Talk:Thomas Hodges (artist)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

I'm creating a new page with different content, the previous one was a redirect.

Notability?[edit]

The article needs to be brought up to proper standards... it needs to start of with a solid lede section explaining who Mr. Hodges is, what he does, and why he is notable.

As best as I can make out, Mr. Hodges is a photographer of some sort. In which case, he needs to have his notability established through reference to reliable sources per: WP:Notability (people) paying close attention to the section on Creative professionals.

Without sources that establish his notability, this article is likely to be deleted. Blueboar (talk) 14:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Myspace[edit]

One little assertion is newly sourced to this Myspace page. How does this square with "WP:V"? -- Hoary (talk) 16:29, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not conventional, but it does show a picture of the magazine cover. If you know the date of the magazine, maybe it would be better to reference the magazine directly? GoingBatty (talk) 02:21, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the server objects to my IP number, but for whatever reason I see no magazine cover. (All I see is the text "Shoot for Met-Art with photographer Thomas Hodges".) Well, I do see a minuscule graphic showing a girl in a white dress and (I think) stripy socks standing on a sidewalk; is this what you mean? -- Hoary (talk) 03:17, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do you see the video underneath that? I can't get to the live site (Myspace doesn't like that I'm still using IE7) but I can see it on Google's cached version. GoingBatty (talk) 04:43, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see it, but this inability probably means nothing as I often have problems with video. -- Hoary (talk) 07:06, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

British Museum of Erotic Art[edit]

It appears that the British Museum of Erotic Art (BMEA) no longer exists. It did exist. What was it? It said of itself:

The British Museum of Erotic Art was founded in mid 2006 as a web-based museum and art gallery dedicated to erotic art. [...]"

To me, a museum is a place that you expect to enter physically and look around. It's also likely to have educational or research purposes and functions. I can't see any of this here. Instead, BMEA seems a grand (or witty?) name for a website. Nothing wrong with that, but this article shouldn't imply that it really was (let alone is) a museum. I've therefore moved the reference, and I'm about to de-redlink it.

Although it's possible that I've misunderstood something. -- Hoary (talk) 07:24, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns about recent edits[edit]

