Talk:Stella Vine/Archive 1

For people continually vandalizing the Stella Vine page- see:

Controversial edits
Before making what can potentially be controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Otherwise, people might consider your edits to be vandalism.

8/31/2005: Stella, please stop vandalizing the article about you.

Link to stuckism
This link stays until there is evidence to refute its validity. We are not in the business of cover-ups or one sided arguments -- Cdyson37 12:19, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Stripper?
Okay I'm sick of reverting all this stuff and I'm probably at my 3 revert limit now and for all I know she was a stripper (perhaps she'd do a better job at that than painting!) Any input folks? Cdyson37 16:26, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Update: She was a stripper

Cdyson37 16:32, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Stick to stripping Stella/ Melissa
Your better at it than painting or vandalizing Wikipedia

Edit summaries
Some recent edit summaries by Madeofstars are inappropriate. Edit summaries cannot be amended, so should be made with due caution. These have not:

 Ty  08:58, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * "proper context into the Stuckists bullying behaviour towards Vine."
 * This is an editorial comment contrary to WP:BLP, stated as a fact, when it is only the opinion of Vine.
 * "added in information strangely removed. Funny how particular phrases get removed by Ty whilst others get to remain"
 * There's nothing strange about it. Content removed was unreferenced and WP:PEACOCK about a painting, stating that it was one "which became well known through press reproduction". I don't see what's "funny" about following wikipedia guidelines. The edit summary implies I am editing in a biased way. However, I was the editor who put the text in the article in the first place. I know more about editing now.
 * "Wikipedia operates a WP:NPOV policy, meaning all sources are represented, not just one side, interestingly you removed Vine's side here."
 * The edit I left was "Vine has said this is "harassment"." I fail to see how this "removed Vine's side", which Madeofstars feels is only properly represented by his edit, "Vine described this as harassment and The Stuckists as bullies". That is merely saying the same thing twice. The edit summary is another false implication that I am not editing correctly. Madeofstar's edit shows how he over-represents Vine's negative attitude to the Stuckists.
 * "Creation of proper heading for Stuckism to place all Stuckism information into one section. Same as wiki of Tracey Emin which Ty has also edited 87 times with regards to Stukism."
 * This is another inappropriate comment about me in an edit summary. I fail to see the relevance of how many times I have edited another article. It is also inaccurate: a lot of my edits to that article are straightforward vandal reversions. Following on the earlier edit summaries and another comment made elsewhere about me by Madeofstars, I can only see this as a personal attack, implying that I am biased.
 * "addition of more context to show the vast journalistic support in support of Vine, not the Stuckists, regarding their negative treatment of the successful artist"
 * Blatant POV statement, showing again that it is Madeofstars who has the biased agenda.
 * "Re-adding Billy Childish information, VALID ADDITION, unusually this was somehow removed without the wiki History being used. Hmm"
 * More innuendo. The only unusual thing is that it was removed by MadeofStars himself in the edit following the one where he inserted the material.

Thank you for you comments  Ty . I sincerely apolgise to you if I have caused offence. If you do have a look at all the edits I have been making to Stella Vine's page, these are not all directed to the small time Vine was a member of the Stuckists group. I have added in lots of new additions, such as Vine's large amount of Charity Work and other items of note such as a proper explanation of the artist's varied oeuvre of painting, drawing and found object sculpture which had previously been unexplored. I understand your above comments and thank you for them, and hope you can accept my apology. I am glad we have had this chance to discuss. I do also think all the work both you and I have been doing over the past few days have made Vine's page much clearer, more balanced, and also there is much more depth and more recent information which was lacking before, so all in all we're doing a good job. Best wishes.  Madeofstars  12:54, 13 December 2008 (GMT)
 * I am happy to accept your post in the spirit it was made, and recognise that you have made valuable additions. There are things to iron out, but this can be done in time. At this rate, it has the potential to be a featured article, which requires a very high standard.  Ty  04:03, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks once again Ty, good to hear we have come to positive outcome and agreement. I also agree there are a few thing to iron out on Stella Vine's page which can of course be done in time, as Wikipedia is a time consuming process, but I am dedicated, as it seems are you, to making this page as accurate as possible and look forward to us hopefully achieving a featured article status as this would help promote the amazing art of Vine to even more people. Such a great idea! Best wishes,  Madeofstars  09:49, 16 December 2008 (GMT)

Photographs approved by Stella Vine herself
Hi Ty, I have just had an email back from Stella Vine allowing us to use the photos that I uploaded this week. I have sent this over to the Wiki permissions department over email. I will list below the ones she has give us permission for, any others she did not mention. I hope this helps and what great news we can keep all these wonderful images up on her Stella Vine wiki page. She approved the following images to be used low res on her wikipedia page:

Stella Vine installs her painting Diana branches in Oxford.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Stella_Vine_installs_her_painting_Diana_branches_in_Oxford.jpg

Rosy.jpeg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rosy.jpeg

Stella Vine T shirt range for Top Shop 2007.jpeg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Stella_Vine_T_shirt_range_for_Top_Shop_2007.jpeg

Stella Vine selection of paintings.jpeg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Stella_Vine_selection_of_paintings.jpeg

Stella Vine inside Modern Art Oxford.jpeg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Stella_Vine_inside_Modern_Art_Oxford.jpeg

Stella Vine's glass cabinets installation at Bailiffgate Museum 2006.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Stella_Vine%27s_glass_cabinets_installation_at_Bailiffgate_Museum_2006.jpg

She also approved the use of the two Fair Use images which are currently being used at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stella_Vine: Vine-Hi-Paul.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vine-Hi-Paul.jpg

Vine-Holy-Water.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vine-Holy-Water.jpg

Best wishes,  Madeofstars  16:06, 16 December 2008 (GMT)


 * It's not sufficient to just give permission for use in the article about her. Permission has to be given for a free licence such as GFDL or CC-BY-SA. Where the subject is her specifically her artwork, there are two copyrights: that of the artwork shown and that of the photographer. You have already licensed the latter copyright. The artist's copyright may not apply where the artwork's inclusion is incidental to the main subject, but having clearance saves any disputes. You have stated the image File:Rosy.jpeg showing her standing in a shop door is your copyright, so that is all that is needed with this image.  Ty  07:17, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Proper permission wasn't given, so some of these images have now been deleted. User:Stifle is the admin to contact. If proper permission is given, as I've stated above, they can be restored.  Ty  11:22, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * In case I'm not around, OTRS users should see 2008121510018309. Stifle (talk) 11:33, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * To summarize (while complying with the OTRS confidentiality policy), we are awaiting an explicit release of the images under a free license. All we have at the moment is permission to use on Wikipedia. Stifle (talk) 11:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I noticed yet another photo was removed this morning, the Fame one. It's obviously becoming apparent that we are not going to get approval... which is a shame but also I guess it's best for Vine to protect her images to stop people using them in derogatory ways. I was looking at her own website and I guess what will happen is, that website will just become more a visitor attraction due to the depth of information there and clear images. So it's good we are able to point wiki readers to her website if they wish to learn more about her achievements and what her paintings look like. ' Madeofstars '' 14:28, 18 December 2008 (GMT)

Image copyvios
You've uploaded some photos which show artworks in copyright. This is a copyright violation and the photos will be deleted from wikipedia unless there is permission from the artwork copyright holder, presumably Stella Vine, for the photos to be used. This permission must grant a licence such as GFDL. Non-commercial or wikipedia-only is not sufficient. There is some information about GFDL at User_talk:VAwebteam the authorised agent for the V&A museum. If permission is given by the copyright holder, an OTRS ticket will be issued, such as you can see at the top of User talk:VAwebteam. The easiest way to do this is to obtain an email from the copyright holder, as shown at User:Videmus_Omnia/Requesting_free_content or the copyright holder can email permission directly. It will be for the copyright content in the photos to be licensed as GFDL (and/or Creative Commons) for those specific photos only. The URL of the relevant image(s) should be stated. The email address to contact is permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org. In addition, if permission can be obtained for images of other artworks, such as the ones currently in the article under Fair Use, that would be even better and allow for an image gallery of paintings to be included in the article. The permission can be stated to be for that file size, which can be low resolution.  Ty  13:59, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your comments  Ty  I will contact permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org now regarding this to make sure the photos will not be removed as the artist is happy for her work to be shown in this way on Wikipedia. Best wishes.
 *  Madeofstars  14:16, 15 December 2008 (GMT)

Incidentally  Ty , I noticed you uploaded an early photograph to both this Wikipedia site and also Wikiquote site, which also shows artworks in copyright. This is a copyright violation and the photos will be deleted from wikipedia unless there is permission from the artwork copyright holder, presumably Stella Vine, for the photos to be used. The title of the photograph you've uploaded and which is currently showing on Vine's wikipedia pages is called Image:2001 Vote Stuckist (1).jpg

