Template:Did you know nominations/Naked woman climbing a staircase

Naked woman climbing a staircase
Created/expanded by Kippelboy (talk). Nominated by Victuallers (talk) at 17:19, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * ... that the idea for Miró's 1937 Naked woman climbing a staircase came originally from photos of this woman descending a staircase (animated)?


 * Pictogram voting keep.svg Seems okay AGFing for the offline sources and with the alternate tweak to the hook...
 * ALT1: ... that inspiration behind Miró's 1937 Naked woman climbing a staircase came from photos of a woman (pictured) descending a staircase? --Epipelagic (talk) 01:09, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Symbol possible vote.svg I've struck the hooks as they're incorrect. The article claims that Duchamp's painting – not Miró's drawing – alluded to the photographs of the woman. There is really absolutely no reason to have the gif or the text related to it in this article. The article just barely meets the minimum length requirement, and if that text were removed it would be under. I fixed some things in the article which were wrong or didn't make sense, but problems remain. For example, the first sentence of the Description section: "The work shows a woman with a long drawn drama and realism with an overly large nose which leaves some small bumps or horns." M AN d ARAX  •  XAЯA b ИA M  02:18, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Pictogram voting keep.svg I restored the hooks you struck, Mandarax, since your claims are not altogether correct. The source for the claim that the Miró painting is based on the Duchamp painting comes from the Joan Miró Foundation, who say "In this representation of a woman climbing a staircase, Miró reversed the concept of Marcel Duchamp’s Nude descending a staircase." The source for the claim that the Duchamp picture is based on the photos is the biography of Duchamp by Tomkins, which is not available online. That is why I AGFed the nomination.


 * The sentence you mention certainly seems nonsensical (with modern art who knows). It is sourced to a Spanish book which again is not online, and presumably must be AGFed in the absence of good reason do otherwise. Anyway, I've tweaked the alt hook and replaced the offending sentence with something that should not be controversial. --Epipelagic (talk) 04:32, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Symbol possible vote.svg (Sorry for the dueling icons, but I want to make sure this doesn't accidentally get moved to Prep while it's still disputed.) I had seen that source (I had even corrected the citation), but it looked to me merely like the author's comparison of the works. It does not say that Miró was influenced by, or even aware of the existence of Duchamp's painting. I wasn't disputing the claim about Muybridge's influence on Duchamp, and that should certainly be in the article about his painting, but it doesn't belong in this article. And even if a source is found which states that Miró knew of and was influenced by the Duchamp, the hook would still be misleading at best. M AN d ARAX  •  XAЯA b ИA M  07:21, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay, though it's most unlikely Miró was unaware of Duchamp's painting. But we are only arguing about the hook. What about
 * ALT2: ... that Miró's 1937 Naked woman climbing a staircase reversed the concept of Duchamp's 1912 Nude descending a staircase? --Epipelagic (talk) 08:35, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * So we have iconic photography involved in an iconic duchamp painting inspiring an important work by the iconic Catalan artist and we have expert sources linking these together and an article that explains that. The accusation seems to be that we have added this gif just to catch the readers eye. Ummm yes thats why we have a picture on the lead dyk. As neither of the other pictures are out of copyright then its the only option. I must admit I chose the gif over static picture. If you believe that Kippelboy (who is the Wikipedian in Residence at a Catalan Art Gallery) has created this article without any justification then we need to pull the article, not the hook. If we need to extend the hook to be "DYK that Miros painting was inspired by Duchamps that was inspired by these photos" then I guess we might haver to although I was told that if A caused B abd B caused C then A caused C. (Other points about it being just about 1500 chars or that some of the translation needs finessing are too minor as they can be easily fixed) Can I suggest that changing the hook to avoid criticism is shirking responsibility. If we know this is wrong then we need to pull the article and tell Miro's foundation that they are mistaken. Do we have another Spanish speaking art expert who can investigate? Victuallers (talk) 09:14, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, there's iconic photography which inspired an iconic Duchamp painting. But we have no evidence that the Duchamp inspired Miró. No, we do not have expert sources which assert a link between them at the time of creation; only what appears to be a modern comparison. And no, we do not have an article which factually explains it with proper sources. Yes, the only apparent reason for the gif to be in the article is to get some free image on the Main Page, even though it's entirely irrelevant to the article. No one said the article was created "without any justification". Extending the hook as suggested wouldn't work because, again, there's no evidence that the Miró was inspired by the Duchamp. And a hook should not be convoluted simply to justify the addition of an irrelevant image. Thanks to Victuallers for doing some cleanup on the article (as well as some by Epipelagic and myself). It started out looking like a very bad, unedited automated translation. Changing the hook would not be merely to "avoid criticism", but to avoid saying something which is not supported as factual by the source. I don't know why you keep mentioning pulling the article. And no one suggested that the Miró Foundation was mistaken; only that their casual remark has been extrapolated in a way which is not supported by what they actually said. M AN d ARAX  •  XAЯA b ИA M  20:21, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


