's creators. It is against Wikipedia's policies to "out" anyone or reveal his or her identities. However the contributor has disclosed both his name and the article's instigator's name, both in UserTalk and Contribs, which are available for anyone to peruse, and it has been brought to this editor's attention that: 1) Someone with the same name as the article's instigator identifies herself as "Ambassadrice for Mdvanii" on the social networking site, Facebook.

2) Someone with the same name as the article's instigator offers "new Mdvanii things available in the USA through her[the instigator], and by appointment" via her Facebook group ... "'vintage' iconic Mdvanii pieces are for the first time available from her[the doll's] creators." One assumes the article's instigator is not distributing these pieces gratis, and that the stated involvement of the creators is of a business nature.

3) Someone with the same name as the article's instigator cites herself as "assistant curator" for the creators' foundation, Fondation Tanagra, from July 2010 to the present. It has also been brought to this editor's attention that: 1) Someone with the same name as the article's major contributor shares the surnames of the subject matter's creators, implying either a family relationship or some other binding legal tie.

2) Someone with the same name as the article's major contributor appears to also work for the creators in a consultant capacity, offering "lighting" and "technical assistance" on one of the creators' videos.

3) Someone with the same name as the article's major contributor has been cited as "a part influence on the dress styles of some Rhogit-Rhogit and other male dolls. His modern sense of style was always included in the designs of the dolls" as stated on the article's instigator's weblog. This editor uses the verbiage, "someone with the same name," in the possiblity that it is coincidence that the two major contributors to this article share names with the persons whose activites have been listed above. However, if in fact the two major contributors to this artcile are in fact the persons whose activities have been listed above, this editor would suggest to the two major contributors of this article to perhaps familiarize themselves with Wikipedia's "Conflict of Interest" article, paying special heed to the sections titled, "Financial," "Promotional article production on behalf of clients," and "Close relationships."Alan Poole 8 (talk) 18:38, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Our only interest is to give an encyclopedic account of the work. We are perfectly willing to work with anyone who is able to make the article correct, assoicated or not with the artists is irrelevent if the article is correct, is this not correct?

It is only to the interest of the general public that an article on Mdvanii exist. She is a component of the contemporary art world and has set precedents, so she is appropriate for wikipedia. She has had a huge amount of press over the 22 years of her existance and has had many exhibitions and museum shows which have been successful. Our goal is not to advertise Mdvanii...it's to inform. Our relation to the artists should be incidental as long as wiki rules are adhered to and the article is correctly done.

We have familiarized ourselves with the articles you mention yet still, the facts about Mdvanii remain the same, the shows, the dates, the citations of events, names, places etc....

I can assure you, just on the record, I have no financial gain, no professional gain. It may be personal in the sense that I and my collegue, want to do this the right way, for myself as someone qualified to speak about Mdvanii. Cheong Kwon, I may add is an "ambassadrice", it's her job to be diplomatic and present Mdvanii as historically correct and as academically as possible, she is a historian. Mdvanii is shown in museums all over the world, museums do not "Advertise" or "promote for sale" works of art. The articles almost rarely show in selling shows since many years. They show mostly in museums and punlic venues for non-profit organizations. The goals is to make the work understood. Mdvanii is a vehicle to express LGBTQ politics and sociological concepts and also aesthetics and fashion. This is her main purpose and the purpose of having this article on wikipedia.

What ever it requires to make it perfect we are willing to do and whatever work needs to be done, let us know.... I can back up every single citation needed with documentation...Ijust neeed to know how to add it correctly, I am not a computer wiz in any sense, I have to really concentrate to add the citations correctly. Its new to me, more than the historic writing or the documentation gathering.

All help will be appreciated.

Thank you,

AJ

Alec jiri (talk) 20:56, 27 December 2010 (UTC) The artists almost rarely show in selling shows since many years. They show mostly in museums and public venues for non-profit organizations. Alec jiri (talk) 20:58, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

AJ is on Ebay trying to unload Mdvanii dolls and outfits for thousands of $$$.Orumsonu (talk) 12:52, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * And? C T J F 8 3  chat 15:30, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks like there are tons of Mdvanii auctions from dozens of people. I don't see any problem here.  --Leivick (talk) 17:06, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

There aren't tons of Mdvanii auctions from dozens of people. There are only 17 on ebay at the mo. 11 of which generate from AJ from Lausanne Switzerland where Billy Boy and Lala happen to live. What a coincidendce. AJ is just there mouthpiece, it's so obvious. COI! Orumsonu (talk) 17:08, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

There are always Mdvaniis on sale on ebay. From all sorts of people,...the ones sold on eBay are the most usually the ones which were sold in the USA at FAO and the various public dealers...It is only one of the venues wereshe is sold. However, this venue is not in the least the usual venue for her sales. Mdvanii is mostly sold privately and for that matter, shown in musuems and galleries and for the most part not for sale. There are no Mdvaniis on ebay which belong to me personally. I do not make money myself from Mdvanii. I am qualified to speak about her and her history. Mdvaniis on eBay is incidental as I have repeatedly said, my interest on Wikipedia is to make the article perfectly neutral and encyclopedic. Once that is done, I will withdraw from the article and only make sure it is maintained as a normal neutral article. It seems more evident that trying to tag me as COI is more of a sabotage by a few of the artists' detractors.

