Talk:Robert Ballagh

Possible WP:COPYVIO
Some of the sentences seem to have been copied from this item:
 * He began with an apprenticeship to the painter Michael Farrell and taught himself the rest - whole sentence appears in both wikipedia and Times Online article.
 * Ballagh made his first big splash with the People Looking At paintings, not least because his reproductions of Pollock, Lichtenstein, Rothko etc, were so convincing - partial copy of sentence in Times article.
 * In 1972, splashed animal blood on the floor of the Project arts centre for an installation about Bloody Sunday partial copy of sentence in Times article.
 * He readily admits that his early output was limited by lack of aesthetic training. For instance, the reason his Portrait of Gordon Lambert, features a silk-screened face is simply that he was not very good at painting faces back in 1972. - almost identical to two sentences in Times Online.
 * He has also painted polemical murals in west Belfast - resembles he has painted polemical murals in west Belfast in Times Online.Autarch (talk) 17:48, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem seems to have been introduced in this edit. Much of the WP article pre-dates the newspaper article. PamD (talk) 11:12, 22 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The above was dealt with by way of a text cut, and closed. SeoR (talk) 00:51, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Further improvements, next steps
I have taken this article through a major update, in particular to secure proper coverage of the subject as an artist, which was slightly lacking. There is further potential around: key works, major exhibitions, critical response, etc. And I think there is potential for DYK and GA too. On imagery, a shot of the merged house (as featured on mass TV), the studio, or from one of the exhibitions would be nice. As to artwork, copyright prohibits most, I suspect, unless someone who bought out all rights wants to donate - but on 1 Jan. 2024, the first stamp Ballagh produced could be uploaded, as Irish stamps pre-1984 go out of copyright after 50 years, so let's wait for that... SeoR (talk) 00:51, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Documentaries
There were at least two TV programmes about Ballagh, many years ago, I think? 94.140.38.38 (talk) 17:32, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

 * Over 17,000 visits, this will make the all-time list. Nice job! 94.140.38.38 (talk) 21:23, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

A man of parts
I see you've got the meeting with QE II, a highlight of the career of this generally keen Republican, painter of Sinn Fein mayors, maker of Gerry Adams limited edition prints, a top seller for the SF Shop. But you miss a couple of other contrasts: he made a whole set of masks for Prince Charles's Trust, but also took part in multiple West Belfast events. Is it OK to add these? 83.70.28.210 (talk) 16:35, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Of course, with references, include away. The Prince's Trust thing sounds rather interesting. SeoR (talk) 00:55, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Ballagh donated a set of Riverdance masks to a fundraising auction for Charlie Boy's Trust. Don't think it's in the biog.185.32.253.142 (talk) 11:37, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Good point, y’all need to say more about the man’s republican ideals. Surely there’s something from the institute he, Kiberd and others established? Possibly also a picture of himself there, or with Gerry Adams, they’ve appeared together more than once. 94.140.38.38 (talk) 12:18, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Neutrality and general excess in article
There is no doubt of Ballagh's notability, but having trimmed the lead to an actually summary, only to have it reverted, I am going about this again with the best of intentions. First off a lead is a summary of an article, not a highlight reel. Look at say Pablo_Picasso for example. A summary condenses the article and is free from flourish and detail. Look at his bio at IMMA, I think something like that would be appropriate, although the compromised one at present is an improvement.

Reading through this article and seeing the great amount of new information added by SeoR, I think the article suffers. It reads as a paid biography, or even self promotion. While a lot of words are invested in unnecessary descriptions and adjectives, very little is conveyed about the artist's work. I think the addition of an image gallery would be more important than any thing else at this point. There is also some very disorganised and non-standard terms, headings being used. The use of lists for awards, books, documentaries, solo shows, etc. Maybe look at other artists's pages for best practice? e.g. Louis_le_Brocquy, Sean_Scully, or Jack_Butler_Yeats.

Having worked on a number of artists pages and many Talk discussions, it is never considered necessary to include artist's group shows, although I suspect an example of exception could be made. My point is that it would be better to create a neutral, concise article that focuses on Ballagh's individual achievements - which are substantial - and not those made by association.