Do let me know your thoughts on this, as the photo is showing Stella Vine standing in front of a number of her paintings, which are within her copyright. So we may have to try to get this photograph cleared too, otherwise it will have to be deleted, no? It's really good that we are sorting all this out to get everything referenced and formatted correctly for this particular page as it's already looking really great! Speak soon.  Madeofstars  14:23, 15 December 2008 (GMT)


 * Edit conflict. I was just adding to my post: copyvio applies to photos whose subject is the artwork specifically, but not necessarily where the artwork is incidental to the scene as a whole, per Mike Godwin (Wikimedia legal counsel). Additionally, Image:2001 Vote Stuckist (1).jpg is released under GFDL as a still from a video, which has implicit permission, as Stella Vine is interviewed in it.  Ty  14:42, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh ok I see. In that case, surely the ones I've added are also OK as they too are video stills which I filmed at Oxford in 2007, so Vine once again gave me her implicit permission?  Madeofstars  14:53, 15 December 2008 (GMT)


 * Hi again  Ty . I was also wondering about a consent form for videos. Usually when someone is filmed, when its not for personal use only, the person filming has to get the person being filmed to sign a consent form to say they are happy for those videos, or video stills, to be used, screened or shown in public. I know I got a consent form when I filmed Vine. I was just wondering if you have such a consent form too for the video still you have used? I will raise this question now with Wikipedia too. I look forward to speaking to you soon. Best wishes.
 *  Madeofstars  16:06, 15 December 2008 (GMT)

(another edit conflict) I probably wasn't clear enough there. The key point is that Image:2001 Vote Stuckist (1).jpg is released under GFDL by an external site, so they take responsibility for issuing that licence, not us. We're just re-using it under the terms of GFDL. I was just noting additionally that she obviously collaborated with the making of the video: but that is not the crucial point.

It is seen a bit differently when an anonymous wikipedia editor both uploads and image and grants the licence, as there is no proper accountability. Anyone can claim anything, and no one knows who they are, so it's a question of establishing validity to the satisfaction of other editors. You can state that the images are stills from a video which you had permission to make, but I suspect this will on its own not be enough.

As things stand, it could be argued that the subject of File:Stella Vine installs her painting Diana branches in Oxford.jpg is Vine and the scene in general, showing other people at work etc, with the painting itself as incidental; and that the subject of File:Stella Vine inside Modern Art Oxford.jpeg is the gallery and the subject is not the paintings themselves. It's a grey area and a matter of judgement.

With File:Stella Vine selection of paintings.jpeg, File:Stella Vine's glass cabinets installation at Bailiffgate Museum 2006.jpg, and File:Stella Vine T shirt range for Top Shop 2007.jpeg, the only subject is copyright material and there is no other reason for having the photo. The last two are not taken at Modern Art Oxford.

This is just a heads-up to warn you of the problems posed by the images. I am not trying to get rid of them: I am advising how they can be kept. As things stand, some of them at least will not be. FYI, I uploaded the other images to the article under Fair Use in the first place, prior to the recent new ones added.

 Ty  16:29, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the further information  Ty  It is fine, I have written to Wikipedia and am getting an email from Stella Vine and her studio to grant us use of these low res images for the purpose of making her Wikipedia page as interesting and factual as possible. I expect to get this by the end of this week which will be wonderful as I think the page is looking really good now. I'm such a big fan of Vine's art and haven't been able to update the page before but am happy I have been able to add all the depth of information as she has achieved such an amazing amount in a very short period of time, and I wanted to help show other fans details they wouldn't have previously known. As I am in contact with Stella Vine's studio regarding this matter, I will endeavor to find out from them about this other image you've previously uploaded as to wether or not its something they are unhappy with, and continue the discussion with Wikipedia.


 *  Madeofstars  16:48, 15 December 2008 (GMT)

Maybe you could get permission for the use of the low res images of the Kate Moss and Princess Diana paintings also, as inclusion of other images will weaken the Fair Use of them. It seems Stella Vine is not happy about anything to do with the Stuckists nowadays, so I don't imagine she will be happy about the image I uploaded. However, wikipedia is here, as you say, to be as interesting and factual as possible, and it is wikipedia policy, not the subject, that determines the content of an article.  Ty  17:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok good idea. I will ask Stella and her studio regarding the other images too, as like you say it would be a shame for those to also be deleted, as it would leave Vine's page rather colourless. Yes I totally agree Ty, about wikipedia policy being king on wikipedia! Without these rules wikipedia would fall apart, and as a new user I am still getting to grips with the rules. But eventually I hope to know just as much as you do about all these rules so I too can help future generations of wiki users. Also why when I have to indent my talk, do you not have to indent your talk? Can you further explain this talk process to me? I've been indenting all my talk, as per your previous suggestion. But this latest comment by you does not seem to be indented - it's all a little confusing for me, so much learn here on wiki, but we'll get there won't we! Interesting comment there, what makes you think Stella is unhappy with the Stuckists?
 *  Madeofstars  17:29, 15 December 2008 (GMT)

I take it, bearing in mind what's said in the wikipedia article, that last remark was in a humorous vein. I've also been doing research into press coverage.

The basic idea is that different talk posts are not aligned with each other. Often they are progressively indented, one colon for the second post, the next two, the next three etc. The columns get thinner and thinner, till someone goes back to no colons, often starting their new post with (unindent). However, for just two people posting, it works if one indents and the other doesn't. You've indented and I didn't, so the posts are not aligned. However, you didn't indent your signature, so I've done that immediately above: then it makes it clearer. See WP:TPG.

Feel free to ask me or other editors about policies or guidelines. It can be confusing when editors make changes which seem whimsical, but are in fact just the application of some arcane policy point. The talk page of WikiProject Visual arts is a good place to post to get the attention of editors working on relevant articles. You are welcome to sign up for this project, or watchlist it to see the latest concerns. You are doing a good job with contributions overall. Two guidelines worth studying are WP:PEACOCK and WP:WEASEL, as the writing mode is different to the way people would normally write.

 Ty  18:09, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Regarding image permissions, it should be adequate to send a copy of your consent form to the relevant wikipedia email address.  Ty  01:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for this Ty, but I don't fully understand? Even if I send in my video consent form signed by Vine, does that still not mean we need Vine's approval for the use of copyrighted images of her paintings? Although, you are probably right, but I wouldn't want Wiki to get into any legal trouble, so I think it's still the best idea that we ask Vine for her permission on all of the images currently on Wiki.
 *  Madeofstars  10:18, 16 December 2008 (GMT)

Stuckists
Hi again Ty, my comment regarding why you would think Vine remains unhappy with the Stuckists wasn't actually meant to be humorous. All I meant is that why should you and I assume Vine no longer likes the Stuckists group. All the press comments you and I have been referencing are years old, nothing recent or since their old arguments. For my own experience, one would usually just move on with their lives and forgive people that one feels may have done wrong to them in the past. I just think it's important that we state the truth on wikipedia, the truth as far as we can ascertain via secondary sources, so we shouldn't allow there to be any suggestion or inference that we think Vine remains unhappy with the Stuckists group at this point in time, nor, on the other side, them to her. This is just my own thoughts on the matter, and a point of discussion for us, but from all the press coverage I've been reading over the recent weeks, Vine never saw Thomson nor the Stuckists again after September 2001, and her last comments in a public forum such as an interview in a newspaper on the matter were around 2005, 2006 and the last recorded time was in 2007 during one or two interviews for her major solo show in Oxford. We can check this together but I imagine the last time Vine talked of her side of the story would have been July 2007. Therefore it's not entirely fair for the wiki page to suggest their disputes are continuing, or ongoing in 2008 or into the new year.

This brings me to another point of clarification on the current wiki introduction, which currently says "Disputes have continued with him and the group" regarding the leader of the Stuckist and Vine, the comment here that the disputes "have continued" should perhaps be rephrased to make it more factually coherent. Can we change this comment somehow to make it somewhat clearer?  Madeofstars  13:34, 16 December 2008 (GMT)


 * Good point. It seems to have tailed off after Modern Art Oxford and the concurrent Stuckist show in July 2007. I've only found two mentions: "The artist Stella Vine is about to renew her long-running hostilities with the Stuckists." 13 Feb 2008, The Independent (2nd story). Thomson mentions Vine in The Oldie, Summer 2008, but only referring to 2004. However, it is better to state facts. I've modified the lead per your suggestion.