 * You are exerting much energy, Mandarax, protesting the use of this gif you don't want on the front page. You flatly assert the offending gif is "entirely irrelevant to the article", but don't offer coherent reasons. What unscalable heights of verifiability are you trying to impose when you say: "No, we do not have expert sources which assert a link between them at the time of creation; only what appears to be a modern comparison"? The collective art commentary of the world would collapse into a short chapter if your standard was adopted. And even then, if we did have sources from a committee of observing authorities who stood behind Miró as he conceived the idea and then worked on the (three) drawings, you would still be arguing they didn't establish they weren't elsewhere having coffee at the exact moment when the drawing was "created". Then you say, 'Changing the hook would not be merely to "avoid criticism", but to avoid saying something which is not supported as factual by the source'. Are you really saying it is wrong to try and find the most suitable hook? It is preposterous to suggest that Miró in 1939 would have been unaware of such a prominent work by Duchamp's which catalysed so much scandal in Europe and New York. The Joan Miró Foundation (and what other body would be more definitively positioned to assess who and who didn't influence Miró?) explicitly say, "Miró reversed the concept of Marcel Duchamp’s Nude descending a staircase." There is another source in the Spanish and Catalan articles on this issue, but it is in Spanish. However, it looks like your position is entrenched Mandarax, so as Victuallers suggests above, unless there is more input, preferably from a French or Spanish speaking art expert, there is an impasse about the use of the gif. --Epipelagic (talk) 03:42, 1 October 2011 (UTC)


 * For answers to your concerns, please reread what I wrote above, as well as WP:V. As for whether I'm "saying it is wrong to try and find the most suitable hook", of course not. I never said or implied any such thing. Again, please just reread what I wrote and what I was responding to. And please stop making ridiculous statements about me (such as the "you would still be arguing" thing). M AN d ARAX  •  XAЯA b ИA M  05:29, 1 October 2011 (UTC)


