Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Gyn Talk (Visual Fiction)

Joseph Levi, you're free and welcome to make a reasonably brief comment on the AfD page itself, or to respond briefly to comments of others, but extended and lengthy discussion like this should be avoided on an AfD page. Much of this would belong on the Talk page for the article. I am neutral on the AfD, I haven't examined your arguments -- and the length of them somewhat discourages me. I may, if I have time, look over the article and see if I have any suggestions for you. I'm an inclusionist and at least one of the editors I saw !voting for Delete is reasonably inclusionist as well, so, while I can understand it can be frustrating, there is no support shown, so far, for keeping the article. That probably means that, unless more sourcing appears showing notability, it's gone. It can be recovered, later, if you find more sources. I'll be happy to assist if you ask. --Abd (talk) 23:44, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

(moved from AfD page):

Editor Dzied Bulbash is dishonest and cannot be trusted as an editor. On September 30, 2008, I placed the following comments on his talk page:

The deletion of these categories (painting, narrative forms, health fields, and feminism and health) is arbitrary and only indicates that the individual who deleted them personally thinks that the Gyn Talk (Visual Fiction) series of paintings, which does happen to represent a feminist narrative about various health fields, is not deserving of placement in these categories. Such arbitrary editing is reckless and will be reported as vandalism if it occurs again.

Is there actually anything wrong with the tone of the article or does the editor simply not like the topic? It appears that this particular use of this cleanup tag is a form of censorship. Therefore, this cleanup tag is being removed in order to protect free speech. If you place this cleanup tag on this article again, you will be reported for censorship.

This cleanup tag is erroneous because every claim is verified in the notes and bibliography.

This article itself does not include original research. This article reports on an original work of art that has an exhibition history and cites published sources. Please see other articles on original works of art in order to learn to differentiate between an article written about an original work of art and the original work of art itself.

The article itself does not offer an opinion other than that the Gyn Talk (Visual Fiction) series of paintings is a valid topic for an encyclopedic article. While the article does report on opinions that have been expressed about the series in various lectures, this article does not endorse any of those opinions on which it reports.

These above comments no longer appear on Bulbash’s talk page because one can only surmise that he has removed my comments. How can I trust that he will not remove my comments from this very talk page? This dishonesty gives me grave concern because it leaves me to wonder just how much editorial dishonesty occurs on Wikipedia in efforts to censor ideas and suppress free speech.

Furthermore, he reports that his tags for cleanup (censorship) were placed on the article for a month. This is yet another lie. If one looks at the Revision History of Gyn Talk (Visual Fiction), one can observe that he first placed the cleanup tags on the article on September 23, 2008. As I am writing, a full month has still not passed since that date.

Yes, while he admits that he is not an expert in the arts, he still feels justified to go forth with his efforts at censorship. In this way, I am reminded of the former mayor of New York City Rudolph Giuliani spreading negative information about the exhibition “Sensation: Young British Artists from the Saatchi Collection” in 1999 at the Brooklyn Museum of Art. Giuliani focused his campaign of censorship against one painting in particular titled The Holy Virgin Mary by black British artist Chris Ofili, winner of the Turner Prize. With no expertise in the arts and without even attending the exhibit himself to see The Holy Virgin Mary or to see the other works to which he objected, Giuliani felt that it was his prerogative to threaten the Museum by pulling funds and even threatening to evict the Museum from the building. Editor Dzied Bulbash has not read all of the dialogs or viewed all of the paintings, yet feels so important and justified in mounting a campaign of censorship. Why?

Editor Dzied Bulbash makes the statement that the articles cited in the article do not discuss “the painting” [Sic] in any way. (He means to say the series of twenty paintings.) Of course they don’t. When works of art are discussed in an art historical sense, the discussion includes references to published writings that were of influence to the artist(s). Of course these articles do not make reference to the artist’s work! Would articles about Tahiti in the day of artist Paul Gauguin make reference to Paul Gauguin? Of course not! But if Gauguin was influenced by said articles, they are worth mentioning in a discussion of his work.