Regards Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 18:25, 30 December 2023 (UTC)


 * I'll add that I'm baffled by the inclusion of bizarre and weirdly non-specific details... a helicopter ride? "a cover for a musical single"? "The former director of the Irish Museum of Modern Art"? Why include them at all? Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 18:41, 30 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Hello again! I hope it's OK if I follow through on the comments roughly as you have them above? So, first, I do feel that a lead section should be proportionate to the overall article depth, and this is now a deeper article than it was, when 2 lines perhaps sufficed. But I will not add back any further detail without discussion. The Manual of Style recommends that the lede summarises all major topics and reminds us why this is important - many readers do not go further in - that may be regrettable but it is the experience.  So, could we consider mentioning 1-2 more of the sets worked on, or a couple of key exhibitions, or even paintings?
 * Now, in the next para, there's a very odd comment, which might be considered hurtful, and may breach WP:AGF, but I hope we can move on past this. Self-promotion, as in by the artist? I think that would look very different. So no, I'm not a famous artist, and I don't know this subject at all. And as for reading like paid material, I really don't think so - after all my years here, I suspect that such material would be compact, and focused on only monetisable content, like works and prices. Let's leave this point at that. I do explain each step of my editing in the edit summaries, and I have also touched on why I tackled this article at all - it was an article on one of Ireland's most famous living painters which did not discuss the painting in the body text at all - that was so shocking that I returned to it days after a routine check, to bring it up to a standard the encyclopedia could be proud of.
 * On images, I would, as I mentioned above on Talk, love to have some, as it would of course make everything much clearer - but there's not a lot of legally-permissable content about. I have hundreds of Ballagh images in sources, but I can't just scan it in... but if you, or anyone else, has content that could be used, that would be fantastic! I am very familiar with the article pages you mention - I've visited more than 60% of all the Ireland articles over time - and yes, we could have some lists, but there's also the preference for WP:USEPROSE where possible, and I was aiming for a narrative approach. But of course I'd be happy to see some lists added, with reasonable detail (for some of the exhibitions, it's not the mere fact of attendance that's key, it's what happened around that).
 * Now, on Group shows, I see there's already been some back and forth on this, and I'm leaving it alone for now. But I really have to ask where the policy or guideline is on this? Group shows are critical for artists, and some never get much solo exhibition time - we have over 3k artists in Ireland, and I suspect fewer than 50 galleries at any one time, plus alternative venues - and then there are cost issues. Further, for many artists, including Ballagh, the breakthrough comes from group appearance, not solo. And finally, the group exhibitions I included were all highly notable events in their own right - IELA, Rosc, and even that curious one in Moscow. I'd like to discuss this sub-topic further, and maybe we can have simply "Exhibitions", mostly solo but with key group items also. And I really don't think I included many "association" items but let's discuss any examples, sure.
 * Finally, the three items you mention as a bit odd. The helicopter ride to prepare for an official commission was something from an anecdote Ballagh told in one or two accounts, the sort of human detail which can sometimes help a reader relate - but of course we can cut it. The cover for a single I don't specifically recall, but it was probably simply an example of the artist's range of work, which is relevant. And the comments by Declan McG., former head of IMMA, which were read as dismissing Ballagh as an illustrator rather than an artist - they are indeed notable, and caused a bit of a storm at the time. Feel free to cut the other two, but that issue is germane to something Ballagh has had a lot to say about - acceptance.
 * Anyway, I hope that's all a bit clearer. Could I make a small suggestion - that we leave the article for a week, both of us, let it make its DYK appearance, and then we dive in and try to tighten it up? Kind regards, SeoR (talk) 21:57, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * You mentioned on my talk page something like: the lead should be a certain percentage of the article. Can you support that with any style refs or precedent or artist page? I've never heard of such a thing. I think the article needs work before the lead, so that the lead can summarise. In regards to prose, my understanding is that refers to not creating dry bullet point or broken bits of facts... and not urging an article to swing into something unnecessarily verbose or a hagiography. I just try to state the facts, to aim for objectivity. Not everything about Ballagh needs to be said here, there are books on him. What is essential is a concise, yet precise overview of his acconplishments; his contributions to art and design. So, just to say it again... that needs improvement more than the article needs to be full of details from his memoirs. Will take a look again shortly. Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 22:34, 30 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Breakfast edit: The guideline for the best articles is 250-400 words. The current lead is about half that. 185.32.253.142 (talk) 11:39, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Can you share the source for that 185.32.253.142? Thanks. Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 15:24, 31 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Can I join? I actually collect art including Ballagh prints and am used to reading about artists. Usually auction house blurbs, which run to anything from 3-5 lines to 3 pages. This article has improved from what it was last time I read it, back in Covid time. It’s like I’d expect in a book of artist short biographies. I see another person said the same in a box above, “no fluff.” If it has flaws now, they are two: 1) The introduction is too short and you have to read down the page, 2) There is not enough about critical and public assessment and perception. You could also put all the career parts into more of a single long “central section.” It does use many points from the biography by Carty, which I have. But at a guess, it contains about 1% of what that book does. I don’t know most of the other materials but they sound reputable. I don’t see anything making Ballagh out to be a saint or genius, nor a martyr. Despite years on the dole, I believe he has done ok for himself. Of course the greatest boost would be some pictures. Has anyone official reached out to the man? He has a reputation as irascible but an auctioneer who met him said he was fine. It can’t hurt to ask. 94.140.38.38 (talk) 10:34, 31 December 2023 (UTC)


