Talk:Park West Gallery

Editing
I did a little editing, hope this is OK. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 20:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Controversy
I inserted a "Recent controversy" section regarding the July 2008 New York Times article about customer accusations of fraud 216.38.142.2 (talk) 02:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC) John M.

WP:SOCK

 * - started the article, only edits to related subjects. States WP:COI. Last edit on 17 July.
 * - 3 edits all to this article since 19 July
 * - 4 edits all to this article, 1 on 24 July, 3 on 25 July
 * - 2 edits both to this article on 24 July

It seems fairly obvious from the nature of edits that the later three users are socks of Sorlando, used to edit war for the preferred version. There is evidence also of socks on other related articles (and on this article as well), but these are the relevant ones at the moment.

 Ty  02:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Tyrenius Thanks for the note and for the instruction about Wikipedia rules regarding edits. I would like to contribute content that adds value to Wikipedia. Obviously, since I have been doing this for less than 72 hours, I have much to learn.

Your assertion that I am Sorlando is not correct. I have only one Wikipedia ID. Frankly I thought you missed the 800 pound gorilla in the room to come to that conclusion. Let me explain. May I suggest to you that a careful review of the Wikipedia article about Park West Gallery, some of the referenced material, and Google rankings will lead many people to contribute and edit as I have. Park West Gallery has over a million customers. Park West had an artist conference in Michigan involving more than 40 major artists (i.e. Kinkade, Agam, Marcus, Peter Max, etc) during the first week of July. Kinkade gave a speech in which he noted that the collective impact of this group of artists has touched the lives of tens of millions of people. There are over a million customers, over 40 artists, millions of people who appreciate their art, and many employees who value art and the work of Park West Gallery. Many of these people are aware of what might be termed an internet based corporate hijacking. Herein tagged "Controversy" The 800 pound gorilla is that YOU SHOULD EXPECT MANY OTHER INDIVIDUALS (ARTISTS AND ART COLLECTORS)(NEW TO WIKIPEDIA)TO MAKE CONTRIBUTIONS AND EDITS SIMILAR TO MINE. Veritas!

There is a controversy being created and enlarged. Artists and art collectors are growing in awareness. The NYT writer Jori Finkel (cited repeatedly in the Park West Gallery Wikipedia Article) was invited to attend the artist conference at Park West. She was invited to interview the artists, to watch them create art, and to interact with clients purchasing art. She does after all write about art and artists. The 80 year old kinetic artist, Yaakov Agam, left his creative work at the Beijing Olympics to participate in the conference at Park West. However, the NYT writer did not attend. Instead, the New York Times wrote an article about the legal allegations of a handful of people. It is astounding to me that the NYT art section missed the artist conference and chose to publish an article about the customer service issues and other allegations of .000005% of Park West's customers! By Wikipedia standards that doesn't pass the bar of significance! Yet because the article was subsequently published in the New York Times, some editors here assert that this material must have prominence in the Wikipedia article. The NYT article has been corrected because of a factual error about the date of death of Salvador Dali. Perhaps there are other errors? The Times article was fueled (and heralded by) at www.fineartregistry.com. (the defendant company that was in default in a defamation and civil conspiracy suit with Park West Gallery) The NYT article notes that the outcome of this case is a matter of public record. Fine Art Registry also has a site (www.weworshipsatan.com) that should expose the flavor of the "controversy".

As one who has a high appreciation for accuracy in the public domain, and as an art collector well acquainted with Park West Gallery, I would love to see a fair and accurate encyclopedic entry about Park West in Wikipedia. Please post your insights and advice so that we may collectively achieve that outcome. While I understand my comments here would not be appropriate for the article, I hope they add to your perspective in editing the site.

Thank you in advance for your consideration. G.D. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Giadel957 (talk • contribs) 05:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I am aware of the issues. Check out WP:TPG: it is helpful to other editors to be succinct on this page, and also keep to material that can be put in the article (i.e. which has a reference), as personal knowledge and opinion cannot be accepted for this purpose. Unfortunately for the company it seems their major coverage by reliable secondary sources (as defined by Wikipedia) concerns complaints about them. Any other sources you can provide, which meet WP:V and WP:RS can also be used. See note below about the lead section. Per sock issue, see WP:DUCK. I trust you will only be editing this article with one user name.  Ty  22:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:BLP
I have removed material per WP:BLP. The reference given was a press release by Park West Gallery. Per WP:V this is not an acceptable source for contentious material about living people (nor is original court documentation admissable per WP:NOR). A reliable source such as The New York Times would be acceptable. Failing an appropriate source, this material should not be reinserted, and doing so may result in the editor being blocked.  Ty  02:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

"Complaints" in lead section
The following has been removed twice from the lead:
 * "Complaints have been made of inflated valuations given by the company to items on cruise ships auctions; some customers have subsequently received refunds."

Per WP:LEAD: "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies that may exist."