The following comments were posted on my talk page. I believe that the best place to discuss these topics is here, so i have copied them here. GoingBatty (talk) 16:21, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I reversed some changes made by TheMindsEye, who misunderstood a "Nominee Award" as being only a "nomination". In both the Spider Awards and the Color Awards (Masters Cup), "Nominee Award" is an award in its own right, in addition to being a nomination. It was actually correct as written, prior to edit. Also, this TheMindsEye made this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thomas_Hodges_(artist)&diff=477589078&oldid=477588575. The link removed is an essential reference to one of the artist's gallery representations, and should be shown, but apparently it needs to be referenced in the article? I have no idea how to reinstate this? Thanks for the additional help Expoarts (talk) 05:39, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is the link. If it's a good source for some claims, then after the first of these claims we can add <ref name="oneartworld">[http://oneartworld.com/artists/T/Thomas+Hodges.html Thomas Hodges at One Art World. Retrieved 20 February 2012.</ref> (or similar) and after each of the subsequent claims <ref name="oneartworld" />. -- Hoary (talk) 01:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thomas_Hodges_(artist)&diff=475683440&oldid=475680891, categories such as "British Artist" and "British Photographers" were removed, yet Hodges seems to fit both of these categories. Is it not permisible to list the additional categories, despite them being relevant? Also, the short description says "Photographer of Nudes", which not really inaccurate Expoarts (talk) 05:54, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Categorization#Categorizing_pages states "Each article should be placed in all of the most specific categories to which it logically belongs. This means that if a page belongs to a subcategory of C (or a subcategory of a subcategory of C, and so on) then it is not normally placed directly into C." Since the article is already categorized with Category:English photographers and Category:British erotic photographers, it is redundant to also categorize the article with Category:British artists, Category:British photographers, and Category:Photographers.
I've changed the {{Persondata}} description to "Photographer". If this isn't specific enough, please be bold and fix it to what it should be. GoingBatty (talk) 16:28, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hoary made this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thomas_Hodges_(artist)&diff=475688211&oldid=475687953, stating "being profiled in a blog is no big deal; for a start, cutting unsourced claims of this)". However, neither Art2Bank or Nonenga Art Magazine are blogs, they are established and globally recognised art related websites. Should these references have been deleted? Expoarts (talk) 06:03, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm now trying to improve the article on the photographer Yuri Kozyrev. Admittedly he his a very different kind of photographer; I'm sure that neither he nor Hodges would want to emulate the other. And, through no fault of Hodges, Hodges' kind of photography is much less "newsworthy" (at least unless some self-appointed "guardian of family values" or similar has a conniption fit; cf Mapplethorpe). But the mere fact that Kozyrev has been profiled here or there is nowhere brought into the main text. I've worked on the articles here about many photographers in my time, and I don't remember ever writing about this. Thus Hiroh Kikai (also working in "un-newsworthy" areas of photography) has occasionally been profiled in a mass-market (printed) magazine, but the text of the article doesn't mention this; instead, it occasionally references these in footnotes. So all in all, yes, I think that the fact that he has been profiled in a globally recognized art-related website does not merit mention within the main text, though if something he or the writer says in the profile is pertinent it might be used as a reference. -- Hoary (talk) 01:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thomas_Hodges_(artist)&diff=475732435&oldid=475732193, it is stated "deleting mention of one website for which the "source" pointed to other people's porn/erotic photos but not Hodges')", but Hodges' work is featured in this website (I just browsed the website and saw it). However, the site is in flash and you can't link directly to the page where the work is shown, as it is constantly changing, as this site is updated. Should the link be reinstated, or must the page point directly to Hodges? Expoarts (talk) 06:10, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Flash sites are indeed a pain to deal with. But this deletion is within the sentence (then) starting Hodges has also been featured/interviewed on numerous websites and blogs, including [...]; as I've said a few lines above, I think that all of this should go. -- Hoary (talk) 01:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the article, citations are requested for the section relating to inspirations. On Hodges' own website he quotes on his biography page his inspirations. However, I understand that it is not allowed to reference the artist's own website (ref Hoary: "No, no, you can't source claims for the man's achievements to his own website or blog. Independent sourcing, please."). However, as it is only Hodges himself who can state who and what inspires him, how can a citation other than that from the artist himself be used? Am I correct to assume that it needs to be the artist's statement via an independent source? Expoarts (talk) 06:26, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's a difference between "inspirations" and "achievements". It should be easier to find independent sources for achievements, and agree that only Hodges can really define his inspirations. However, it's still preferable to find where Hodges stated his inspirations in an interview with an independent source than his own website. GoingBatty (talk) 16:31, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hoary made this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thomas_Hodges_(artist)&diff=475691356&oldid=475689005, stating "(Removing commentary that was merely from an unsigned piece in a commercial website. Judge for yourself: http://www.lovechess.nl/artoflove/archives/photography_nude/). However, "Art of Love" is widely recognised review site of artists working in the erotic-nude genre, and carry an archive featuring some very prominent artists (follow the home link at the foot of the referenced page and then to archives). Why therefore is this reference not relevant and the subject of deletion? Expoarts (talk) 06:26, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, it's short and written in the first person -- but by some unspecified person. The page looks tacky, what with all the little adverts for games. Here's what the top page of the site tells its readers: Welcome to the world of LoveChess! With its combination of erotica and chess, LoveChess was the first erotic game that showed sexual action in a stylish, humorous and light-hearted way. Etc. There's nothing about the site (or game) within Wikipedia. I could well be wrong, though. -- Hoary (talk) 01:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reference to GQ magazine points to (2) which relates to the IPA, this is the better reference: http://www.gq-magazin.de/unterhaltung/girls-gallery/thomas-hodges7, which I found via Google. Would you make the change? The Playboy reference, also points to (2), but that publication is in physical print, so no online reference is available. The reference previously pointed to a scanned copy of Playboy magazine, via Hodges' blog, but that was deleted. Expoarts (talk) 06:35, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the GQ reference to the article - nice find! GoingBatty (talk) 16:35, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notability[edit]

As representative of Hodges and his work I have a conflict of interest but would like information added to the article to demonstrate that Hodges meets Wikipedia's notability guideline for people. As such, I am providing the following information for the use of other editors:

In 2009 Hodges work was shown at the Cannes International Art Fair, at which time he was interviewed by TVN: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PICRPYXTIL4

In January 2012, Hodges' work was featured as part of a group exhibition entitled "Art Erotica" at the "The Gallery in Cork Street", London, as referenced in this article: http://theroamingeye.wordpress.com/2012/01/18/photo-shows-the-first-art-erotica-show-opens-in-london-tomorrow/. Please note that it is quoted therein "Art Erotica will benefit a selected charity and will be juried, with submitted work carefully and rigorously chosen for exhibition by a panel drawn from leading figures in the UK art world", Hodges being one of the juried artists in question.