 * I will rejoin here. Apologies in advance, I am largely taking a day off today, on the road, so this will be brief, but I'm happy to discuss further in the days ahead. Hesperian Nguyen, I hope we can debate all points, and in particular, I'm very curious as to the policy or guideline which militates against group exhibitions; I maintain that these are very important for many artists, and an attempt to exclude them wholesale seems wrongheaded to me. But from your mention, I think I gather you've had pushback on this topic from others...
 * Now, to answer your question, in mentioning 5-10%, I said that "to my mind" this is appropriate, and I do not claim it as policy. Rather it is based on experience in both business and academia, where an abstract or lede of under 5% would be pretty feeble. The actual relevant policy would be, I think, MOS:LEADLENGTH, which would suggest 2-3 paragraphs for the Ballagh case, and the "best article" practice an IP mentioned above of 250-400 words is also in this MOS section. I take further steering from WP:CREATELEAD, which includes the guidance "When they read the article they should not be surprised by encountering any significant information that was not alluded to in the lead.", "The lead should be one to four paragraphs in length and should answer most or all of the 5 Ws." (later "How" is also mentioned), the composition guidance "If a subject is worth a whole section, then it deserves [a] short mention in the lead according to its real due weight." and the quite important point vs other media "Wikipedia articles should cover all significant aspects of a subject, which is more than typical articles found elsewhere seek to accomplish." I did try to achieve these in my original lede, but for example, I did not even include something from every section, and was already below the recommended length mentioned. As of last night, the lead section was down to 156 words. But again, I will not touch either lede or body further until we have discussed. I am back on the road now, so until later, SeoR (talk) 16:10, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I think the key point isn't to 'fill' out the lead, but rather that it act as a digestable *summary* of the article. Previous lead had odd details, which is not what a summary is. I can see also we have different writing styles, so hopefully the compromises we reach will reflect the best of both of our abilities.
 * I had considerable pushback on including group shows when I was new here and have come around to that position. Look, Ballagh has a massive list of accomplishments. And I think we all seem to respect and like his work. So no one is trying to cut him down, on the contrary. A better article (and hopefully one that eventually has more of his actual art in it) will better serve knowledge about this subject.
 * And yes... this is an article about an artist, the art is what makes an artist notable, thus more art and less 'ground floor flat' type of superfluous detail. Let's remember a more readable and organised article will convey more information than just writing and writing and writing on the subject.
 * Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 16:31, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi! I don't think we disagree on fundamentals on the lede, and am happy to come back to this when the body article has been studied further. I took a quick look now, and I see you've done some slimming. I leave it as you left it for now, and will look at it "cold" late in the week. Good to know re. group exhibitions, but I have to say that I do not believe that this is policy or even a guideline - it sounds like you got some editors' strong opinions expressed early on - and I still think excluding such totally is wrong, for the reasons already mentioned (if you are in the artistic world yourself, you will have a more direct perspective, but I do know several younger artists (no one qualified for Wikipedia yet) and most have only ever had the chance for group shows, with even one solo an achievement).
 * I do think it's important, as we work together - and Wikipedia must be one of the largest collaborative experiments ever undertaken - that we are careful about language. So, when it comes to this article, I think I'd characterise your concern as that the article had "excessive detail" and needed even more focus on the artistic work. I take that on board; this was an impulse project but I got "into" it and maybe needed to self-review more. You have also mentioned, however, WP:PUFF (which is about "praise-filled adjectives and claims") and hagiography, and I am struggling to find these - but I fully agree that such things must be absolutely avoided. You also felt that some information was nonsensical. I have to stress, as I did put in more than 8 hours of solid reading, note-taking and writing on this article improvement over several days (a lot given work and family commitments), that every point I added is factual and based directly on sources - and very little on memoir-type material, but rather mostly on the authoritative and lengthy biography, plus third-party summaries such as exhibition notes, and news articles. Now, you did highlight the presidential rumour thing, and that came from elsewhere and I also had doubts - but it was a real story in the Irish media, and actually taken seriously at the time, albeit it seems it was just a speculation. I guess that a logic for inclusion is that it says a lot about Ballagh that the notion was taken seriously. But I am totally behind cutting it too.