 * Re. "Vine never saw Thomson nor the Stuckists again after September 2001." I've found sources that state they separated (finally) on 20/21 October 2001 (can't remember which off hand), and in the following two years saw each other once in an art shop. Also she was in a Stuckist show in Paris that ended 16 November 2001.(bottom of page)


 *  Ty  12:35, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok I see, well that article from Feb 2008 has absolutely no comment from Vine, it is made perfectly clear from that article that it is now a one-sided argument, as it is the Stuckists putting on shows inspired by Vine, so I am happy you've removed the suggestion that she has any problem with the group. I vaguely remember reading a blog she wrote a while back, I think from 2007, saying she wasn't at all bothered by them. I'll have to try and find that to show how she has moved on, since having become a successful and popular artist, while the Stuckists clearly haven't. In my opinion, it looks like the Stuckists just continually try to use Stella Vine's media platform to promote themselves, it's quite amusing really, all in all. If I were Vine, I'd be flattered!
 *  Madeofstars  13:55, 17 December 2008 (GMT)
 * I'm afraid editors' opinions are not valid sources.  Ty  14:30, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No of course, which is why I'm not posting my opinion on her page. Although it would appear you are very happy to try and promote Charles Thomson's name as much as you are able to on Stella Vine's page, what with your latest addition to the photograph to include a hyper link to his page. Again this is just my opinion, but it amuses me your dedication to using Stella Vine's wikipedia page and the interest her page must receive in order to promote Thomson. I also don't understand why you keep changing back the date of Vine's hampstead school of art attendance which is clearly stated in numerous public sources, (including Vine's own biog) that she went there in 1999-2001, and had started painting way before meeting The Stuckists. Anyway, no matter as luckily the truth is currently up on the page and I will ensure it remains so. Madeofstars  14:37, 17 December 2008 (GMT)

I moved the above post from my talk page to here, where any other editors looking at the article will be able to see it.
 *  Madeofstars  14:52, 17 December 2008 (GMT)


 * Just found the last comment. Severe. I trust we've moved on from there now. Fairly standard wikilink as far as I can see. It's particularly relevant in the context of that section and the relationships involved. If there's still an issue, we can get outside opinion. FYI, article views for November 2008 were: Charles Thomson = 807, Stella Vine = 1,241, Stuckism = 9,959, so, to reassure, you Thomson has little to gain from Vine, but she will obviously benefit from Stuckism. So it's not all bad. Just to put things in perspective, Michelangelo = 219,246, Andy Warhol = 309,239, The Beatles = 1,249,379, United States = 1,478,954. You can check here. By the way, you haven't moved the page: you've just copied and pasted. Cut and paste would at least mean it was in one place at a time...  Ty  10:28, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, which I know you will say holds no weight... but having looked into this, I have seen that The Stuckists are linked onto almost ever high profile British artist's, or contemporary artist's, Wikipedia pages and therefore by association will obviously get a large number of hits thanks to them. Let me give two small examples - especially during a period when Damien Hirst - who you previously commented to me that you have been editing his page - held an auction in September at Sotheby's, London making multi-millions of pounds. The mainstream media interest in that event, and the following credit crunch articles which frequently name checked Hirst and his auction, would no doubt have increased the viewing numbers of Hirst's page and in doing so would have increased the viewing number of Stuckism, thanks to their large inclusion on his page. Whilst Tracey Emin for example, has had continued large scale media presence worldwide since September - November 2008 thanks to her first major retrospective 20 Years which is touring Europe. And guess what, once again The Stuckists are on her page in a major way - thanks to your edits. It's all very clear how it is being operated and how other people's success and media platforms are exploited - just as they did via Stella Vine in July 2007 when she once again hit the headlines with her Oxford solo show, and in fact pretty much through the whole of her career. If that is how the Stuckists wish to go down in the History Books then good luck to them! But I know I would rather 'do' something in my life and be remembered for something of actual worth, rather than leeching off others success. Finally I was a little sad for the United States of America to read your viewing figures for November 2008. Considering they had just elected their first African American president in November 2008, I would've expected much higher figures than that. Great comparison though! best wishes,  Madeofstars  14:22, 21 December 2008 (GMT)

I am getting fed up with your repeated attacks on me. Read WP:NPA. You've made your anti-Stuckist and pro Stella Vine/Tracey Emin agenda clear. Wikipedia is not a place to promote these views. The Stuckists are a high profile group, who have received considerable media coverage and this will be reflected in the relevant articles on wikipedia. They have been frequently cited in the media as the main opposition group to Britart, Hirst, Emin, and the Turner Prize etc. for the last 9 years, and have had a public profile for over twice as long as Vine. You make a point; I show it's false; then you change the goalposts. Your latest hypothesis is that a link "on almost ever high profile British artist's" page gives them "a large number of hits". David Lee has the same number of links and during November 2008 received 295 hits. The first linked name is Fiona Banner, who got 906 page views. Obviously a lot of readers are interested in the Stuckists, whether you like it or not. This is indicated by general google results, namely 26,800 for Stuckism, 19,000 for Fiona Banner. and 16,900 for Stella Vine.

Another hypothesis you put forward is that the page views of Stuckism in November were the result of increased views to Hirst's page following his auction in September. The page views are fairly consistent. There were 10,718 in May 2008. There was a brief spike in September at the time of the auction resulting in a monthly total of 11,666., and a similar spike in Charles Thomson. This is not surprising as he was quoted worldwide by the press in coverage of the auction. Wikipedia merely reflects, as it should, the world view. I note that the wikipedia section on the Hirst auction, which I wrote, does not mention Thomson's quotes at all, which could quite legitimately be included. How does this fit in with your conspiracy theory?

Tracey Emin has had extensive media coverage years before her current retrospective. I see you say, "the Stuckists are on her page in a major way - thanks to your edits." The Stuckists were on her page in a major way from 2 January 2003, when the article was first created by Camembert, not by me. The reason for this is that she has a major connection with them, and her comment to Childish that he was "stuck", leading to the name of the group, is possibly the best known thing she's ever said. She name checked Billy Childish when asked what was the "greatest influence" on her life. Of course that's going to be in the article.

The articles you mention have had this stable content for a long time. Many editors have contributed to the articles, and they have not found the content to be inappropriate.

How the Stuckists "wish to go down in the History Books" is not the concern of wikipedia. We just follow the plentiful sources to document it. However, I note that you do not apply the ethical argument of "other people's success and media platforms are exploited" and "leeching off others success" to Vine, whose name has been made from controversial depictions Princess Diana, Rachel Whitear and Kate Moss. That seems like double standards to me, and more evidence of a biased agenda.

You say you want to be taken seriously as an editor and that your being a fan of Vine should not be used to undermine this. I said I was willing to take you seriously, provided you follow wikipedia policies. Your post above seriously undermines your credibility. I suggest a serious rethink.

 Ty  02:45, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Image copyvios (Part Two) approval from Stella Vine herself
Hi  Ty , I've started this new heading, as I have a few as yet unanswered questions to you above, and didn't want them to be overlooked.

THe great news is that I have just had an email back from Stella Vine allowing us to use the photos that I uploaded this week. I have sent this over to the Wiki permissions department over email. I will list below the ones she has give us permission for, any others she did not mention. I hope this helps and what great news we can keep all these wonderful images up on her Stella Vine wiki page. She approved the following images to be used low res on her wikipedia page:

Stella Vine installs her painting Diana branches in Oxford.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Stella_Vine_installs_her_painting_Diana_branches_in_Oxford.jpg

Rosy.jpeg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rosy.jpeg

Stella Vine T shirt range for Top Shop 2007.jpeg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Stella_Vine_T_shirt_range_for_Top_Shop_2007.jpeg

Stella Vine selection of paintings.jpeg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Stella_Vine_selection_of_paintings.jpeg

Stella Vine inside Modern Art Oxford.jpeg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Stella_Vine_inside_Modern_Art_Oxford.jpeg

Stella Vine's glass cabinets installation at Bailiffgate Museum 2006.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Stella_Vine%27s_glass_cabinets_installation_at_Bailiffgate_Museum_2006.jpg

She also approved the use of the two Fair Use images which are currently being used at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stella_Vine: Vine-Hi-Paul.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vine-Hi-Paul.jpg

Vine-Holy-Water.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vine-Holy-Water.jpg

Best wishes,  Madeofstars  16:10, 16 December 2008 (GMT)

I moved the above post from my talk page to here, where any other editors looking at the article will be able to see it.
 *  Madeofstars  12:22, 17 December 2008 (GMT)

Image copyvios (Part Three) approval from Stella Vine herself
Hi again Ty, ok it turns out the email I had from Vine and her studio only approved the use of the images for Wikipedia, and obviously that is not the correct license we needed so for the time being I am going to remove the pictures I added, until a later time when we either get approval from Vine for a GFDL license or when I can get images that don't infringe her copyright. I've sent the relevant information over to her studio with regards to the GFDL license and how it works, but I do worry that maybe they won't approve it, as it looks like a GFDL license allows the images to be used on other websites which she might not be happy with. I'll keep updating you, thanks again for your help in pointing out this matter as I had no idea about it before we spoke. Best wishes,  Madeofstars  10:28, 17 December 2008 (GMT)