Clearly this is a notable controversy. The last removal stated "NYT report of .000005% complaints CITE WEASEL WORDS". I don't see the term ".000005%" in the NYT. I do see the term "complaints". Therefore it is acceptable as it is taken from the source, not an editorial observation.

Other wording for this aspect of the article for the lead can be suggested below. Otherwise I will reinsert the text.

 Ty  22:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree and I restored this after it was deleted. --216.47.56.198 (talk) 16:27, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Dead refs
Don't just remove them and remove the cited content. See WP:DEADREF.  Ty  05:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Pictures
Wikipedia is an illustrated encyclopedia. Kindly don't remove the images.  Ty  05:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with the anon's removal of the gallery. I could see one of the images used in the body of the article to illustrate the history section; but using all four is overkill (at least, to me it seems overkill) - especially the three internal shots which seem redundant to each other. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 13:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Respectfully but strongly disagree, especially now there is more text so the images are proprionately less of the whole. I find them very informative, and, as a reader, a valuable inclusion. However, if you still disagree, I suggest we get more input from other editors to decide.  Ty  02:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Material from further reading section
I've removed this. It only contains negative material. It's copied below in case needed. This article should not be an attack piece.  Ty  06:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)



Balance
COPIED FROM User talk:A. B.

A.B. -- As a fan of art and friend of PWG, and someone who attended their 40th anniversary event in July, I have been watching this online Internet battle which has truly been a bit of smear campaign by Fine Art Registry. Looking at the FAR forum and site, it looks like 80% of their effort is to defame Park West, and they are rehashing resolved customer issues and using that to make a case to media outlets to further their agenda. Based on insider information, NYT acknowledged insufficient research on the original article and conceded to allowing a longer-than-usual letter to the editor that was published this past Saturday. See: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/10/opinion/l10auction.html This should be referenced.

I don't consider myself an Encyclopedia editor, but in looking at the Wikipedia entry, it now reads very negative on the company, and doesn't at all reflect at all of what Park West has done for artists and people who have discovered art through them. (see Thomas Kinkade video from 7/30/2008): http://www.parkwestgallery.com/blog/post.aspx?id=24

Is it really an example of Wikipedia to base so much supposed "fact" on a few articles that were all spurred by a competitor? Especially one for which there is pending litigation? Looking at the history logs, it looks like there is an edit war going on here, and if Wikipedia intends to maintain its reputation, I'd suggest having this entry removed, or at least revised to reflect that NYT article as a footnote to its 40 year history, rather than the main story. No company is perfect, and I know the people in Park West are working hard to address customer complaints. --ParkWestFan (talk) 13:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for pointing me to the rebuttal letter -- I have just added it to the article along with a quote from Mr. Scaglione. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 14:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

END OF COPIED TEXT

Wikipedia is a tertiary work that relies on secondary sources for its content, and derives from these per a neutral point of view policy. It does not allow editorial speculation or interpretation, or personal knowledge per WP:NOR. The article follows these policies. There are a considerable number of major media outlets that see problems with the cruise line auctions. If you can provide equivalent sources that offer different information then this too can be included.

Please note that wikipedia space should not be used to make unsubstantiated accusations against people or organisations per WP:SOAP. What you say about the Fine Art Registry may or may not be true, but as it is your own perception and does not cite any verifiable source, you should refrain from making it.

 Ty  04:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Refund policy
Park West Gallery recently rolled out a new customer return policy that was written about in Travel Weekly. See: http://www.travelweekly.com/Article.aspx?id=178926&rbp=1 The press release can be found on their website at: http://www.parkwestgallery.com/press/article.aspx?id=30 ArtLover08 (talk) 04:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Added.  Ty  10:26, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Criticism section
This material should be integrated into the article with the other text that describes the auctions. See also WP:CRIT.  Ty  12:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, good that you did not revert. It would be more insulting to Park West to fold criticism into it's history wouldn't it? Also, it is terrible for the reader to fold it in. It is simply better as a separate section because it is a separate section. -72.93.80.74 (talk) 16:09, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:CRIT is an essay, not policy. WP:STRUCTURE which is policy is mostly concerned with undue weight and POV. In this case the criticism was strong and from several reliable sources, there's no undue weight in calling it what it is. Siawase (talk) 16:29, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It is inaccurately titled for a start. It contains only five lines of criticism, one and a half about a law suit, and six about Park West's responsive actions and rebuttals. The heading gives UNDUE weight by implying that this whole section is "criticism". At the very least it should be retitled to accurately reflect the content, maybe "Cruise auction disputes" or some such.  Ty  22:26, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * "Cruise auction disputes" seems like a good, accurate header to me. Siawase (talk) 22:32, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

From the edit log: ''The discussion on this has only just started. It is not concluded.'' / Tyrenius
 * Mantainance tags are subject to the WP:BRD cycle just like any other article contents. You added something you wanted into the article, I reverted it, now we're discussing. There was no need for further reverts. Siawase (talk) 22:30, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