 * I have only seen your own articles in passing, but I agree that we have different styles, and I tend to be either very brief, or quite detailed, and it is very helpful to have other eyes look over all Wikipedia work. I did take comfort from the DYK reviews, including a conclusion that the article lacked fluff, but there will be many opinions, and as long as everyone is respectful and constructive, it's all good. All the best for 2024! SeoR (talk) 14:13, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * And a new PS: if you know any way to secure images for the article, touching on a point you made before, that would be fantastic. From today, one of Ballagh's stamps is out of copyright, but that's the only work I know of that we can easily obtain. SeoR (talk) 14:13, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm a little confused about the Did You Know Main Page revision that happened from a first use IP user. I'll wait a little while then circle back. Re: group shows... I think you answered your own question: Solo shows are a better indication of an artist's significance by being harder to get. Re: Puff I think recounting personal details that don't have to do with his career and superlative adjectives and that kind of thing. Artists can invent their background stories and embellish them, it happens often. So even if it came from a book memoir or credible source interview, it can read as a bit promotional or 'extra'. I am trying to come at this from a good place. So I'm being honest when I write that I found the article uninformative because it was more about his person/personal experiences and not about his art and its influence. For a living artist article that's very important. Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 19:49, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * On the solo vs group, I see your point, but I'd counter that some notable artists with long careers still don't get to do much solo, and some even prefer group. But OK, perhaps a case-by-case discussion. On the personal aspects of a subject's life, they are part of any complete biography, and expected by readers - in fact, a significant percentage of any biographical book goes on personal context, not the work ... actually, I'd say often too much, especially for some of the most famous figures, where I think it can exceed 1/3 of many texts. And while we have our own approach here, my notes when I put down tools on the article (I was away from it for weeks, I think) were that personal info was about 20 lines from over 140, which I'd not consider very high. But again, no argument with cutting some of that detail, and happy to see someone with a good head for this add more on e.g. critical commentary. As to images, I'm waiting on a scan of the 1973 stamp to add, and otherwise, my hands remain off this. You mention a revision related to DYK? Aside from leaving you space for your edit process, DYK is another reason why I'm hands-off this week. Once an item is scheduled to appear, my understanding is that it's considered best not to change things too much, as the DYK approval is granted based on a particular state of content. I think I got pulled-up gently once when I touched something relevant to the process near to appearance day, though I know improving tweaks and fixes, and changes to the article not impacting the DYK "hook", routinely happen (I've had 20+ Did You Know submissions, and sometimes the approval process is very demanding, but it does help article quality). So, I will be back here after the DYK, at the weekend - unless I get that stamp scan meantime - but around Wikipedia otherwise, I hope. SeoR (talk) 22:47, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia isn't a book biography. It is an encyclopedia. This article is about why this artist is notable. Leave the minutiae to the memoirs. Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 07:16, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Your last round of edits are no more than reversions to totally superflous and unneeded detail that reads like a paid advertsisment. After all your Assume Good Fait, I can only say that it appears you wanted to have this page highlighted and then move on. The postage stamp is a good edition, so there is one positive. Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 07:22, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello again, ; sorry for not replying sooner, Real Life intervened, and I'm just resuming editing tonight. I have to ask if you really find that tone necessary or appropriate? And have you read the AGF policy?; it's one of our most basic tenets. I engaged fully above, and on your page, and you did not reply to some of my points but I thought we were having a good discussion anyway. Now I'm mystified by your words just above, as I did not perform any real reversion at all! One of the reviewing editors, per the discussion at DYK, reverted the page to a DYK-aligned state. I simply subsequently made a series of reference-adding edits (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_Ballagh&diff=1193657872&oldid=1193487955), as required and agreed. And in fact, while doing this, I adopted some of your suggestions for slimming the article. Then I made a small set of copyedits, and added the stamp and a couple of other images I found in Commons (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_Ballagh&diff=1193487955&oldid=1193308615). I made no further edits, downing tools before DYK appearance, and then leaving the article for you and anyone else to work further on. There seems to have been a good interest at DYK, and that's nice, but it's an appearance, nothing more; I'm glad if people learned something new, but we'll never know. I see nothing that could possibly be construed as a "paid ad" - and an ad for what? ... and I anyway can't think why anyone would bothering doing such a thing - the artist apparently sells well for decades, and certainly needs no help from Wikipedia (and at least one newspaper article suggests that the subject uses neither the internet nor devices much). I invite to review what I have said, as they kindly offered to provide a third opinion if needed. I took your points in good faith, and I am saddened by your response. I never abandon anything (I have a watchlist of thousands of articles), and may well edit here again, but for now, I leave it in the hands of others, as all our work in Wikipedia is; I hope it improves further. SeoR (talk) 01:25, 10 January 2024 (UTC)