Editor Dzied Bulbash’s statement that the article is nonnotable is, in my opinion, simply further evidence of his dishonesty. Perhaps he uses the term “nonnotable” as a euphuism for “obscene” because of his politics. Is editor Dzied Bulbash launching this campaign because he is fighting the women’s health movement? If so, why? Does he wish to deny the historical biases of the medical establishment that the Gyn Talk (Visual Fiction) series brings to light? Because of his history of editorial dishonesty, I am sure that we will never know the true reasons for his hostility to the Gyn Talk (Visual Fiction) series of paintings.

Perhaps Editor Dzied Bulbash is misogynist? Why does he completely fail to mention Keith Fox’s female collaborator who interviewed female patients over a three-year period? This above information is cited in the notes. How is this particular information in the notes irrelevant? Once again, editor Dzied Bulbash is being dishonest and distorting facts.

Editor Dzied Bulbash also sees fit to have removed the category of Feminism and the Arts from the article on Gyn Talk (Visual Fiction). This category was placed there by editor Dakinijones on August 18, 2008. Why would editor Dakinijones place the article on Gyn Talk (Visual Fiction) in this category if anything that Dzied Bulbash says is true?

For a series of paintings to receive more than half a dozen hits on Google is actually significant. Once again, Dzied Bulbash is on a disguised censorship campaign for personal or professional reasons and has no business deleting articles that clearly fall outside of his area of expertise.

Andrew Lenahan’s comment is ignorant. Will this editor please read books on the history of art before nominating articles on works of art for deletion? Books, historical events, scientific discoveries, new works of literature—all of these can be mentioned when discussing a work of art because these have some influence on the artwork under discussion. Again, such ignorance combined with a petition to delete a well-researched article seems to raise the questions about the motives of the editor? Is this really censorship?

Editor DGG seems to have some knowledge about articles about art. However, why doesn’t DGG read the entire article to see that there are biographies of the artists of this series near the end of the article? Also, the concerns mentioned by DGG actually do involve a discussion of the article and how to improve the article. But why does DGG quickly elect to delete the article? Why can’t DGG contact organizers of the past exhibits in order to ask about reviews written by third parties? Instead, DGG is swift to elect the article for deletion/censorship. Why?

Why does editor Drmies basically state that Wikipedia does not work with art appreciation articles? Wikipedia has many articles of art appreciation! Again, his comments about notability on the topic are baseless. Any article or idea of significant influence to the artwork at hand is notable when trying to understand a work of art. Once again, I would like to ask why yet another editor of Wikipedia who demonstrates ignorance in the field of art nominates himself or herself to delete articles about art? The answer must be censorship of ideas that are not in line with the world view of the editor(s). Dr. Joseph Abraham Levi

Joseph Levi (talk) 14:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Joseph Levi is not at a loss for words. No, Wikipedia does not have many articles of art appreciation, nor should it. Not everything written is necessary to understand a work of art, and I might add that Wikipedia should hardly be an exclusive source for those who want to understand a work of art--they may want to actually look at it, rather than read 6,711 words about it. Mr. Levi, you can talk all you want about censorship and mysogyny, and cloud the issue, and accuse me and other editors of hatred of women and their health, but that's ridiculous. There's a standard here, and that's notability--this work has none that I could find. A google search on "Gyn Talk fox dick" reveals nothing except for a notification or two, and your essay of course.


 * 6,711 words on a work of art that has no notability, at least none that can be verified independently--that's 6,618 words more than Barnett Newman's Broken Obelisk gets, and 6,711 more than his "Who's Afraid of Red, Yellow and Blue" (and that's also a series, and it's fantastic); it's 6,522 words more than are reserved for Van Gogh's The Potato Eaters, and it's almost as much as the entry for Van Gogh himself. And how did you get so many words? By being wordy.


 * I apologize if I sound miffed--I am. Pff. Ignorance in the field of art. Censorship. Womanhater. Dishonest. Whatever.