Every single stated fact in the article is a simple verifiable fact, I am still int he process of adding documentation as I am pretty much amongst the very few who have access to the citation needed material, as is my associate....so what is exactly the problem for the moment? Mdvanii is a very relative part of art and doll history and we are trying to simply put the facts down in chronological order in the article. I think I have made this very clear.Alec jiri (talk) 20:20, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know who these single purpose accounts are and the ebay issue is certainly a red herring. The fact that the artist sells their work does not mean that Alec Jiri has financial interest in it.  Alec does have a personal connection with the subject though and the article still has serious issues so the tag should stay.  It may have been added in bad faith, who knows, but regardless of the intention it is properly placed.  Readers have a right to know that the article was written almost exclusively by a collaborator of the subject.  --Leivick (talk) 23:21, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I should mention I am not THE Alec Jiri associated with the artists. I know him however. He supplied me with many of documents to do this article for which I may re-state, am neither paid or rewarded in any way. I get the documents from the artists directly. The Alec Jiri you refer to hardly can speak english and writes it with difficulty, and he let me use his name since he is the one giving me the documents, which we thought was more transparent, since they do really belong to him and I confirm every document with him. He is not "unloading" Mdvanii by the way. Quite the contrary, he is not paid either in any way and he just is a diplomat for the artists as well. Explaining the work and freely working for the non-profit foundation founded by the artists which is completely separate from their work. The Fondation Tanagra has a "devoir" to be altruist and for the benefit of the general public as is the obligation of a Fondation. As of 2011, Mdvanii will have a separate website and all major historic info articles on her will be removed from the Fondation Tanagra site and placed on her own site. Since the FT was founded by the artists to help other artists, they felt it was time to remove their work from the FT. In the beginning when they created the FT, they felt the subject of the fondation, dolls, art and fashion etc included their work, but as they have had so many things over the years, they felt it was time to separate the information. I am a qualified expert on the subject thanks to Alec Jiri and the archives of the artists though. Yes, I live in Switzerland and have an interest in the work. Alec jiri (talk) 11:57, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

ohhh, so you're not THE AJ, you're another AJ...  um, riiiiiiight. the coindicendces are piling up around here.Orumsonu (talk) 12:25, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

No coincidence,...I was allowed to do this article with his documents and since he is qualified to allow documents to be used, we thought it was fine to use his name. You are not allowed to "OUT" people on Wiki. You'll simply have to take my word for it. Its incidental who I am, I am a qualified expert in the subject, I am doing this article and adhering to the rules and getting advice from senior editors. I don't see the problem.... and what exactly is your agenda? I am not working on this alone and I am being helped and guided. If you knew anything about the artists you'd know Alec Jiri would be absolutely unable to write an article. He can hardly write english and doesn't speak english very well. I am his stand-in so to speak for the documents. I do feel that regardless, i am doing the article correctly. I owe you no explanations other than I am a qualified expert of the subject and I am being supplied the documents by the source. You have a problem with that?

I think you have some sort of prejudiced agenda because you don't seem to be contributing anything except childish remarks.Alec jiri (talk) 12:55, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

LOL hey, easy easy! I'm not outing you. YOU'RE outing you. and I don't have an agenda against you. I do have an agenda FOR Wikipedia, though, and you keep violating Wikipedia's policies, dude. you are very sly in removing tags and thinking no one will notice. You even tried to erase THIS PAGE WE'RE TALKING ON! you've spammed the Barbie article. hey, all I've done is point a finger at you and say you've got a hidden agenda yourself.Orumsonu (talk) 13:17, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

(Reformatting for display) Look, it's not easy to understand how Wikipedia works in the beginning....and I did not understand the hierachy. I did not try to erase this page...I thought that was how it worked,...you wrote and erased. Just a basic error which I have not repeated. I did not "spam" the Barbie article, I added what I thought was pertinent information. In the end, what I thought should be achieved, was achieved....I have no hidden agenda, I just want this article done correctly. There is no real COI because I am trying to do this article with the requisite neutral tone and am slowly adding the citations needed. Its not easy, there is a plethora of information and all the articles have to be read and then turned into correct citation script for the article....