I moved the above post from my talk page to here, where any other editors looking at the article will be able to see it.
 *  Madeofstars  12:22, 17 December 2008 (GMT)

David Yelland on Diana painting

 * Hi again Ty, I am writing today about another change you have made to the Stella Vine page as follows:
 * As Saatchi anticipated, much of the media attacked the work, creating a considerable return in publicity for his investment.
 * As this article is not available online, I was wondering if you can provide me and other wiki readers with more detail. Were these comments you've included the opinion of the journalist David Yelland? If so, this may not actually represent the thoughts of Charles Saatchi himself and therefore is not a clear enough reference. It's just that this small comment links up to an event and the opinion of Stuckist's leader Charles Thomson that Saatchi had other objectives when buying Vine's work, other than that of collecting and supporting the talent of new British artists and talent. In short, later in the article it is said: "Vine's promotion by Saatchi in 2004 brought a reaction from the Stuckists who claimed that her work had been influenced by theirs, and that both she and Saatchi were benefiting from their ideas without due acknowledgement. This claim was proved as unfounded when Thomson reported Saatchi to the OFT (Office of Fair Trading) for unfair competition. The complaint was dismissed." I think we should somehow aim to make this new comment you've added be a little clearer, but I and other wiki readers can only determine this by reading the article ourselves... do let me know the information I've requested above? Best wishes and many thanks.
 *  Madeofstars  13:48, 16 December 2008 (GMT)

I moved the above post from my talk page to here, where any other editors looking at the article will be able to see it.

The way of writing articles on wikipedia is to find what sources have to say, then to use that in the article and to reference it, so that it can be verified and readers will see where the information has come from. This is exactly what has been done. This is the text referenced: ''Charles, for example, paid a mere Pounds 600 for the blood- plastered Hi Paul Can you Come Over by the artist Stella Vine, which hangs at the Saatchi Gallery in London. This is the painting of Diana, Princess of Wales, which much of the press then duly attacked -as the brilliant Charles knew full well they would. So for a few hundred quid Charles garners acres of newsprint and hours of television coverage -the kind of publicity that a media- buying house would pay a fortune for. You have to pay Pounds 8 to get into the Saatchi Gallery, so if Charles's Pounds 600 investment attracts him more than 75 new paying adults then everything after that is cash in hand. I was there the other day and it was packed out.'' Yelland, David. "Saatchi Brothers", The Times, p. 36, 5 March 2004.

The viewpoint stated is not an extreme one, but commonly held, as can be seen in these further examples:
 * Saatchi's show is designed specifically for media attention.
 * (re the New Blood show, after highlighting Vine and Jonathan Meese)
 * "Making a proper Charlie of us", The Times (London); Mar 23, 2004; Matthew Collings; p. 16.


 * ''It seemed obvious that by buying and displaying Vine's controversial images of doomed females, Saatchi was looking for shock - and news - value to stimulate interest in his new exhibition."
 * Rita Hatton and John A. Walker, Supercollector: A critique of Charles Saatchi, third edition, pp. 235-236


 * Skilful manipulation by Saatchi gallery publicity machine of two paintings - Princess Diana with blood streaming from her mouth; and similar treatment based on school photo of Rachel Whitear ... Charles Saatchi paid £600 for each; money could not have bought the column inches
 * Maev Kennedy, The Guardian

Whether it links or doesn't link to Charles Thomson and the Stuckists is completely irrelevant. Find a source that says Saatchi's only motivation was "collecting and supporting the talent of new British artists and talent" and that can be included also. Then readers can make up their minds about the two viewpoints.

I will deal with your other point in the section below for clarity of discussion.

 Ty  08:54, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Brilliant, thanks again Ty. As you'll see I have sourced some secondary references to reflect Saatchi's side of the argument, otherwise it would be biased towards what The Stuckists or their leader Charles Thomson believed. There are lots of fascinating articles out there, and the general consensus seems to be that it was somewhat like a pantomime! I am happy that wiki readers around the world are now able to interpret and decipher what they believe to be the truth and who was right or wrong, if there even was a right or wrong side. ' Madeofstars '' 14:23, 18 December 2008 (GMT)

OFT complaint
The following text is currently in the article. The portion I have italicised is inaccurate: "Vine's promotion by Saatchi in 2004 brought a reaction from the Stuckists who claimed that her work had been influenced by theirs, and that both she and Saatchi were benefiting from their ideas without due acknowledgement. This claim was proved as unfounded when Thomson reported Saatchi to the OFT (Office of Fair Trading) for unfair competition. The claim was dismissed."

The italicised text is an editorial interpretation. The complaint was alleging a breach of the Competition Act, namely, in Thomson's words, "As a small competitor in a market where there is a dominant competitor acting because of their dominant position, my ability to compete commercially is undermined." Vine was cited as an example. The OFT's conclusion was "we do not have reasonable grounds to suspect that Charles Saatchi is in a dominant position in any relevant market". This makes no comment on whether there was benefit without acknowledgement, only that Saatchi was not in a (commercially) dominant position, which is an entirely different judgement.  Ty  08:54, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * This is looking really great now, as it clearly shows that the complaint made to the OFT was dismissed, all I wanted was to have this shown, as for example on the Stuckists own page introduction it could be interpreted as Thomson being successful in that complaint, when he was not. Brilliant! Thank you.
 *  Madeofstars  12:39, 17 December 2008 (GMT)

Stuckist dispute with Vine in 2004
The text currently reads as follows:


 * Vine's promotion by Saatchi in 2004 brought a reaction from the Stuckists who claimed that her work had been influenced by theirs, and that both she and Saatchi were benefiting from their ideas without due acknowledgement. This claim was proved as unfounded when Thomson reported Saatchi to the OFT (Office of Fair Trading) for unfair competition. The complaint was dismissed. Waldemar Januszczak in The Sunday Times said Vine had very bad luck to fall amongst The Stuckists[8] whilst Andrew Billen similarly said it was unfortunate.[2] Katy Guest in The Independent said, "Thomson can fairly claim to have discovered Vine, who was a protégée of the Stuckist movement."[22] The Stuckists created a page on their web site dedicated to Vine, which she resented furiously[2] and saw as harassment.[2] She told Billen during an interview in The Times that she regarded the Stuckists as "a misogynistic cult".[2] When asked "if it wouldn’t be simpler for her simply to acknowledge that they had a minor role and move on," she said that she had "a very, very big problem with someone who saw me coming and exploited me as a mascot".[2] Vine said the Stuckists were "bullies".[2]and that "You’ve got the school playground and you’ve got some very clever bullies and everyone else goes, 'Just ignore them'. And then this kid ends up hanging himself."[2] She disputed that there had been any influence, and said, "I don’t have a problem being generous with who inspires me."[2] and aligned herself with "big, iconic American painters"[2] such as Karen Kilimnik and Elizabeth Peyton.

Madeofstars edits to this section have created a strong bias, where negative views about the Stuckists and Vine's comments are given disproportionate weight. I have pointed out the problem with the first three sentences in the section above at. Another example is:


 * The Stuckist web site carried a headline "THE STUCKIST STELLA VINE", which Vine resented furiously

Madeofstars changed it to:


 * The Stuckists created a page on their web site dedicated to Vine, which she resented furiously

This was done with the misleading edit summary "shortened sentence". What the source says is: "Even now the home page of the interestingly obsessive Stuckist website features carries a huge headline, "THE STUCKIST STELLA VINE", a tag that she furiously resents and regards as a form of harassment."

The source does not say the Stuckists created a page dedicated to Vine and this was was she resented. It said the home page carried a headline, and that was what she resented. The removal of the headline deprives the reader of the key information about what the Stuckists were saying and about what Vine was objecting to.

The insult of "misogynist cult" is stated, but there is no reference to the rest of the rest of the original text, which makes the point that she did not previously hold this view:

"Vine now regards Stuckism as a misogynistic cult but she was impressed enough at the time by the hypnotic charms of its other founder, 48-year-old Charles Thomson. After a two-month romance, they married in New York in August 2001."