 * No Fair-Use images on main page or DYK; removed. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:18, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You're feeding my paranoia - the photographer died in 1904.... and what was removed? Victuallers (talk) 09:36, 30 September 2011 (UTC) Oh I see ... someone had included a pic for illustration above that you removed thinking it may get onto the main page ... I'll have to look elsewhere to feed my persecution complex :-) thx Victuallers (talk) 09:44, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Hehe. Does your complex want some gudeg? It's fairly clear that it was intended by the poster to reach the main page (the (pictured) is still up there). Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:56, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Ascending? Descending? Salvador Dali kindly titled his 1973 work or a woman ascending a staircase as a homage to Duchamp - Ive cited it Victuallers (talk) 17:09, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * On the 15th of October the new Joan Miro Exhibition opens in Barcelona. It will have multi-language support for all the main paintings using Wikipedia articles accessed via QRpedia codes as organised by Kippelboy (Àlex Hinojo). The curators will not be showing visitors around but Wikipedians will. It would be good to have this on the main page, assuming we can settle the discussion above. Victuallers (talk) 16:44, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps ALT3: ... that the idea for Miró's 1937 Naked woman climbing a staircase came indirectly from photos of this woman descending a staircase (animated)?, and we can use the citation found at Naked woman climbing a staircase; however, it would be preferable to actually take a look at the book if it is available. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:46, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I've found one new reference. Nude Descending a Staircase, No. 2, by Duchamp, was shown in Barcelona in 1912 at the Dalmau Gallery, where Miró saw it for the firs time and was influenced by. Miró's first exhibit took place at the same gallery 2 years later.(ISBN-84-297-3568-2 p.19). Will add this reference on the entry.--Kippelboy (talk) 07:06, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * It is now 15 October and the new exhibition will open in a few hours. Let's try for a hook based on some other aspect of the topic. Here's one idea:
 * ALT4 ... that the effort put forth by the subject of Miró's 1937 Naked woman climbing a staircase and her heavy limbs are thought to reflect the tragedy of the Spanish Civil War? --Orlady (talk) 01:27, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * A little late, but I think ALT4 is okay. Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:37, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Obviously I'm disappointed by this. We were asked to go away and find additional references to support a link between Miro and Duchamp which has been done - despite the fact that the worlds leading authority on the subject said it existed - but not explicitly enough for one reviewer. Kippelboy and myself have done this despite being busy elsewhere. Editors are asked to keep these reviews on their watchlists... but there is no reaction to our work. In this case it appears that we are not going with the consensus but just avoiding debate. I'm pleased to see that editors are trying to find a compromise but it appears that the objector lost interest a long time ago. I'm afraid I have joined him/her. But thank you Crsoco and Orlady I admiore your tenavity and dedication, I'll let you decide which to go with or whether to withdraw the nomination. Victuallers (talk) 11:23, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not that I "lost interest a long time ago"; I've been away camping, without Internet access. I don't understand how you can say "we are not going with the consensus". The original reviewer accepted the hook and I objected; other opinions were from the nominator or creator. That's hardly "consensus", at least not of uninvolved parties. As you can now see below, it's not just "one reviewer". Nobody responded to my request at WT:DYK for other opinions, but I'm sure that the majority of experienced, objective, conscientious users would agree with Orlady and myself. You seemed set on the original hook ("changing the hook to avoid criticism is shirking responsibility"), but I'm glad that you were open to Orlady's suggestion of a hook which is actually supported by a source. M AN d ARAX  •  XAЯA b ИA M  18:41, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I have seen the Foundation's analysis that compares this work to the Duchamp piece (but does not say Miró was influenced by it). I fully accept that Miró saw the Duchamp work before he created this one, and I think it very likely that his piece played off it, but I have not seen any statement in the article or the sources that indicates that a published source has says he was influenced by it. We can't base a hook on plausible inferences -- that's original research. --Orlady (talk) 15:48, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I personally like the picture, but naturally there would be objections. ALT 4 seems fine by me, and I see no need to reject. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:27, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * There is some objection to the picture per se? No one has mentioned this so far. You may have failed to see "I've found one new reference. Nude Descending a Staircase, No. 2, by Duchamp, was shown in Barcelona in 1912 at the Dalmau Gallery, where Miró saw it for the firs time and was influenced by. Miró's first exhibit took place at the same gallery 2 years later.(ISBN-84-297-3568-2 p.19). Will add this reference on the entry.-", above, but if the objection is to the picture then why has no one said so! Sure its a "naked lady" but you have Miro, Dali and Duchamp to tell you this art. I am confused now as I'm not sure now what the objection is or who is objecting. Is it the picture? Is it the OR? If we cannot "plausible infer" then we can say Miro displayed this work at the same gallery where he had seen the same work by Duchamp with exactly the same subject which was to inspire numerous artists including Dali. Dali also chose the change the direction of the woan on the stairs in the same way Miro had before him Victuallers (talk) 18:18, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Not only has it been mentioned, but you've responded to the concerns. As I explained in my very first comment here, the gif, while relevant to the Duchamp painting, is not directly relevant to the drawing which this article is about. You wrote "As neither of the other pictures are out of copyright then its the only option." Well, no; another option is to use a hook without an image. As I mentioned elsewhere above, "the only apparent reason for the gif to be in the article is to get some free image on the Main Page". Sorry to be so repetitive, but unfortunately it seems necessary in order to reply. M AN d ARAX  •  XAЯA b ИA M  22:28, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Cue objections. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:40, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * ALT4's reference checks out, so if Mandarax and Victuallers have no problem with it the hook can be promoted sans picture. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:45, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. M AN d ARAX  •  XAЯA b ИA M  00:14, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you all for your efforts. I think we should pull a prompt line under this debate. I'm surprised by the result, but it is your decision. I still think alt 1-3 is the best hook even if it is used without the picture (which is always an option) but I'm willing to accept what is inferred as long as it is plausible. Victuallers (talk) 07:17, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Symbol confirmed.svg ALT4 only, since we now have agreement on a hook. I also like the original hooks, but as Orlady says it is still OR. Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:05, 18 October 2011 (UTC)