As I said, I am an expert of the subject, I am not the Alec Jiri who you referred to, and what more do you want to know? How many times do I have to say it to you? Anything else is incidental. I just want to achieve this article the right way.Isn't that the point? Its a great subject. Its still a "living subject" so it is still controversial, still growing and you seem not to be helping at all....I don't think I need to speak about myself, I have to do the work on the article according to the rules....do you have a problem still with that? I think I have clearly shown my goodwill to learn and have corrected and changed according to advice.....I have made myself completely open and willing to learn and work with a senior editor....I think I am doing this slowly, but the right way.....i have NO interest in mdvanii other than doing a good job here and I have NO interest in doing a biased article. It would not even serve the artists to do so. AND please, in all due respect,please don't call me "dude" you don't even know my sex...Alec jiri (talk) 13:40, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Look, it's not easy to understand how Wikipedia works in the beginning....and I did not understand the hierachy. I did not try to erase this page...I thought that was how it worked,...you wrote and erased. Just a basic error which I have not repeated. I did not "spam" the Barbie article, I added what I thought was pertinent information. In the end, what I thought should be achieved, was achieved....I have no hidden agenda, I just want this article done correctly. There is no real COI because I am trying to do this article with the requisite neutral tone and am slowly adding the citations needed. Its not easy, there is a plethora of information and all the articles have to be read and then turned into correct citation script for the article....Alec jiri (talk) 13:44, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

oh wait I get it, this is all a great big Mdvaniism, right? well done! bravo1 or should that be, "brava"? LOL look, I dunno if your an expert on this subject, but you are definitly a expert on pathological lying, chicanery and persecution complexes LOL  just kidding, ma'am. it's all good. Orumsonu (talk) 13:49, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't see what point you are trying to make. This is not about me,...this is about a subject I feel I am qualified to write about which so far, is becoming better and better for wiki standards. Insulting me contributes what exactly? Your opinion about me brings what exactly to the article? Well, if "it's all good", then we can consider this resolved and you have no further need to discuss with me have a good day. Alec jiri (talk) 14:04, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Stop This has become a conflict of interest and an argument between two users about something completely irrelevant to the article in which you are posting on. I see one editor attacking the other, calling him/her a pathological lyer, because of something that is going on on Ebay. This is not Ebay, or anything related. This talk page is for discussion about the article, not about what someone is selling on ebay. T ofutwitch11 ''' (T ALK ) 17:39, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Is there still a problem with conflict of interest on this article? I dont see one. If there are no disagreement I will remove the tag from this page. Muotinukke (talk) 20:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Leivick, why did you added this tag again? I would appreciate that you would discuss about it here first. I asked here if theres a problem with it and noone replied to it in almost a week. So the tag removal was eligble by the wikipedia rules. There are several contributors now working on this article and everything seems to be based on reliable sources not close to the artists. Muotinukke (talk) 16:30, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This article was written almost exclusively by a person with a conflict of interest. It still has a promotional tone.  Almost every section builds up the subject and their is only a modicum of criticism.  Readers should know the source of the information in the article.  --Leivick (talk) 17:11, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you point out the biggest problems regards promotional tone? and what kind of criticism you are after here? I would also welcome other users to help out with these issues. Muotinukke (talk) 16:24, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

This editor has reinstated the original COI tag. User:Alec jiri's name change to User:Blanderàmort does notthing to alter the orginal claim of Conflict of Interest made by this editor in December of 2010. This editor has reported the matter to Wikipedia's Conflict of Interest/Noticeboard.Alan Poole 8 (talk) 13:22, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * How do you come to that conclusion? You need to finish filling out your entry at WP:COIN C T J F 8 3  15:16, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Original Research
Not to sound rude, and I know this article is just getting off the ground, but if the article has been shown to have been written by a collaborator of the subject, should the collaborator be allowed to use his collaborators' website (Fondation Tanagra) repeatedly as a reference? Numerous times the collaborator's text is simply backed up by the collaborators' website. I don't think we should just use our own websites and consider that a verifiable and reliable reference. For example, the note attached to the Mel Odom item: though a New York Times article states Odom painted the doll's face, the collaborator uses his collaborators' website to dispute the claim. Isn't that the same as saying, "No, because I said so."Oui Dorure (talk) 02:18, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Something like Foundation Tanagra can be used to for some things per WP:CITESELF. However if there is a dispute the better source should be used in this case obviously the NYT.  --Leivick (talk) 02:26, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

The Fondation Tanagra is as valid as the NYT article.

To begin with, that NYT article came out exactly at the moment the confusion about the make up happened. It is clearly explained on the Fondation Tanagra site. Also I have absolutely nothing to do with the Fondation Tanagra site and never have written for them. Mel Odom tried to do a make up...as the artist BB* was friends with him at the time, it had not occurred to him that he'd not use it, he prepared the label stickers for one small series of boxes and when the make up was rejected and not used, it was too late to change the box stickers as the dolls were late for delivery. Apart from that small series of about 100 boxes, al the following boxes did not say anything about it and the make up was always done my Lala (JP Lestrade).... it's been clearly written about in many magazines and also the museum catalogue clearly. Odom did not design a make up for Mdvanii which was ever used. I will source other article and find them for citation if you wish Alec jiri (talk) 11:28, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Indented line: I meant no disrepect, but my point is that I am not sure if your website meets Wikipedia's standards for third-party resources, which are mandatory for articles. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Third-party_sources.  The boxes say Mel Odom, the New York Times say Mel Odom... everyone does but you and your website, which is fine, but I don't think your website can be considered as verifiable and neutral as the New York Times, is my point.Oui Dorure (talk) 12:08, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

It is not MY website first of all. Secondly... the artist themselves have written about this and this has been commented upon in other magazine articles, I am awaiting the documents. The FT website is quoting the artists. If the artist themselves explain the history, I don't think we can doubt it. Mr Leivick has said it is possible to use it for certain things. I mean, afterall, the artists have spoken about this in many things including the museum catalogue cited...should I use that as a citation??, it was clearly spoken about with two museum curators.