 Ty  09:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I've rewritten the whole of the article text quoted above. This states the key arguments, actions and positions on both sides of the dispute. If you disagree with this, then please state why below. If necessary, we will call in other editors to respond.  Ty  11:00, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm a tiny bit confused with the way you have chosen to rewrite this new section. I think having the section is a brilliant idea. But I think they way you have used large quotes to do so is not in keeping with what you yourself have previously told me; ie... do not use too many large quotes? Also I think you have taken out comments about bullying which were quite important to the general argument. I think the misogynistic cult comment is also vital as it shows Vine's thoughts on the Stuckist group after the time she had left them. So somehow we need to come to an agreement on how to include the words misogynist cult and also the bullying comments I think.
 *  Madeofstars  13:43, 17 December 2008 (GMT)

I have to admit I was swayed a bit by your previous edits and comments to including more quotes than I would normally, and I will attend to that. I didn't want to be accused of not letting Vine represent herself properly, but I shouldn't have let that affect me. We have to decide what are key quotes to be used throughout the article. I consider that the version I have written is fair and represents all the important points. It says Vine considered there was harassment, which is synonymous with bullying in the context. I don't think there's any need for "harassment" and "bullying". If you feel strongly about this, I suggest we ask for evaluation by other editors. Both parties have said a lot of things about each other, and I have an ever-increasing file of mutual accusations and insults. My main concern is that this section does not grow disproportionately big. I think that in relation to the whole article it is big enough and informative enough with linked references for any reader that wants to look further. If anything else is to be added, then it will need a proper context, so that Vine's misogynist cult remark will necessitate Billen's observation that that was not what she was saying in 2001, or maybe some comment by Thomson about her: check out "Stella is a violent, lying She-Devil who told me: 'As long as we are married I won't have sex with you'", The Mail on Sunday (London); Mar 7, 2004; Angella Johnson, p. 38." Then we have another paragraph to this section. Do we really want to go there? Maybe we need to, in order to show the vitriol that exists/existed. How's about getting the rest of the article in proper shape and referenced, then revisiting this issue?  Ty  14:04, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Ty, What do you mean when you say getting "the rest of the article in proper shape and referenced, then revisiting this issue?" Please clarify?
 * I really find it amazing how you have all these Stuckist related press articles so easily at your disposal. Bravo! It's clear what a big fan you are of the Stuckists, or even perhaps you are a Stuckist :yourself? Let me find out what you mean about my first question above here before I respond to your other questions.
 *  Madeofstars  14:19, 17 December 2008 (GMT)

Really? It is equally clear to someone else that I am a devotee of Damien Hirst. The plain fact is that editors with a bias see those editing from a WP:NPOV as having a bias. As you state on your user page, you are a big fan of Stella Vine. Fans tend to include excess trivia about the subject, give undue weight to what their idol says and try to exclude negative material. These aspects are apparent in your posts and edits, as I've pointed out at the top of this thread.

You may not be aware of wikipedia policy with regard to personal identity, so you should know that editors are entitled to anonymity, and any attempt to violate that can lead to an immediate block. See WP:OUTING. One good reason for anonymity is that many editors on wikipedia have received real life threats, including death threats, and harassment in their home and place of work. I have received threats in the past, and have no intention of exposing myself or those close to me to any potential danger, so your attempts to probe for personal information are not welcome.

I have not encountered major problems with my edits from other experienced editors, and I am happy to stand by my editing record. However, if you consider that I am not editing according to wikipedia policy, then please state where this occurs with relevant diffs, as there are procedures for dealing with it.

You may find it amazing that I have all these press articles at my disposal. I'm not sure how you come to the conclusion that it is "easily". It takes hours of work to do research properly for an article. If you have a problem finding sources, then I would be pleased to help you to do so. You might start with google, followed by internal searches of newspaper sites, such as The Times, The Guardian, The Independent, The Daily Telegraph, etc, then newsuk.co.uk (suscription or access via UK local libraries or library membership barcode) for all national and many local papers, as well as findarticles.com. In the particular case you mention, the Stuckist site has its own search engine.

The words "the rest of the article in proper shape and referenced, then revisiting this issue?" mean exactly what they say. There are more pressing things to work on in the article right now. A better run down on the Modern Art Oxford show is one. It doesn't say the number of works on show (about 100) or info about the works she retrieved from abroad (and gave MAO 4 paintings to cover the cost of transport). It has excessive quotations that need to be cut down. There is information to be included about the Princess Diana painting - that she had done 30 of them and destroyed the rest, that she only initially priced it at £100, that she poured the emotions resulting from her mother's death into the work. I could go on. I find it odd that your priority is Vine accusing the Stuckists of being a misogynist cult.

 Ty  15:43, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Dear Ty, I am sincerely sad to hear that you have previously had threats and disputes with other wikipedia users, I'm sorry to hear this has been a frequent occurrence for you. It is definitely not my intention at all to threaten you or your personal safety. Not once have I suggested that I want to harm you, this is just a debate, not meant to be personal. I was just fascinated that today for example you added in an extra sentence to an image of Vine in Brixton to include a Charles Thomson reference where it wasn't really needed, considering, as you say there are many other things to complete on her page? Anyway, starting afresh, I agree there are so many facts missing from Vine's page. If you look at the many edits I made yesterday, you will see how I have been striving for accuracy, even down to the titles of her art works which have been written incorrectly for all previous version of the article. I also added in a vital piece about a bus painting which was never seen as Vine painted over it. I also was going to add some of those points you too have highlighted so it's good to see we're on the same track. I'll write again soon with more thoughts on this matter, with regards to the media comments made by Vine and Thomson. I hope you can value my additions, and not try to undermine or belittle them by called me a fan of Vine's so I therefore must be not as serious or valid a contributor as you are. Let's face the facts here, I have only been on Wikipedia properly for a short time, in comparison to your history. Maybe I too will one day have as much authority as you as administrator as after all Wiki is a democracy. best wishes,  Madeofstars  19:30, 17 December 2008 (GMT)


 * I don't want to overstate the case, as threats have been rare and from banned users or vandals, and probably mostly bluster, but still... I am not for a moment suggesting that you would wish to harm me or those close to me, or start slandering me to my boss at work. Most relationships with wiki editors are fine. The additional ref was commonplace, just being more accurate and informative, following previous conversations with you about images. I think it is useful content, and it took about 30 seconds. I expect the fascination with such will soon wear off. By the way, the titles were correct as they should be done per the house style, not the artist's choice.  Otherwise wiki looks ragged. See Capitals. There isn't an art section; the nearest is WikiProject_Albums.  Per the trademarks section: "Trademarks should be written in a way that follows standard English text formatting and capitalization rules."


 * Wiki is a steep learning curve, but you're obviously a fast learner, and a few bumps to begin with are par for the course. You can be the biggest fan in the world for all I care, as long as you scrupulously follow wiki policies. If objectivity and knowledge are the priorities over personal preferences, you will gain respect.  See the "on editing" paragraph at User:Tyrenius. As you doubtless know, wiki is the main source of information for many people worldwide, so it is a responsibility to keep faith with them, and a privilege to be in a position of constructing that encyclopedia. People round here take that very seriously.  Any admin or other editor only has the authority of their contribution to the project. I'm giving you as many pointers as I can, and if I didn't have respect for your potential here, I wouldn't spend that amount of time, so play it straight! :)


 *  Ty  09:11, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I just wanted to highlight one more thing for accuracy, you previous comment was incorrect as the Wiki article already states Vine wanted to price the diana painting at £100 initially. Also, thank you for the tips on finding press coverage, but I was well aware about google and all the other sources you mentioned. But you are obviously much quicker than I am at finding references, but I will catch up in good time, no doubt. Thanks for your encouragement, it's much appreciated as a new user. Madeofstars  19:30, 17 December 2008 (GMT)


 * Hi Ty, I decided to add another paragraph to this section as we had discussed above. You asked me "Do we really want to go there? Maybe we need to, in order to show the vitriol that exists/existed." And I agree. I really want to go there. I think it's important to properly explain the wedding scenario as it is fascinating and reveals a lot about the experiences Vine went through before becoming known in the public arena. These kinds of stories, I feel, add to the myth of an artist. It makes me think of Frida Kahlo, or Tracey Emin or other great artists, who had turbulent lives before success. So I believe it to be an important and vital addition. I included the fantastic quote you kindly sourced of Thomson describing Vine as a She Devil and liar. The inclusion of this quote in particular makes the Vine page more colourful and varied, and considering we possibly won't have all those photos I had previously uploaded due to copyright problems, hopefully in this case, words will paint a thousand pictures! best wishes,  Madeofstars  01:50, 18 December 2008 (GMT)


 * I am coming round to your viewpoint that this is valid and worthwhile. It has received a considerable amount of press coverage, especially bearing in mind how little normally goes to most artists.  It seems that it is already in the history books, as it were, so it's wiki's job to provide the highest quality examination of it.  Have a laugh on me - I was the one who put the initial £100 price in the article, but someone removed it and I forgot I had put it back. I just couldn't find the ref for it, and now in 5 minutes I have: "It was my friend in the gallery who made me put £600 on them, I was going to charge £100. "Smart thinking takes on Saatchi hype: Art's rich and poor face each other across the Thames, The Guardian (Manchester); Mar 23, 2004; Maev Kennedy; p. 11.  Ty  08:21, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Stella_Vine
I was about to format the references currently in the Drawings section. However, neither of the two references given contains any of the information they are supposedly verifying:
 * Vine exhibited a series of pencil drawings, in hand-painted blue frames, for her solo show at Modern Art Oxford in 2007. Subjects included Gina, Vicky and Anna (2004), Count Axel (2004), The Bionic Woman (2005), Kitty Fisher (2006) and Joan (2006).

