Talk:Richard Hambleton

Untitled
can someone verify what years hambleton was in the venice biennial? the wikipedia article says it only occurs on odd years, hence 1984 and 1988 sound wrong...

Canadian?!
How does this person qualify as a Canadian graffiti artist? BordenRhodes (talk) 01:17, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

ANSWER: ODD YEARS -> EVEN YEARS (from wikipedia entry on the Venice Biennale) Italian art historian Giovanni Carandente directed the 1988 and 1990 editions. A three-year gap was left afterwards to make sure that the 1995 edition would coincide with the 100th anniversary of the Biennale. The 1993 edition was directed by Achille Bonito Oliva while Jean Clair and Germano Celant served as directors in 1995 and 1997 respectively. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.241.151.197 (talk) 18:37, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Official Website
Hello, my name is Kevin I work for Woodward Gallery in NYC. Woodward Gallery is the Gallery that represents the artist Richard Hambleton. His official website is actually richardhambleton.art which has all of his biographical information, artist resume, exhibition history, a large selection of his works and news articles of past and present. Someone keeps changing the site on this wiki page to richardhambleton.com. That other website is promotional material to a documentary film going on at the Tribeca Film Festival and is not his official website. How do I get his official site to remain richardhambleton.art? Thanks for your help! Kevin User:Kwhipple90
 * who did the reverts. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  18:23, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * richardhambleton.art redirects to the gallery which sells some of his work. That is definitely not an appropriate link to include; Wikipedia is not here for you to hawk your wares. If richardhambleton.com is also inappropriate we should remove both URLs. Pinkbeast (talk) 18:51, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Since I am one of the persons who changed the link per a request, its only fair that I put forth my comment. For now, I have removed both links - they can be readded after a conclusion is arrived at. From my understanding of policies and guidelines related to this matter, the following things may shed some light on the how relevant the Woodward gallery web page is in this context:
 * From WP:ELOFFICIAL: The linked content is controlled by the subject (organization or individual person) of the Wikipedia article - unsure, but is it controlled by a recognized authority - yes
 * From WP:ELOFFICIAL: The linked content primarily covers the area for which the subject of the article is notable - yes
 * From WP:ELNO: Individual web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services, or to web pages with objectionable amounts of advertising - doesnt appear to be selling products but does showcase it
 * From what I see, the page richardhambleton.com is not suitable since it covers only a small project of Richard Hambleton and has no other information about him. As for the Woodward gallery web page, thats upto consensus. Jiten Dhandha  •  talk  •  contributions  • 20:23, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The gallery rep should be disregarded as he has a huge conflict of interest here. He has done a number of edits that are clearly promotional, including adding three different external website links related to the gallery, and multiple previous edits supporting the gallery.96.127.244.11 (talk) 22:58, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, FWIW, the Whois lookup for RICHARDHAMBLETON.ART shows it is entirely owned and controlled by the Woodward gallery In NYC. It also redirects to http://woodwardgallery.net/artists/richard-hambleton/, making the purpose of the official site very clear indeed: it is promotional vessel for sales purposes. As the big button at the top says, "inquire about artwork",  AKA, "buy something please." That sounds a lot like an "Individual web page(s) that primarily exist(s) to sell products or services".96.127.244.11 (talk) 23:02, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Drug addiction claims
I've had to take out the claim about drug addiction. Although it is sourced, the Hollywood Reporter is a typical celebrity gossip magazine, which just isn't good enough for this sort of strong assertion. Hambleton is not exactly a household name, so we need to be careful per WP:BLP. To pull out a random example of an absolutely unquestionable "widely publicised" drug-related incident, consider the arrest of Mick Jagger and Keith Richards in 1967. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  10:09, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The sources are pretty good. it is indeed very widely reported. Try doing a search. it's a major component of a publicly released film as well. I have the sense that you are just ticked off that I challenged and removed the very bad DOB source you added earlier. Whatever.198.58.160.156 (talk) 10:13, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I think most of the recent changes have been good, and I don't know Hambleton from a hole in the ground. Just asserting they are "pretty good" isn't enough - about 1 million people think The Sun is good (or at least enough to buy it), but I don't! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  10:15, 26 April 2017 (UTC)