I also think that "award winning" for Wozek is correct. I explained why in CTJF83 talk page. Also Orumsonu has some sort of hidden agenda and is trying to OUT me...I have layed my cards ont he table, explained clearly,...he or she should get off my back now.

I have explained it this way:

I should mention I am not THE Alec Jiri associated with the artists. I know him however. He supplied me with many of documents to do this article for which I may re-state, am neither paid or rewarded in any way. I get the documents from the artists directly. The Alec Jiri you refer to hardly can speak english and writes it with difficulty, and he let me use his name since he is the one giving me the documents, which we thought was more transparent, since they do really belong to him and I confirm every document with him. He is not "unloading" Mdvanii by the way. Quite the contrary, he is not paid either in any way and he just is a diplomat for the artists as well. Explaining the work and freely working for the non-profit foundation founded by the artists which is completely separate from their work. The Fondation Tanagra has a "devoir" to be altruist and for the benefit of the general public as is the obligation of a Fondation. As of 2011, Mdvanii will have a separate website and all major historic info articles on her will be removed from the Fondation Tanagra site and placed on her own site. Since the FT was founded by the artists to help other artists, they felt it was time to remove their work from the FT. In the beginning when they created the FT, they felt the subject of the fondation, dolls, art and fashion etc included their work, but as they have had so many things over the years, they felt it was time to separate the information. I am a qualified expert on the subject thanks to Alec Jiri and the archives of the artists though. Yes, I live in Switzerland and have an interest in the work. Alec jiri (talk) 13:03, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

About Mel Odom:

I have collected Mdvaniis now for many years and I also own many early Mdvaniis. Me, myself or my other collector friends have never heard that Mel Odom would have designed anything for Mdvanii. Only thing I know is that he proposed to BillyBoy* to design the make-up. Nothing else. There are no evidence or proof of a Mdvanii existing with Odom designed make-up. Articles written just in the middle of the release/publish frenzy could often make mistakes like the NY times article. I hope this helps. Muotinukke (talk) 18:12, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Your input is appreciated, but please remember to stick to topic. This is a discussion on Original Research.  Thanks.  I believe the information you're looking for re Mel Odom is located on page 2 of this article. http://www.nytimes.com/1990/03/14/garden/a-doll-for-the-90-s-beautiful-but-no-bimbo.html

Silver Edge Reason (talk) 21:55, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Mel Odom is discussed in the beginning of this discussion. Yes, thats the article. Thanks. Muotinukke (talk) 22:29, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Is there still a problem with original research on this article? I see a big list of reliable sources. If there are no disagreement I will remove the tag from this page Muotinukke (talk) 20:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Cite Check
Two references given to the poet Gerard Wozek don't check out for me, has anyone else looked at them? In this article's text, Gerard Wozek is described as "award winning" but when I checked the reference, he's just credited with an honorable mention. Is an honorable mention an award? I don't know, maybe it is, I'm not trying to demean his achievement in any way, just trying to see if the reference is valid. Also, his other reference to an award only links to a website that published his work, no mention of any award.Oui Dorure (talk) 02:18, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It is just peacock language anyway I removed it. Every artist is award winning in some way.  If Wozek is notable enough he could have his own Wikipedia article that discusses his awards, but this article needs to focus on Mdvanii.  By the way Dorure you can edit the article as well.  Just don't get involved in a revert war over anything contentious.  --Leivick (talk) 02:30, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I will try and help.Oui Dorure (talk) 02:47, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I checked around and found that Gerard Wozek won the 2000 Gival Press Poetry Award. I will try to add the citation myself, or the collaborator can use this link I found, though I don't believe it's considered third-party. http://216.197.127.196/gp/index.cfm?rsn=175&mn=authors Oui Dorure (talk) 04:05, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

These are the some of the poems he won prizes for, it is necessary rto do your research more specifically. You have to go to the catagories mentioned:

Eric Hoffer Book Award 2008 "Notable Distinction" for "Postcards from Heartthrob Town" in the category of "Memoir." Potenza 2005 Film Festival: "Short Films and Other Stories"

Video Poetry Award 2005, First Place for the videopoem, "Dance of the Electric Moccasins."