I'm leaving the passage there for now to see if you have references to suppport it.  Ty  18:37, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi there Ty, I took this information from a brochure at Modern Art Oxford which detailed all the exhibits at the Modern Art Oxford 2007 exhibition Stella Vine: Paintings. Can you let me know I properly referenced this then? I decided to use links to images on Vine's website of the said installation of drawings in hand painted blue frames as a visual reference to show these drawings existed. But surely there must be a way of referencing to something that is in print but not online? Please advise.


 *  Madeofstars  18:41, 15 December 2008 (GMT)

No problem. In the reference guide above (click "open" on the orange bar!) there is a section "References not online". I've inserted one or two such print refs in the SV article already. It's not a good idea to link to those pages, as the linked page could well change with different work, which would be misleading to the wiki reader. The first link goes to a collection of photos, which is already confusing. Anyone wanting more information can go to the EL to find the official site and then look at drawings  Ty  19:04, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Great! I am so happy to learn we are able to use references like that on wiki. I will research into it now and create the correct references for the drawings section. I also have found some other examples of Vine's drawings which will excite you I'm sure, as you, like me seem to have such a fascination into Vine's art. It's great to find someone else who shares my drive for helping people learn more about her art. I find her such an inspiring artist, and I'm sure that millions of wiki readers around the world will find her, and the story of her life, just as inspiring. I saw a film the other night called Changeling starring Angelina Jolie and I could see parallels between Jolie's character and that of Vine's own life, effectively a story of hope. Good will always win out.
 *  Madeofstars  09:58, 16 December 2008 (GMT)


 * Update for Ty, I have added in the relevant references needed in the drawings section. I am also going to ask Vine/her studio whether they will allow the image of the drawings displayed at Modern Art Oxford in hand painted blue frames to be used on Wikipedia as well, as that way the image won't be lost if a website changes etc, as you mentioned. Although to be honest, when you consider it, all websites have the possibility of being changed or deleted at any time, so I'm not entirely sure why it was a problem to link to those images as I had previously done. But either way, I agree it's better to have referenced the Modern Art Oxford brochure which was at the exhibition as this is a better reference anyhow, more serious. Also I found this website link to Ebay, where someone was recently selling a Vine drawing: http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Stella-Vine-original-Pencil-very-rare-Hume-Hurst-Emin_W0QQitemZ230304364131QQcmdZViewItem I guess this link is not worth being added to Vine's page as a reference? If you think it is useful let me know and I can add it, otherwise I think it's looking good now. Best wishes, you wiki friend,
 *  Madeofstars  14:39, 16 December 2008 (GMT)

I moved the above post from my talk page to here, where any other editors looking at the article will be able to see it.
 *  Madeofstars  12:25, 17 December 2008 (GMT)


 * Check out User_talk:Madeofstars: "A reference must be accurate, i.e. it must prove the statement in the text. To validate "Mike Brown climbed Everest", it's no good linking to a page about Everest, if Mike Brown isn't mentioned, nor to one on Mike Brown, if it doesn't say that he climbed Everest. You have to link to a source that proves his achievement is true." The article said she had drawings in the Modern Art Oxford show, yet you used as a reference a page that just had four drawings on it and no mention of the Modern Art Oxford show, so it's an invalid reference. We don't know what those drawings are, and that page could easily be changed with different work on it. If it actually had text that validated the article content, then it could be used.  Ty  14:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you! I understand this now. Brilliant! So if the page I had previously referenced has contained text with names of drawings or the fact they were exhibited at Modern Art Oxford, then that would've been worthy. Totally fair enough. At least I was able to find a print reference from the brochure handed out at Modern Art Oxford as it would've been such a shame to take down the Drawings section of the wiki page article on Stella Vine as I think it shows what a diverse talent she is, as even though she is most well known for painting, she has different sides to her artistic practice.  Madeofstars  15:39, 17 December 2008 (GMT)
 * Text with names of drawings wouldn't have worked: it would have to say they were shown at Modern Art Oxford. Material with a bad ref is more likely to be deleted than innocuous material with no ref. Of course, what we're looking for is a good ref, which satisfies editors and informs readers/scholars. Somewhere you asked about a picture on an Ebay sale, and, as you surmised, it would not normally be suitable as a reference.  Ty  18:54, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, which was why I chose not to use the ebay reference. It was also why I ended up using an offline source to back up the drawings so the section is now complete and valid. best wishes, ' Madeofstars '' 19:38, 17 December 2008 (GMT)

Stella Vine's page

 * Hi there Ty, I'm writing to question what you mean regarding this edit you made just now regarding Stella Vine's charity work section.
 * 16:50, 15 December 2008 Tyrenius (Talk | contribs) (50,675 bytes) (→Charity Work: WP:PEACOCK + remove 2 references that don't mention Vine. 2006 Higgins auction ref says "contributed" not "donated". There can be a difference.)
 * If Stella Vine gave a painting for an auction, surely this is a donation. Artists do not make a charity pay for a work and then auction it, a charity auction is by definition one where an artist creates a painting or art work and then gifts it to a chosen charity for them to auction to raise funds for their charity. Therefore, Vine did not just 'contribute' here, she 'donated' a work to the Terrence Higgins Trust. I look forward to speaking with you about this. I have looked into the reference you comment on here too, and I'm confused as this reference clearly states all the works from the show will be auctioned off for the charity, thus proving this as a donation by Vine. Thanks.

 Madeofstars  17:14, 15 December 2008 (GMT)


 * Sorry, just one further question to you Ty, in your comment above, you said the "2006 Higgins auction ref say "contributed" not "donated", can you show me this exact phrase or link me to the website as I have so far been unable to find this comment which you've stated. Thanks in advance!

 Madeofstars  17:20, 15 December 2008 (GMT)

Apologies, I saw "contributing artists" and missed "donated" at the end. I've changed it back. (In some situations there's an arrangement where a percentage goes to the charity, not the whole price.) The other 2 refs linked to pages where there was no mention of Vine and so didn't validate content. WP:PEACOCK is self-explanatory, I think. It's a wikipedia writing guide. If there's a reference that says she's well know for charity work, then it can be reinserted. Otherwise it's an editor's opinion.  Ty  17:37, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

 Ty  17:37, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I moved the above post from Tyrenius' talk page to here, where any other editors looking at the article will be able to see it.
 *  Madeofstars  12:29, 17 December 2008 (GMT)

References, help needed
The whole references section from the Stella Vine page seem to have vanished off the page, can someone please help clarify why this has happened? Is there a bug? Best,  Madeofstars  13:12, 17 December 2008 (GMT)


 * No problem! I fixed the problem, thank you anyway!
 *  Madeofstars  13:29, 17 December 2008 (GMT)
 * Watch out for the final / in at the end of a ref. Without it the rest of the page vanishes.  Ty  14:07, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes thanks, I had worked that out for myself. ' Madeofstars '' 19:49, 17 December 2008 (GMT)

Hampstead School of Art 1999 or 2000?
There is a discrepancy over whether Vine attended Hampstead School of Art in 1999 or 2000. I've searched google and the newsuk.co.uk archives for "Stella Vine" + "Hampstead School of Art" + 1999, then + 2000, looking for main sources, e.g. national/regional press, museum publications, not blogs and similar sites dubious as WP:RS. The following are the results:

Attended in 2000

 * "I started doing evening classes at Hampstead School of Art in 2000"
 * 1 March 2004,, Independent, "The World According To... Stella Vine Artist
 * in 2000 she took him to painting classes at Hampstead School of Art
 * 15 June 2004, Andrew Billen, The Times, I made more money as a stripper...
 * Stella Vine had started painting in part-time classes at the private Hampstead School of Art, shortly before her work received its first public exhibition in the Vote Stuckist show in Brixton in June 2001.
 * Milner, Frank ed. (2004), The Stuckists Punk Victorian, p. 23, National Museums Liverpool, ISBN 1-902700-27-9.
 * In 2000 she started attending life classes at Hampstead School of Art" she hadn't drawn or painted since her schooldays. After a while the tutor suggested that she sell her work, so she would feel like a real artist. 'I thought " yeah, right.'
 * 30 April 2005, Stella Vine: Naked truth, The Independent (London); Julia Stuart; p. 14.15.1
 * Five years ago, she took him to painting classes at the Hampstead School of Art
 * 1 December 2005, My £600a-week coke habit just to paint, Evening Standard (London); Emine Saner; p. 22
 * In 2000 she started attending classes at Hampstead School of Art
 * 8 July 2007 Lynn Barber, Vine Times, The Observer

Attended in 1999

 * She started painting seriously at Hampstead School of Art in 1999.
 * 27 June 2006, Family portraits take on celebrity, The Journal (Newcastle-upon-Tyne); ; Tamzin Lewis; p. 40
 * She started painting seriously in 1999, at the Hampstead School of Art
 * 4 September 2006, Naked eye on artists' feud, The Journal (Newcastle-upon-Tyne); ; p. 9
 * Stella Vine studied painting part-time at Hampstead School of Art in 1999.
 * July 2007, Modern Art Oxford.
 * part-time classes she attended at the private Hampstead School of Art in 1999-2001.
 * 25 July 2007 Saatchi Gallery with Honigman
 * Studying at Hampstead School of Art (1999-2001)
 * August 2007, National Portrait Gallery
 * Hampstead School of Art Summer course, and a weekly class, 1999 - 2001
 * 2008, Stella Vine web site.