New class action lawsuit
Reported this week: -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 02:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Also:
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 18:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 18:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * More:
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 06:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 06:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 06:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Park West Gallery stops selling Dali prints
See: -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 07:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

More news citations
-- A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 02:15, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Major article in the NY Times about Peter Max and Park West Galley
See:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/28/business/peter-max-dementia-cruise-ship-auctions.html

--166.82.66.114 (talk) 23:01, 28 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Related:
 * https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/15/business/park-west-peter-max-suit.html
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 21:52, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

More news citations
-- A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 22:51, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2016-12-14/ever-bought-artwork-on-a-cruise-prepare-to-be-seasick
 * https://www.freep.com/story/money/business/michigan/2014/12/03/salvador-dali-lawuit/19861427/
 * https://www.artmarketmonitor.com/2019/05/28/how-park-west-sold-93m-in-peter-max-paintings/
 * https://news.artnet.com/market/cruise-ship-auction-1626928
 * https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2010/07/12/the-mark-of-a-masterpiece
 * passing mention
 * https://www.dbusiness.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/33/2019/09/2019_DB500.pdf (see page 110)
 * https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7078757/Son-artist-Peter-Marx-accused-using-ghost-painters-suffers-dementia.html
 * https://www.foxbusiness.com/features/how-much-is-a-cruise-line-worth
 * https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/art/features/the-surreal-case-of-dali-s-art-and-the-squandered-legacy-1751557.html
 * https://web.archive.org/web/20081011074148/http://www.browardpalmbeach.com/2006-11-09/news/the-art-of-piracy/full%3Cbr%20/%3E
 * https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/28/business/peter-max-dementia-cruise-ship-auctions.html
 * https://www.crainsdetroit.com/article/20100421/FREE/100429940/jury-park-west-to-pay-500000-for-trademark-law-violation#
 * https://www.artmarketmonitor.com/2008/07/16/a-bid-on-a-boat/
 * https://azcentral.newspapers.com/clip/111755690/arizona-republic/
 * https://www.smh.com.au/technology/ali-center-art-gallery-settle-donation-dispute-20120630-218uw.html
 * https://www.courthousenews.com/gallery-faces-amended-fraud-complaints/
 * https://www.theopenpress.com/m/Park-West-Gallery-Stops-Selling-Dali-Prints-on-all-Cruise-Ships-Reports-Say/200945437.html
 * https://tucson.com/news/state-and-regional/gullible-travels-art-sales-at-sea/article_358c3e0b-4bd6-59ba-a048-754fa44b414d.html
 * https://www.foxnews.com/travel/guide-to-cruise-ship-art-auctions
 * https://www.crainsdetroit.com/article/20120626/FREE/120629943/muhammad-ali-center-sues-park-west-gallery-says-it-wont-display
 * https://www.insider.com/artist-peter-max-dementia-paintings-park-west-2019-5
 * https://www.ship-technology.com/analysis/art-auctions-on-cruise-ships/
 * https://www.format.com/magazine/features/art/cruise-ship-art-auctions-controversy

Old discussions of this organization and their Wikipedia editing
-- A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 00:34, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 25
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2008 Archive Jul 2


 * Some of the accounts known to have been involved in spamming and COI-editing:
 * Park West Gallery has been spamming our encyclopedia for 14+ years and received numerous warnings.
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 00:50, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Park West Gallery has been spamming our encyclopedia for 14+ years and received numerous warnings.
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 00:50, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Park West Gallery has been spamming our encyclopedia for 14+ years and received numerous warnings.
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 00:50, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Park West Gallery has been spamming our encyclopedia for 14+ years and received numerous warnings.
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 00:50, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Park West Gallery has been spamming our encyclopedia for 14+ years and received numerous warnings.
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 00:50, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Park West Gallery has been spamming our encyclopedia for 14+ years and received numerous warnings.
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 00:50, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Park West Gallery has been spamming our encyclopedia for 14+ years and received numerous warnings.
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 00:50, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Park West Gallery has been spamming our encyclopedia for 14+ years and received numerous warnings.
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 00:50, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 00:50, 12 November 2022 (UTC)


 * These are domains that have been spammed at one time or another


 * These are related domains to watch out for:

-- A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 01:05, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Edit Request for first citation
Would it be permissible to change the first linked citation to the following? https://news.artnet.com/market/park-west-cruise-seller-new-york-gallery-2246377 As user Theredproject noted, I do have a declared COI, but would like to request updates that are NPOV and ensure that any further requested changes do not wikiwash or promote, only inform. While the information in the current first citation from NYT is accurate, I believe the previously used Huffpost article, or Artnet article here may be a more fitting middle-ground in terms of introducing the gallery. It is also more current. The NYT citation would be better suited at the end of the lede. Bnrdmnd (talk) 17:17, 2 February 2023 (UTC)