 * BTW, I am taking the liberty to move your lengthy and non-cordial response to the bottom of the section--it's not polite to stick them at the top, especially not if they are so wordy that the original opinions of the editors are crowded to the bottom. Drmies (talk) 17:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

It is only your personal opinion that the series of twenty paintings named Gyn Talk (Visual Fiction) is not notable. If you have only read this Wikpedia article, you have only viewed one photograph of one painting in the series of twenty. Also, you have not read any of the other 19 dialogs authored by Professor Marie Dick. Please be honest and do not pretend that you have seen or read the entire series of paintings/dialogs. An article should be deleted/censored because of your arbitrary opinion? If you look at the history of exhibition, you will see that a number of public institutions have found the series to be notable because these paintings were displayed on their premises for public viewing. All of these places can be contacted via email if an editor wishes to enquire about these exhibits. Your elitism is astounding! The University of New England exhibited the full set of twenty paintings as part of an academic conference in 2004. The fact that this occurred can be verified. But it might take more effort than to simply “google” the names of the collaborators to find this information. How lazy and how quick you are to censor and delete articles. The collaborators were asked to give lectures during this academic conference. Their lectures are documented by the University of New England. A newspaper in the state of Maine posted a writeup of this exhibit at the University of New England. This newspaper can be contacted to verify that this article appeared. Just because the information for notability does not appear on the Internet does not mean that it does not exist. Apparently, in your skewed view of the world, things only exist if they are posted on the Internet. The Gyn Talk series of paintings has been exhibited publicly in part or whole seven times. Therefore, people have found the series to be noteworthy enough to devout gallery space to the series and to publicly announce the exhibitions. Please read the exhibition history in order to find that a number of public institutions have found the series to be notable.

What makes it your decision as to whether or not Wikipedia should have many articles of art appreciation? Aren’t you self-important! Do you really hate art that much? Please inform me as to what type of articles you think should appear on Wikipedia in great quanitity. Who made you such an important editor? By the way, there are 57 Wikipedia pages in the category of Painting. There are 189 pages in the category of Surrealist Paintings. There are 112 pages in the category of Expressionism. There are 77 pages in the category of Feminism and the arts. These above numbers indicate that there are indeed quite a number of articles about art appreciation. It is not polite to distort information by saying that there are not many articles on art appreciation posted on Wikipedia. It is also not polite to censor art that is not of your taste. Many institutions have found the series to be notable. Because the paintings have been exhibited a number of times, you cannot really make the argument that the paintings have not been found to be notable. Therefore, please explain your real reasons for censorship. Is it because the paintings bring to light negative information about the history of medicine? If it is not for that reason, then what is the reason for your censorship campaign? Dr. Joseph Abraham Levi Joseph Levi (talk) 22:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The notable prejudice of Drmies against articles of art appreciation on Wikipedia should automatically disqualify him from having any authority in the matter of electing articles on art appreciation to be deleted from Wikipedia. Also, his stance about word count for articles on art appreciation should be called into question. Obviously, in his view, the shorter an article is about art, the better. Furthermore, from his point of view, the fewer articles there are in general about art on Wikipedia, the better. Can someone please inform me on how I can elect to have editor Drmies disqualified from this discussion? Furthermore, can someone please inform me on how I can elect editor Drmies to no longer have any editorial privileges on Wikipedia due to his notable bias against a specific field of intellectual endeavor? Shouldn’t editors have open minds? Furthermore, his behavior is inappropriate. In his comments, he has mocked me! (Please see his following comment: “Ignorance in the field of art. Censorship. Womanhater. Dishonest. Whatever.”) Is that professional behavior for an editor of Wikipedia?