Gival Press First Book Poetry Prize 2000 for "Dervish"

I think is is accurate to say he is an "award-winning" poet

I had added all the appropriate link citations to the actual awards...you removed them. Wozek is considered a gay poet and the fact he won the Gival Award, for example is important in relation to Mdvanii...so Mr Leivick, what is your suggested way to note this. Since Mdvanii is a gay advocate and activist, all her links to gay artists is important, if they have some sort of achievement like an award,, I think it is part of the point of the artwork and the history of the subject. I would appreciate your thoughts on this.


 * Indented line: Please believe me, it was never my intention to show Mr. Wozek any disrespect either to him personally or to his work, my only concern was whether or not the appropriate citations were being used. I never meant to say he himself is not a valid part of the article, only the citations.Oui Dorure (talk) 12:14, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Alec jiri (talk) 11:41, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay,....I have included the various awards he has won. How can they be added??, as it's a valuable piece of Mdvanii history, the association to this poet who is know for his gay themed work,..and who has won several awards...he is "award - winning2...unless you can help me find another term or way to phrase it.Alec jiri (talk) 13:08, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "Award winning poet" is not the kind of language we should strive for. Like I said it actually means nothing, everyone gets awards of some kind.  If Wozek won an award for his work in relation to Mdvanii then it should be mentioned, otherwise it is tangential. --Leivick (talk) 18:08, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I do see your point. I understand. The reason I put that was simply because he is a gay poet laureat who has won an imporant award. His association to Mdvanii, for Mdvanii is prestigious. Not everyone can win the Gival Award, it's a big and significant award,....like an Oscar for poets. It has relevance only in that it shows he is not a novice of any sort. i do see your point thoug...thank you. Alec jiri (talk) 19:16, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

No YouTube videos
This article currently uses YouTube video clips as references, which is in violation of Wikipedia's policies. YouTube and other video-sharing sites are not reliable sources because anyone can create or manipulate a video clip and upload without editorial oversight, just as with a self-published website. Silver Edge Reason (talk) 11:56, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Videos removed. Silver Edge Reason (talk) 22:34, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * In general most of the content on youtub is not acceptable, but some TV stations and such have official youtube channels and content of their shows that they post on there are potentially acceptable. (And some other limited uses). I didnt check to see if that was the case here or if it is just a random user putting content on the web. Active Banana    (bananaphone  22:39, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Other
I dont see a problem with inappropriate or misinterpreted citations that do not verify the text on this article. I have checked every one and they are all appropriate for the citation needed. I am removing the tag from this page Muotinukke (talk) 20:41, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The article has 55 reliable references and I see they are added daily bases. I dont think there is need for additional references or sources for verification tag on this page anymore. I am removing the tag from this page. Muotinukke (talk) 20:55, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Removal of description from lead
The following discussion was initially posted on a user talk page and has been moved here for centralized discussion

"I believe someone removed the MAIN aspect of what the Mdvanii artwork is albout ...

1)gay issues as a precedent in a doll/artwork

2) use of real haute couture....

this phrase is essential I think to express in brief the main aspect of what the work is about and known for in Paris, France. '''She was made in a matt Caron make-up toned hard resin and 25 centimeters tall. She was the first anatomically-correct fashion doll with an adult (non-parody) storyline including homosexual, lesbian and bisexual personality traits. She was presented with a wardrobe of high fashion clothes made in France with identical construction as human-scale clothes Shall I put it elsewhere? 'Italic text'' Blanderàmort"

My first impression is that such content does belong in the lead of the article. Can you provide the WP:DIFF of when it was removed to see if the editor provided an explanation in the edit summary? Active Banana    (bananaphone  23:19, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

use of "she"
The following discussion was initially posted on a user talk page and has been moved here for centralized discussion "As a note, please stop referring to "Mdvanii" as "she"/"her" - those are terms for people and living things. This is a doll and should be referred to with terms such as "doll" / "Mdvanii" / "it". Active Banana   (bananaphone  22:52, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Clarification: within the article and when not directly quoting a source that uses "she". Active Banana    (bananaphone  22:56, 14 January 2011 (UTC)"

"The whole artowrk has been clearly expressed as a she from the beginning by the artists and many many third parties...that was the point to imbue sexes into artworks...thats part of the whole point about what makes her unique to these artists....should it be made clearer as to WHY she is called a she? and not an it? Blanderàmort"