Hodges is also known by the his Chinese name 湯武士 (Ping Yin "Tang Wu Shi")

In May 2012, Hodges was interviewed and featured in Los Angeles based online magazine FVM Global, wherein it cites his inspirations (the page requests a citation source and this is one): http://fvmglobalmagazine.com/ThomasHodges2012.html. The article also states "Natural lighting in his works is a fascination of Hodges and its manipulation is his forte". The latter may be used as a source of correction, as his Wikipedia page currently states "He believes that he excels in the manipulation and control of light", which is inaccurate edit, following the deletion of a previous third-party reference to his use of light, not "He believes".

In October 2012, Hodges' series of mixed-media works entitled "Propaganda" were shown in a featured solo exhibition at Taiwan Photo Fair in Taipei: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNF-sA8edLM.

Here is a link to the Taiwan Photo Fair official website which makes specific reference to Hodges and the individual exhibition of his body of work 'Propaganda": http://english.taiwanphotofair.com/?page_id=254. Expoarts (talk) 19:02, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In January 2013, Hodges was the subject of an in-depth interview with Michael K. Corbin, who is an avid art collector, writer, full-time broadcast journalist, yogi and runner. A New York City native, he travels far and wide for art's sake. He writes for various art websites that include www.absolutearts.com and www.artbookguy.com. The interview can be found here: http://artbookguy.com/thomas-hodges-global-journey_563.html. Subsequently, Michael K. Corbin listed Hodges as as one of his "106 SUPER HOT ARTISTS FOR 2013": http://artbookguy.com/106-super-hot-artists-_571.html

In June 2013, Hodges and his work was featured in Fearless Press: http://www.fearlesspress.com/2013/06/12/capturing-italy’s-long-history-of-eroticism-in-modern-art/. Reference is made therein to the art movement "Imaginism", which Hodges founded in December 2006. The article was originally published in May 2011 (as stated therein).

On 26th January 2014, Hodges was bestowed with a "World of Fashion Award" during the Rome Fashion Week in Italy, at which time his artwork "Nishikigoi" was featured as a 5m x 5m runway backdrop. The following articles (in Italian) make reference to the aforementioned, in addition to his latest art project which is entitled "Le Tre Grazie" and which is a production of the Italian company Bielle Re Srl, and comprises 26 artworks, an art video and a dedicated book publication. In the article by H24 Notizie, Hodges is likened to one of his referenced inspirations [[1]]:-

http://www.h24notizie.com/news/2014/01/27/videoaltaroma-world-fashion-moda-e-arte-per-una-magica-serata/ http://www.ilsecolonuovo.com/2014/02/01/a-roma-consensi-per-il-world-of-fashion-2014/ http://www.certinews.it/giuseppe-lepore-produce-thomas-hodges-primo-progetto-italia-per-un-artista-arcinoto-2/ http://www.laprovinciaonline.info/World-of-Fashion-2014-un-successo.html?var_mode=calcul

Additionally and in reference to "World of Fashion" and "Le Tre Grazie", Hodges was interviewed by Funweek Magazine: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3sTcBWGjFhw. The YouTube page in question also references Hodges as the founder of the art movement "Imaginism" (L'artista e creatore della corrente dell' "immaginism"), which therefore also provides you with a needed citation.

I will review Hodges page further with regard to requested citations, and post hereto whatever additional references I am able to provide.