Will the editors who have elected my article for deletion please answer the following question. Do you believe that any exhibition sponsored by the Jewish Community Center in Providence, Rhode Island, is nonnotable? Dr. Joseph Abraham Levi Joseph Levi (talk) 13:56, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Alright, who's the wise guy? Some joker has obviously informed Mr. Levi here of our secret rule that anybody who types 10,000 words or more automatically gets their article kept. Nobody's going out for recess or having any snack time until I find out who the culprit is. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  14:02, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Following is the newspaper article on Gyn Talk (Visual Fiction) published in the state of Maine: “Women talk about health, he paints it.” Maine Today.Com May 27, 2004.

"Women talk about health, he paints it," Portland Press Herald (ME) May 27, 2004, Page 7D. "Here's a mouthful for you: "Gyn Talk (Visual Fiction): Recasting Women's Conversations about their Gynecologic and Obstetric Healthcare as Expressionistic Paintings." This boils down to: an art exhibit about women's health.  Artist Keith Fox has taken Marie Dick's dialogues about women's health and has turned them into expressionistic acrylic paintings. (Dick, a professor of communication studies at St.... Click here for complete article ($2.00)

This online article states that “Fox’s paintings reflect women’s health concerns, but also how women’s health issues are a special kind of ‘women’s talk’—how women talk to women about their healthcare and health issues.” Editor Drmies, did this article come up on your attempt at doing research (that can hardly be called rigorous) to make your case for the deletion of the Gyn Talk (Visual Fiction) article from Wikipedia? Dr. Joseph Abraham Levi Joseph Levi (talk) 14:46, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Notably, the exhibition of the series of twenty paintings titled Gyn Talk (Visual Fiction) in the Art Gallery of the University of New England’s Westbrook College Campus, in Portland, Maine, from June 2 to July 3, 2004, was financially sponsored by the Maine Women Writers Collection, Abplanalp Library, which is also located at the Westbrook College Campus of the University of New England. To verify this fact of notability, please contact Dr. Jennifer Tuttle, the faculty director of the Maine Women Writer’s Collection at the following email address: jtuttle at une.edu Dr. Joseph Abraham Levi Joseph Levi (talk) 02:30, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.   —Fvasconcellos (t·c) 02:43, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions.   —Fvasconcellos (t·c) 02:43, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Editor Drmies said the Gyn Talk (Visual Fiction) contained 6711 words. Actually, the article is 6570 words (including the notes). I have checked, there are many Wikipedia articles that far exceed 6711 words. Dr. Joseph Abraham Levi Joseph Levi (talk) 03:01, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Notably, the Jewish Community Center of Rhode Island financially sponsored an exhibition of Gyn Talk (Visual Fiction) in its Gallery 401, located at 401 Elmgrove Avenue, Providence, Rhode Island, from January 6 to January 31, 2005. The Jewish Community Center advertised this exhibition in local newspapers. Please contact gallery director Sue Suls to verify this information. Her email address is as follows: ssuls at jccri.org. The telephone number for Gallery 401 is (401) 861-8800. The news publication Jewish Federation of Rhode Island announced this exhibition as can be seen in this online version of this publication at the following link: http://providence.ujcfedweb.org/content_display.html?ArticleID=142795 Furthermore, in the January 21, 2005, issue of the Jewish Voice & Herald, the scheduled talks by Dr. Marie Dick and Keith Fox on the topic of Gyn Talk (Visual Fiction) were announced. Due to inclement weather (i.e., a blizzard that the governor of the state of Rhode Island declared as a state of emergency), the talks were postponed. Keith Fox’s slide lecture titled, “Artistic Style and the Promotion of Women’s Self-Empowerment in the Modern Healthcare System,” was rescheduled for March 27, 2005. Dr. Marie Dick was unable to reschedule her talk at the Jewish Community Center. Keith Fox’s lecture was well-attended. For verification of this attendance, please contact Sue Suls at ssuls at jccri.org or at the following telephone number: (401) 861-8800. Dr. Joseph Abraham Levi Joseph Levi (talk) 03:25, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Fvasconcellos.