 * While I may be pointing the finger in the wrong direction, the article took a step forward and 2 steps back, there was * a lot * of fluff reintroduced and the article isn't/wasn't neutral and it looks like an ad for how cool this guys life is. e.g. I've read a lot of artist pages, and never once had to read about home renovations. There looks to me to be a promotional sound to it which I do not think is justified by saying 'this guys is successful why would he do that?' There are plenty of artists's who feel slighted by history and wish to correct it on wikipedia. There is a lot of sophisticated editing going on by IP addresses which could be a flag for sock puppetry. I also find it depressing to have worked on an article I am genuinely interested in only to find it returned to its poor prior state. Take this generally if you were not responsible, as we are - AGF - all trying to improve the article to our Wikipedia standards. Regards Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 10:08, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I can’t offer a strong outside opinion but I can point to the major ”reversion”, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_Ballagh&diff=prev&oldid=1193307441. The independent editor who did that said: ”I restored the version as the article appeared before” so nothing underhand there. I see ”SeoR” has indicated that they have stepped aside for the time being. But anyone interested can edit, right? The changes made by ”JennyOz” and others in the later days seem minor. But for example I could edit from my auction brochure. Right now the article is still interesting, but I’d like more on the Ballagh style. Any takers? 94.140.38.38 (talk) 12:34, 10 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for the reply. As someone has touched on above, the record of how and by which editor the reversion was made is public, and it definitely was not me.  Pbritti is a very polite editor from, AFAIK, Colorado, who was reviewing the DYK nomination.  They simply reverted all changes to the 6-week-stable version.  There were a bunch of small edits since the mass reversion and my addition of some more references, but this is normal for a main page appearance - many hands check such articles as they are posted, and then some fraction of the global readership may also edit.  With over 17k people taking a look, this is natural.  You are of course free to re-edit now; the main page appearance is done.  And as I said, when I did the referencing, I adopted some of your cuts already.  Best of luck, have at it!  Meantime, I see a few Aosdana members still lacking articles; I will look to that, a couple of entrepreneurs and some antiquities, among other things. SeoR (talk) 23:58, 10 January 2024 (UTC)


 * P.S.: I think both you and one of the other commentators above are suggesting that there should be more on the artistic content of Ballagh's work. I'd have no objection, but it's a sensitive area, with no doubt a lot of opinion around, and I was being cautious about that in my few days of intensive editing.