While we generally follow what the sources use, in this instance the use of "she" seems to be only to promote marketing "gimmik" and thus not something that Wikipedia should follow. Active Banana    (bananaphone  23:24, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Clearly it is NOT a marketing "gimmick" because this artwork is anti-establishment and it precisely NOT marketed. Its very difficult to acquire and it is an artistic work, an art concept. It is not a gimmick at all on the contrary it's a queer political statement. That is the soul and unique goal of this work clearly. If you read about the work on any third party sources you'd see that it is used as a political and artistic statement.Blanderàmort (talk) 18:52, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Predictions
Upcoming events need to be removed from this article.Legalpower (talk) 22:20, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Such as what. C T J F 8 3  chat 22:28, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This part of the article
 * For 2011 it was announced[citation needed] work by Swiss photographer Frédéric Charrière has been created in a extremely Deluxe Edition Giftset; a portfolio of original prints presented in a unique box made especially for the dressed Mdvanii doll. Fashion designers Anthony Villarreal (USA), Laurent Mercier (Paris) and custom-made high fashion glovemaker Daniel Storto, (USA) have been announced[citation needed] as guest designers as well for 2011 so far.
 * seems to be what User:Legalpower is referring to.Silver Edge Reason (talk) 11:34, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Unreliable Sources
I was asked to take a look at this article, and oh boy. Among other things, this article has problems with the reliability and verifiability of its sources. The first four [4] cannot be verified at all. Take a look. Can you verify them? The sixth citation [6] turns out to be, when clicked, a photo on a user's page of the image hosting site, Flickr. How does this verify the text? Can we, when asked to verify a claim, merely link to some person's photo on Flickr and think that's suitable? In my opinion, no, so I'm going to put an Unreliable Sources tag on this article, because I think the article needs one. Further example, the tenth citation [10] leads, when clicked, to a "Not Found" error message. Again, not reliable, or verifiable.

Has no one else bothered to check this article's citations?

I don't think I'm wrong in saying that this article has problems with the reliability and verifiability of its sources, and probably it needs a Reimprove tag, as well.Wrongcloth (talk) 11:19, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, your 1-4 argument is simply ridiculous. Are you saying we can't have books or newspapers because you can't click a link to verify them? Articles get dead links all the time, like 10, that's why we have a template for them. C T J F 8 3  16:20, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Citation six has absolutely nothing to do with the artists or any of the people editing this article. It is an anonymous flickr site of a collector showing his/her BillyBoy* dolls. This text says that BillyBoy* was doing make overs on dolls very early, this photo and collector is showing his/her early BillyBoy* made dolls. As for ten, you did not LOOK UP the number at the INPI...it's very easy: Here is one for example: http://bases-modeles.inpi.fr/Typo3_INPI_Modeles/dessins_resultats_figuratifs.html you are not looking up the references correctly. And I am wondering if you speak the other languages Japanese, French, Spanish etc...I speak these languages and I have verified each and every citation. A third party Flickr site and a person who is utterly uninvolved in this article who happens to own one of the items written about is a very good documentation. I am removing your tag, it's very inappropriate because you are not verifying the souces with precision. You can also look this subject up all over the net and verify it a million waysALphaWord (talk) 16:20, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Additional Citations Needed
Well I added the Reimprove tag. Some of the text of this article isn't supported, in my opinion, by the poor references it cites, reference number ten [10], again, as just one example in this article.Wrongcloth (talk) 11:48, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

What are you talking about?? ...reference ten is the exact registration numbers for the creations in Paris at the INPI, the national registration bureau for patents and models. They are offical paten numbers to the exact things mentioned. It seems clear to me you are not familiar with this ....when you go to the INPI in Paris, you can look these exact references up and find the Mdvanii creations. This is the way you usually present them when making reference to the,ALphaWord (talk) 15:18, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I have checked every refernce, they are all exact...do you speak the other languages that these references are in? Have you seen or read thee review of the book about the artists? I did the research and it is exactly referring to the citation neededALphaWord (talk) 15:19, 26 March 2011 (UTC) I

f you want to properly look up the references, you have to do it correctly because they are sometimes in foreign languages and require precise info to be inserted to be correctly found. Also some are in languages you may not speak.If you simply go to the INPI site, and look up the numbers CORRECTLY....you will see they all are registered by BillyBoy<3 in the catagories of Games and Toys and Designs and Models for example; http://bases-modeles.inpi.fr/Typo3_INPI_Modeles/dessins_resultats_figuratifs.html You'll see for one of the Mdvanii dolls as listed in the citation on wikipedia; 1 résultats trouvés pour votre requête :numéro 910725, dans la base de données des dessins et modèles françaisReformuler votre recherche Ajouter tous les éléments à ma liste Cliquer sur l'image pour obtenir plus d'informations Ajouter à ma listeSous-Classes : 2101 Déposant : BOY BILLY You can look up all the INPI numbers and you'll get the same result, that all are registered models for these dolls. and if you look up the mdvanii trademark you get the same thing, use WIPO where the name Mdvanii is registered in many countries all over the world.ALphaWord (talk) 16:12, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I see the article's references have been switched around since my last visit. Let's try this again. Okay, reference number one [1]... is a blog entry. A blog entry. Come on, guys. References three [3], four [4], five [5] and six [6] cannot be verified. They just can't. Assuming they exist, they could say anything... or nothing. They could be a recipe for eggs benedict. We don't know. Reference number eight [8]... is a photo on Flickr. A photo on Flickr, posted by who knows who. Come on. We can do better, right? Seriously, you guys are going to tell me this is acceptable stuff? As for the INPI references, they still say, "Error: Not Found" when clicked. Is there a way to make it appear the way it appears for some of you? Then let's link to the page that displays that info. It shouldn't be so hard. As for foreign languages, no I don't speak anything other than English, and you know what? I don't have to. This is English Wikipedia, and here's what it says under Wiki's "Citing Sources": "  Because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources should be used in preference to non-English language sources of equal caliber and content, though the latter are allowed where appropriate. When quoting a source in a different language, please provide both the original-language quotation and an English translation, in the text, in a footnote, or on the talk page as appropriate, so long as the quotation is not so lengthy that it would violate copyright." One last thing, it's not ridiculous at all to want additional references added so that they support what this article is saying. Hey, I can write an article claiming I invented the Les Paul guitar, and I can cite "Car & Driver" magazine, April, 1983 as my reference, but can that be verified? Do you happen to have that issue handy? No. That's my point about [3][4][5]and [6]. Sorry, putting the tags back up, people. Wrongcloth (talk) 10:40, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I dont see a problem with inappropriate citations that do not verify the text on this article. I have checked every one (again) and they are all appropriate for the citations needed. INPI-page is very easy to use. You can just write BillyBoy in the search field and you get the results. I even got pictures of dolls body. Very reliable if you ask me. Different language, availability only on certain media or poor skills to fetch them doesnt make citations invalid. Also, I dont see problems citing blogs in addition to other sources. I can help to translate some of the foreign language sources if it makes any difference to you. See the Citation Translation section. Muotinukke (talk) 19:18, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest
Here is what I wrote on the Conflict of Interest/Noticeboard:

Hello. Simply put, the Mdvanii article was started by a person who works for the dollmakers and runs a Facebook group where she offers Mdvanii items, for sale it would seem. That's the person who started the article; the majority of the article is written by another person who has a personal relationship with the dollmakers. The dollmakers even claim he is their son. He is also reported to sell Mdvanii items on eBay. So both parties have a financial interest in this article, and the major contributor has what appears to be some sort of personal relationship, as well. If you look at Alec jiri's Talk Page, you'll see, near the top:

"I have started, with Cheong Kwon, to UN-Peacock the article, if we understand the meaning of fluff means... Thanks, Alec Jiri"

He wrote that on 23 December 2010 before the COI claim occurred. Kwon is the article's originator, and Jiri is the article's major contributor. Once the COI happened, Jiri initially didn't initially deny any of the claims of being "Alec Jiri-Lestrade-Boy*"... it took him three days to change his story to:

"I should mention I am not THE Alec Jiri associated with the artists. I know him however. He supplied me with many of documents to do this article for which I may re-state, am neither paid or rewarded in any way. I get the documents from the artists directly."

This is found on the Mdvanii Discussion Page. Now, even here he admits having a relationship to the dollmakers, even though he now denies he is "Alec Jiri-Lestrade-Boy*" And eventually, on 5 January 2011 he changes his name from Alec jiri to Blanderàmort, and again this information can be found in Alec jiri's Talk Page.

I and many others, including obviously the person who started this claim here, feel that the above information I have provided - and which can be checked by going to either Alec jiri's Talk Page or the Mdvanii article's Discussion Page - is grounds for a Conflict of Interest claim on the Mdvanii articleLegalpower (talk) 11:28, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

There are many others contributing to this article and I think the person in question made a mistake in naming himself because he had requested information from alecjiri. I think he explained he was trying to be transparent and was not familiar with wikipedia rules. Regardless, the article is of a high standard and is very encyclopedic and to wikipedia standards...I will report you for hacking. You are not being objective about the article itselfALphaWord (talk) 14:23, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Why is this brought up again? There is an existing section (or several) for this already and it was discussed and explained and solved. Muotinukke (talk) 20:09, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Citation Translation
By request here are some of this articles citations translated to english.

Elle, Espagne (No. 79, Abril 1993) "A Real Man - This is the latest creation of the controversial BillyBoy *, the excellent doll anatomically correct, ready to seduce us all with his uninhibited sexuality and soul of a poet. Rhogit-Rhogit and his fellow craftsmen are made and his friend Zhdrick accessories including hats, twin pipes, whiskey flasks, corbatos, watches and human hair wigs. All models have a hole in the ear for an earring and a gold chain around his neck, a tattoo, as befits the man of course of the future, the message; just in case, wear a condom to practice a healthy sex. All versions of this mini human defines elegance, refinement, humour, philosophy and sensuality are limited editions and calling out an avant-garde art gallery, which with Rhogit painter's vocation, including small paintings of the artist original artist Janosik. "Elle, Espagne - Ana D. Siemens"

citation 27 wiki "Artists living in Lausanne, Switzerland, Billy Boy and Alec Jiri. BillyBoy * & Lala made Mdvanii doll (pronounced "Midovanyi "). I, the official representative of the world's only Mdvanii doll, Sumiko Watanabe have treated the Goddess of Beauty to this study, along with the memories of my introduction to her. The Portrait of a Goddess - Mdvanii Collection"