Evaluation
The date 2000 was stated in:
 * 2004 Independent, Times, Stuckists Punk Victorian (NML)
 * 2005 Independent, Evening Standard
 * 2007 Observer

The date 1999 was stated in:
 * 2006 Journal (Newcastle) twice
 * 2007 Modern Art Oxford, Saatchi Gallery, National Portrait Gallery
 * 2008 Stella Vine site

The first mention of 2000 was on 1 March 2004 and a direct quote from Vine. This continued to be the date stated, until 27 June 2006, when the Newcastle Journal stated 1999. On 8 July 2007, the Observer still stated 2000 as the attendance date.

I propose that the main text states "From 1999 or 2000 (dates vary)[ref] until 2001, she went with him to part-time painting classes etc." The ref can link to a footnote which explains the discrepancy and gives the various sources and their dates.

 Ty  19:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, thanks for pointing this out. I don't really see the difference, as if you think about it, noone is disputing she was there in 2000, as she did study there in 2000, just like she did in 1999 and 2001. So surely the current status of between 1999 and 2001 is perfectly acceptable? I have something else to discuss soon too, I remember that I read somewhere Vine had actually exhibited her work in a public show at the Hampstead School of Art before the Stuckist show in Brixton later. So that would mean that the Stuckist show was not actually her first exhibition. So that's another thing we can address soon. ' Madeofstars '' 19:42, 17 December 2008 (GMT)


 * Also I am hoping to visit the Hampstead School of Art sometime, so I will find out if they have any catalogues of past public exhibitions, as this may be a good way of confirming about Vine's debut public art exhibition. Perhaps that show would also prove she was there from 1999 once and for all, but if you can be patient and wait for me to find out, that would be great.' Madeofstars '' 19:48, 17 December 2008 (GMT)


 * Thinking about it further, why don't we just put, In 1999, 2000 and 2001, Vine studied... that way it's even clearer to readers, she was there for those 3 whole years. I noticed from your above comment that Vine's website biog section states: Hampstead School of Art Summer course, and a weekly class, 1999 - 2001. So we could even put that she studied a Summer course there in 1999 if that's how you think we can interpret her Biog? After all, she of all people would know about her education record? ' Madeofstars '' 21:07, 17 December 2008 (GMT)

The discrepancy is over when she started there, so 1999 is not acceptable, because for two years of media coverage the starting date was given as 2000. As you say, there is no discrepancy with the dates 2000-2001, so another solution is to use those and give a footnote explaining those were the dates given in sources from 2004 to 2006, at which point the earlier starting date of 1999 was given. The majority of sources state 2000 and so does a direct quote from Vine in The Independent in 2004. Thomson said in 2004 in the Mail on Sunday, "She has told everyone that she learned to paint at the Hampstead School of Art, but she took only a few classes. She had done about eight paintings when I met her." The date therefore takes on some significance in the Vine/Stuckism dispute. To say "In 1999, 2000 and 2001, Vine studied" does not make this issue at all clear, and readers should be given the facts, so they can decide for themselves. We don't "interpret" sources: we can only use content that is explicit. Secondary published sources are preferable to primary ones: her biog can be cited, but it doesn't trump other published material.

Re. Hampstead School of Art show: you'll need published sources for any information and these need to be accessible to others, so records in a private institution wouldn't be valid. I've searched newsuk.co.uk for mentions of Stella Vine and the only thing that comes up there prior to 2004 is a 2001 Evening Standard story about the New York marriage.

 Ty  12:58, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi ty, I accept you previous proposal of "I propose that the main text states "From 1999 or 2000 (dates vary)[ref] until 2001, she went with him to part-time painting classes etc." The ref can link to a footnote which explains the discrepancy and gives the various sources and their dates." Let's keep this all out in the open, and show it to wiki readers to allow them to make up their own minds. This is afterall only fair. Thanks for bringing this debate out in such detail. If I can find extra quotes proving 1999, then I will add them at a later point. best wishes,' Madeofstars '' 15:29, 18 December 2008 (GMT)
 * Let's work out text and footnote here before putting it in the article. Ty  18:06, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Footnote
From 1999 or 2000 (dates vary)[ref] until 2001, she went with him to part-time painting classes

This looks perfect to me, as it shows all of our sources which all are valid. Fantastic work Ty! ' Madeofstars '' 22:20, 18 December 2008 (GMT)


 * Hi again Ty, those references all look good - but can you tell me, is the National Museums Liverpool book a Stuckist related book, or was the Milner article a Stuckist article? I did a quick search just now and saw something relating to Stuckism? I don't have a copy to hand you see and as you referenced it, you must have a deeper knowledge than I have. thanks for your help, ' Madeofstars '' 22:48, 18 December 2008 (GMT)
 * The book is The Stuckists Punk Victorian to accompany the show at the Walker Art Gallery, part of National Museums Liverpool, who are the publisher and therefore take responsibility for the content. Milner is the editor of other NML books. The particular essay in the book with the content is by Charles Thomson. There's no need to put a full cite, as the full details are already in the reference section and currently ref no. 109, linking to the particular essay online where Thomson is shown as the author. To be accurate the details of the main citation (no. 109) should state the essay title and author in addition to the book editor. However, for the purposes above, brevity is helpful, so I haven't put Honigman as the author, for example, as following the link will show that.  Ty  07:55, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Learning about art by default
Edit summary: "removed the key word here "made" as put in by "Ty" which is not accurate as per the reference source". The source says: "I met The Fascists (sorry The Stuckists!) and I learnt about art by default. It made me look in the opposite direction to what they were advocating."

Surely the text "In 2004, Vine said that "The Fascists (sorry The Stuckists!)" made her learn about art by default as she looked in the opposite direction to what they were saying" is a good paraphrase of this, containing the element of being forced to do something, which the revision to it lacks.

 Ty  18:33, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It was not the Stuckist that made her look in the opposite direction, isn't that her whole point ? She made herself look in the opposite direction in reaction to what they were about. At last someone is finally checking up on the monopoly of this wiki site by someone who is so obviously still trying to exploit and deride her.


 * This wiki site for Stella Vine has so obviously been exploited by the stukist for years now, it only takes determination to control a wiki site, and they have plenty of that, change a tiny word here and there to manipulate her, deride her, she has done so much interviews its like handing the stuckist a dictionary. Someone has tried to discredit her over and over again. I have been watching and I am sickened by it. Wiki is freedom...i see... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Littlebunnysausage (talk • contribs) 20:00, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

The source doesn't say she made herself look. It says "it" made her look. The "it" is the "I met the etc", so it would be accurate to say: "Vine said that her meeting The etc". Would you agree?

As for your second paragraph, perhaps you could point to some specific content in the article where text has, as you see it, been manipulated to discredit her, and does not follow wikipedia editing policies. Then this can be addressed, and, if necessary, other editors called in to review it. Otherwise, your comments will carry no weight.

 Ty  20:40, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

NPOV - Marriage section
This section is not neutral and has inaccuracies. There's material that needs to be revised to correct this. For example:
 * On arrival, Vine discovered Thomson had prepared a wedding.

This isn't referenced, but it's from Scotland on Sunday (14.3.04). A week later (21.3.04) the same newspaper printed:
 * Thomson said Vine ... had first suggested getting married and they had decided to wed in New York.

The Mail on Sunday (7.3.04)says:
 * They planned to get married in New York

The article does not properly represent Thomson's account that Vine was the initiator of the marriage and fully aware of such plans before going to New York.

This passage is in the article:
 * Thomson liked Vine’s paintings and Vine said he offered to pay off £20,000 of her debt in order to fund her painting on the agreement that she got married to him. Thomson later denied this claim in the media.

Thomson's position is given a weak representation. There is no content about the explanation Thomson gave in the Mail on Sunday a week prior to Vine's explanation in Scotland on Sunday:
 * Thomson offered to support her financially when she decided to go back to stripping because of mounting debts. Vine agreed and proposed marriage

This is the reply from Thomson that Scotland on Sunday printed following Vine's statement:
 * Thomson said he had started borrowing money to fund her work before the wedding and even after the split was willing to continue providing financial support as part of a business deal. Thomson ... said he recognised she had talent and they would have been more marketable as an art couple. By providing money to allow Vine ... to continue on her "creative path" he hoped to see a greater return from sales of both their work. "There was no condition of marriage attached to any money I gave to Stella," Thomson said. "The agreement was that she would be able to do her painting and then we would be able to earn money by promoting our work together.