Thank you for your notes stating that the debate about the deletion of the Gyn Talk (Visual Fiction) article has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions and the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. However, I believe that a Sociology-related deletion discussion is more appropriate than a Medicine-related deletion discussion because the Gyn Talk (Visual Fiction) article draws upon knowledge as published in the field of sociology about the field of medicine. (Please read the notes to the Gyn Talk (Visual Fiction) article.) If you are not interested in including the article in a Sociology-related deletion discussion, please inform me how I can make this inclusion myself because I am interested in maintaining a neutral point of view in deletion discussions about Gyn Talk (Visual Fiction), which has yet to occur, and the medical establishment’s presence on Wikipedia cannot be assumed to be a neutral place for such a discussion due to the fact that this particular discussion involves, among a range of topics, arguments concerning social inequities in the history of the practice of medicine. Thank you very much for your understanding. Joseph Levi (talk) 12:36, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I have been accused of everything under the sun and the article has been attacked for all possible reasons. I have responded. Yet, no one, as of yet, has addressed/responded to my questions, as it should be, according to Wikipedia rules; after all, there should be a discussion, not a unilateral decision. Moreover, I was accused of canvassing; yet, most of the persons in favor of deleting the article are somehow tied to the world of science/medicine. How balanced is that? It appears that Wikipedia editors are biased; yet, the article was accused of being biased. Again, where is the discussion? It is clear, then, that the decision was made, a priori, by a few Wikipedia editors, unilaterally supported by other Wikipedia (friends?/colleagues?) editors. And then, I am the one canvassing? I simply sent messages inviting people to view this page and, if interested, participate in the discussion, (the key word here being discussion), not to take my side. Apparently, the decision was already made by a restricted circle of (friends) editors. Dr. Joseph Abraham Levi   Joseph Levi (talk) 12:36, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Can someone please expand on how Wikipedia defines a verifiable, published source? The reason for my question is that it seems that there are Wikipedia editors in this discussion who no longer consider anything that is not available via Internet searches to be verifiable, published sources. Furthermore, does Wikipedia officially consider public exhibitions sponsored by public institutions as being excluded from the definition? In the field of the fine arts, a public exhibition sponsored by a public institution is considered to be a form of publication. What exactly is the policy of Wikipedia regarding this particular form of verifiable, published sources (i.e., institutionally-sponsored public exhibitions)? Dr. Joseph Abraham Levi  Joseph Levi (talk) 13:52, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Try WP:V and WP:N. We don't have a specialized guideline covering works of art, but generally for modern works one would expect the artist to meet WP:CREATIVE. Johnbod (talk) 18:02, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

The Gyn Talk (Visual Fiction) article does cross reference a number of other Wikipedia articles. This is evidence that the article was written following the editorial guidelines of Wikipedia. But no one in this “discussion” (sic!) (can it be called a discussion when none of the accusers discuss anything?) seems to notice that the article truly is relevant. If the article were irrelevant, there would be very few cross references, if any, to other current articles on Wikipedia. Dr. Joseph Abraham Levi  Joseph Levi (talk) 14:42, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

The failures of Wikipedia, as I have personally experienced them in this so-called “discussion,” are described in an article at the following link: http://www.wikinfo.org/index.php/Critical_views_of_Wikipedia This article covers, among many aspects of the failures of Wikipedia, such topics as "inside" contributors, edit wars, a dogmatically imposed wikiculture, and anti-semitism. Here is an interesting quote from the article: "Some administrators might not be adept at the personal or editorial skills which can best resolve conflicts among contributors. An inability or unwillingness among such untrained administrators to consistently articulate what they find problematic contributes to a less productive collaborative environment, and exacerbates conflicts." The article also describes Wikipedia as “being a community first, a cult even, and an encyclopedia second.” Dr. Joseph Abraham Levi    Joseph Levi (talk) 23:03, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Please keep your comments relevant and specific to the article under discussions. This is not a talkpage and off the point discussion can and will be moved to the talk page. --Cameron Scott (talk) 23:04, 12 October 2008 (UTC)