wiki citation 37 Harper's Bazaar "Mdvanii, A private collection "- the collection of dolls articulated by BillyBoy * is unique. High 25 cm these replicas of women are much more than just toys. They represent a lifestyle, a period, style: the Haute Couture in Paris. They are all different, have their own personality. glamorous, carved and masked by hand by true artists they reflect a timeless fashion. From fabric to accessories, clothing to hair Everything is carefully thought out and done in the spirit of works of art in itself. The proportions are met to perfection in tribute to an ideal woman. Wigs are all made by Alexander, the famous hairdresser of crowned heads. Limited edition, they are not found in the Paris Boutique BillyBoy* * Toys. Reminiscences of a splendor that never ceases to charm and to dream, Mdvanii dolls by BillyBoy * express the creative talent of this artist for whom the Fashion is a medium of his art. An original way to pay tribute to a sublime art than through woman. "Harper's Bazaar, France-The Hearst Corporation"

L'Evenement de Jeudi, France"Rhogit-Rhogit, the little delivery boy of condoms - BillyBoy* became famous by publishing a bestseller about the unsinkable Barbie, her life, her time (this is the doll, of course). Today, a big hit in Japan, the United States and Great Britain with these resin figurines of a wealthy male. High of 27 centimeters, with clothing and sold in tattoo decal, they have been created to break taboos: BillyBoy* intends to demonstrate that homosexuality is neither unhealthy nor decadent. For 32 years the Austrian claims to bring in his own way the battle against AIDS by making his creatures spokesman for safe sex: Named Rhogit Rhogit or Zhdhrick, they are in fact come with a condom ... adult size. A message that is worth gold 5000F each, including condom BillyBoy Toys *, 3, rue Troyon 75017 Paris ",L'Evenement de Jeudi - Catherine Bézard"

Muotinukke (talk) 19:24, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I would like to remove the Unreliable sources, and the Refimprove tags, as there are plenty of references and many are reliable sources. If anyone objects pleaselet's disucss it but every reference checks out and I am sourcing even more now for inclusion.Blanderàmort (talk) 21:52, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Removed, those are not required anymore. Muotinukke (talk) 13:45, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, the issues I raised (see above, under "Additional Citations Needed") still have yet to be corrected, so I'm replacing the tags, since I still feel some of this articles references could use improvement.Wrongcloth (talk) 14:47, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Can you be more specific which ones and how? This has to be one of the better citated pages in whole wikipedia. Muotinukke (talk) 14:54, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure, see above under "Additional Citations Needed." Actually, that's where this discussion belongs anyway, not here.Wrongcloth (talk) 15:04, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No the discussion up there is old. You need to discuss what references need fixing in detail and why - make a new section if necessary and list what needs doing - adding blanket tags is just wrong for such an article, use section tags if you must - I would estimate the majority of WP articles are far worse referenced than this one. You have 72 refs here, on any article there will be a proportion of poorer quality, but this is a good high numnber  Ron h jones (Talk) 18:48, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No one's arguing you about quantity, just quality. And since this is a Talk section about "Citation Translation" I felt the discussion belonged under "Additional Citations Needed," but I can just cut and paste what I said up there and place it here....

I see the article's references have been switched around since my last visit. Let's try this again. Okay, reference number one [1]... is a blog entry. A blog entry. Come on, guys. References three [3], four [4], five [5] and six [6] cannot be verified. They just can't. Assuming they exist, they could say anything... or nothing. They could be a recipe for eggs benedict. We don't know. Reference number eight [8]... is a photo on Flickr. A photo on Flickr, posted by who knows who. Come on. We can do better, right? Seriously, you guys are going to tell me this is acceptable stuff? As for the INPI references, they still say, "Error: Not Found" when clicked. Is there a way to make it appear the way it appears for some of you? Then let's link to the page that displays that info. It shouldn't be so hard. As for foreign languages, no I don't speak anything other than English, and you know what? I don't have to. This is English Wikipedia, and here's what it says under Wiki's "Citing Sources": " Because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources should be used in preference to non-English language sources of equal caliber and content, though the latter are allowed where appropriate. When quoting a source in a different language, please provide both the original-language quotation and an English translation, in the text, in a footnote, or on the talk page as appropriate, so long as the quotation is not so lengthy that it would violate copyright." One last thing, it's not ridiculous at all to want additional references added so that they support what this article is saying. Hey, I can write an article claiming I invented the Les Paul guitar, and I can cite "Car & Driver" magazine, April, 1983 as my reference, but can that be verified? Do you happen to have that issue handy? No. That's my point about [3][4][5]and [6]. Sorry, putting the tags back up, people.Wrongcloth (talk) 21:00, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

You forgot to include my response from the same section which you still havent bothered to answer? I dont agree your reasoning about citations but I dont wish to repeat myself. Especially the reasoning about magazines "that are not handy" is ridicilous. Of course it can be verified. Muotinukke (talk) 20:38, 6 April 2011 (UTC)