There is no mention of this business deal.

There's editorial comment which needs to be removed, e.g.:
 * According to Thomson, "she was continually changing her mind"[19] and Vine confirmed this saying she resisted for three days before giving in to Thomson’s requests.

These statements don't reinforce each other: they say different things and the text violates WP:SYNTH.

The last part of this sentence is an editorial speculation:
 * Other sources describe their marriage as short-lived[22] only lasting 48 hours[23] which back up Vine's interpretation of events.

This passage starts with a loaded word "admitted":
 * Thomson later admitted to The Sunday Times that he had practiced past life therapy on her and that even though he had a mystical bent, he did not posses mystical powers

It is an inaccurate use of the source, which represents Thomson's view as:
 * Yes, he has a mystical bent, and yes, he did once go through some Past Lives stuff with Stella, but to accuse him of possessing mystical powers is ludicrous.

The source does not say he "admitted ... he practiced past life therapy on her." The source text "he did once go through some Past Lives stuff with Stella" is non-specific: it could mean reading something from a book.

These are just some examples. The whole passage needs going through. There is some well-researched material there, but it now needs the application of WP:NPOV to get right.

 Ty  20:23, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Dear Ty, good points made here thank you. You can change them now. I think a word you chose to use in your reply to me here 'ludicrous' is also a 'loaded word', even though it is from an article, and quite an emotional tone to it, I suggest it's probably best not to use that particular word when you edit the Marriage piece. I will leave you to it. I think it's great as long as both sides of each argument are clearly and properly represented. Obviously this has taken me a lot of time to research, so it's been hard for me to get every last detail in, and I am happy you have been able to assist me in this process. best wishes, ' Madeofstars '' 22:13, 18 December 2008 (GMT)


 * Wikipedia is a collaborative project. "Ludicrous" - that text is a direct quote from the source. If that's what Thomson thinks, then what's the problem? I mean, as long as it's shown as a quote and not as wikipedia's opinion. There's plenty of other loaded words flying around. It will take some time - I can't keep up with you! Mind you, I have downloaded about 40 articles to comb through by now. I've posted those examples above to let you know the way I'm thinking about the content.  Ty  05:24, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

NPOV - Stuckist disputes
Similar to. I don't mean by the tag that there is a dispute between us as such, as I consider us to be working well together. Congratulations on considerable research and material. It needs going through with a fine toothcomb. I'm concerned that you take whole phrases out of the source, so that the text in places ends up as a collage of linked quotes effectively. We need to paraphrase, rework sentence order etc. to keep true to the orginal information but reformulated. An example is to change "one rule for her and one for him" to "double standards". It means the same thing but avoids copyvios. You may not have come across Words to avoid yet, but it's very important for wiki writing, although counter to normal style.

I have re-written the 2006, 2007 and 2008 sections. Your response is welcome. The article is now getting to the point where we may need to start adopting Summary style, i.e. certain overgrown sections are used for a separate article. The main article has a summary of the contents with a clear link to the spin off article. This may be suitable for the Stuckist disputes section, which could be a separate article Stella Vine, Charles Thomson and the Stuckists (title to be agreed). This of course has the advantage of allowing more space in the main Vine article for deeper content.

I would request that the two NPOV-dispute sections are just kept here and worked on for the time being, until all parties are satisfied. Then using them or part of them in other articles will be an easier exercise.

I've put some more posts above in and elsewhere, just in case you miss them (the page history will show them up).

 Ty  07:28, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Drogba photo
Vine's painting Drogba was a high profile event covered in the national press and television with an auction at Bonhams. It brought her to the attention of many people. It was also an event where Vettriano, Peter Blake and others took part, which makes it even more interesting and this should be mentioned in the article. Inclusion of the image demonstrates the range of Vine's activities and makes an interesting counterpoing to Diana. It also breaks up the large area of text, which is better for the reader. Plus it is a free image, so there is no problem using it.  Ty  18:19, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Ross Newell
This restoring of material is against wikipedia policy. See WP:SYNTH:
 * Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to come to the conclusion C.

Reliable source A has said that Vine had a boyfriend, "Ross Newell". Reliable source B has said that a boyfriend called "Ross" said she should paint. You have joined these together to come to conclusion C, that it is "Ross Newell", who said she should paint. The source doesn't say it is Ross Newell. It may well be, but we don't know that, and it is synthesis to state it. It is possible that there are two men in her life with the same name: it does happen. Wikipedia deals in verification via sources, and this is not verifiable in wikipedia terms.  Ty  13:27, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I've looked into this in more detail and in the different contexts over time in which Vine consistently praises Ross Newell without mentioning any other Ross, and I accept that the mention of "Ross" alone, which was in dispute, does in fact refer to Ross Newell. I was rather over-cautious. It is not synthesis in an abusive sense. However, as there is regular interpretation of sources in the article to put Vine in a good light, I think it is right to apply rigorous scrutiny. We have no direct statement from Newell himself, so the usage must be that "Vine said Newell had told her... etc", not "Newell told her".  Ty  20:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Oxford Union debate
It is valid to say that she will be taking part in this. The restored material is not valid. It is factual, but its only purpose is to boost Vine's status by association. If people want to find out about the Oxford Union, they can click on the wikilink. This is the superflous material: The same point applies to the image caption, which states, "the "world's most prestigious debating society".  Ty  14:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The Oxford Union is described as the "world's most prestigious debating society"
 * previous guests have included the Dalai Lama, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Mother Teresa and former US president Richard Nixon.

Unclear reference

 * This ref needs to be clarified:
 * Michon, Alex and Vine, Stella. "Prozac and Private Views", Transition Gallery, London, 2004.
 * What does it refer to? An essay? A book? A limited edition pack?  Ty  01:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I take it the publication in question is here. As this is a "A limited edition (200) Prozac and Private Views catalogue numbered and signed by the artist" (i.e. Stella Vine), it seems she should be credited as the author, not jointly with Michon. It says the catalogue includes "a specially commissioned essay about the work of Stella Vine by Alex Michon entitled Mise en Scene Magdelanas." Where this essay is used as a citation, it needs a separate reference crediting Michon specifically.

Currently the ref details are:
 * Michon, Alex and Vine, Stella. "Prozac and Private Views" exhibition catalogue including the essay 'Mise en Scene Magdelanas', Transition Gallery, London, 2004.

Ref for the catalogue should be:
 * Vine, Stella. Prozac and Private Views, limited edition (200) signed catalogue, Transition, 2004. Some of the content is available online on transitiongallery.co.uk.

Where the essay is cited:
 * Michon, Alex. Mise en Scene Magdelanas, 2004. Included in Vine, Stella. Prozac and Private Views, limited edition (200) signed catalogue, Transition, 2004.

The details are formatted, so can just be copied and pasted. The content for Michon is not available online, as far as I can see.  Ty  19:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Done.  Ty  21:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks.  Ty  21:03, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Method painting
This is the clearest statement on it:
 * Vine thinks herself into the minds and bodies of her subjects ­ a legacy of drama school, where one of her teachers was a devotee of Stanislavsky. While working on Holy Water Will Not Save You Now, her portrait of Kate Moss, Stella became addicted to cocaine ­ there's Method painting for you. Explaining how painting feels to her, she becomes transported, closes her eyes: "There are zillions of pictures in your head. It's almost like you feel cold because it's nighttime. You can smell the night. You're there. You're THERE."

Please use source accurately.  Ty  21:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Don't worry. I will.  Ty  21:06, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I wasn't talking to you.  Ty  21:06, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Thomson photo in 2004
I don't understand how captioning the photo as one taken in 2004 will "mislead the public". It is more misleading to remove the date of the photo, as you have done, as it implies it is a photo from 2001, which it isn't. There is nothing misleading in saying the photo was from 2004, as the caption also states that Vine was married to him in 2001 for only two months. Therefore, obviously, she was no longer married to him in 2004. It is relevant to have a photo taken in 2004, as that is the time when a lot of contention arose in the press, and it shows him at that date. It is also a good photo, as it shows his connection with Stuckism, which is central to the text. There is no need to have a photo "from 2001 when Vine last saw him", as this is an objective account of events, not just from Vine's point of view.  Ty  00:36, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Stella_Vine verification requested
See article text: "at Hampstead School of Art. Vine painted her step father, with whom she had a troubled, abusive relationship. Vine also painted a stripper; "

The reference given is "Bailiffgate Museum free exhibition brochure: Stella Vine, 2006. Retrieved 31 January 2009."

Please post here the section of text in the brochure that verifies the statement that she painted a stripper at Hampstead School of Art. Thanks.

Material can be removed, failing verification.

 Ty  08:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)