Expoarts (talk) 22:30, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could you point out which news article says he received a "World of Fashion Award". The articles say he was a guest at the event, but I can't see anything to confirm your primary claim. Sionk (talk) 11:38, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Sionk: I only just saw this question because I received no notification, as such apologies for the delayed response. Both the second and third links make specific reference to Hodges having received a World of Fashion Award. Also, none of the articles simply say "he was a guest at the event", they all make reference to him having attended but also specifically to the exhibition of his artwork that was used for the event. Additionally, Hodges is actually holding the said award in all of the accompanying photographs. Your question gives the impression that you are intentionally trying to understate the facts. Expoarts (talk) 12:42, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Sionk: I also just found this link: http://www.rendezvousdelamode.com/?p=18047, wherein it is written "Prima dell’ultima sfilata sono stati premiati: l’artista e fotografo inglese Thomas Hodges – autore dell’opera Nishikigoi utilizzata come scenografia dell’evento". Very specific! Expoarts (talk) 13:14, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Sionk: I just came across this link: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=603506343054932&set=pb.100001867156693.-2207520000.1397148318.&type=3&theater, which seems to be a scan of the original World of Fashion guest invitation. It clearly makes reference to Hodges and also says that the persons listed (which includes Hodges), will receive the World of Fashion Award. Presumably this is specific enough for your requirement. Expoarts (talk) 17:00, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, considering you were absolutely adamant he was too important to be a 'guest'. Because you have repeatedly told me you think I am incompetent, you may want to find someone else to review your requests. Sionk (talk) 17:07, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Sionk: I am sorry, but I don't understand your "guest" comment referenced above (or are you simply trying to be facetious)? "Incompetent" is your term not mine. My issue is that from the outset you have edited this page with the obvious intent of being destructive as opposed to constructive. You are clearly biased and you seemingly have no interest in using information and links I am providing to improve the page. I am posting information as I come across it, if you edit or somebody else edits, it makes no difference to me. However, I totally acknowledge that it is unlikely that you will be making any positive edits to this page and as such, please be assured that I am not addressing you specifically. Any information I post here is primarily to assist other editors, if and when they take the trouble to improve the page. Essentially, the page is now waiting for a logical and constructive editor to rectify the illogical and destructive edits that you have made in the past. Quite frankly, if Wikipedia depends on people like you to make constructive edits, then we may as well not have a Wikipedia! Expoarts (talk) 12:27, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another source just found today pertaining to the World of Fashion Award, is a scan of a page from World of Fashion Magazine, which has been posted in their Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=447795291989578&set=a.275470619222047.43894.274998522602590&type=1&theater Therein, it states quite clearly that Hodges was given the award and also the names of the two people making the presentation (in both English and Italian). Expoarts (talk) 12:27, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier today I was directed to this link: http://www.logos.info/news/world-of-fashion-2/, where "Collezioni Magazine" make specific reference to Hodges as an artist, the exhibition of his work at World of Fashion and also reference to the Imaginisim art movement which Hodges is accredited to as founder Expoarts (talk) 12:42, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a link to the trailer of Hodges' recently produced feature documentary film: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DA08_-NmoxI&feature=youtu.be

Expoarts (talk) 18:19, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is the long link to the trailer of the feature length documentary film (as referenced above), which will be officially released on 12th June 2014. The film pertains primary to Hodges' most recent artwork production "Le Tre Grazie": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DA08_-NmoxI

Expoarts (talk) 14:14, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hodges is now listed in the International Movie Data-Base (IMDB): http://www.imdb.com/name/nm6314035/?ref_=tt_cl_t1. His biography in IMDB (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm6314035/bio?ref_=nm_ov_bio_sm) makes specific reference to his inspirations, which may be used as a citation. Additionally, the following is clearly stated by the author "He excels in the manipulation and control of light, frequently working at the extremes of both high-key and low-key photography" and this text needs to replace the current entry, which incorrectly states (following an edit) "He believes that he excels in the manipulation and control of light, frequently working at the extremes of both high-key and low-key photography".

Expoarts (talk) 22:00, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IMDb biographies shouldn't be used, they're not reliable. After all, they can be written by anyone, much like a Wiki. Sionk (talk) 00:27, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the "He excels..." sentence on IMDb also appears word for word on Hodges' web site. The IMDb bio was written by Giuseppe Lepore, whose name also appears on the most recent post on Hodges' blog. It would be better to provide independent third-party sources. GoingBatty (talk) 02:52, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Giuseppe Lepore is an "independent third-party sources". He is the independent producer of the art series in question, and the fact that Hodges referenced this in his blog is totally irrelevant. Why would he not reference this in his blog and in doing so, how does that render the party in question not independent? So should I assume that each time Hodges references an independent source in his blog that that sourced will then be deemed by you as no longer independent? This Wikipedia logic is beginning to sound like a joke! Expoarts (talk) 09:37, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Expoarts: Wikipedia:Third-party sources states "A third-party source is not affiliated with the event, not paid by the people who are involved, and not otherwise likely to have a conflict of interest or significant bias related to the material." Hopefully the art series will be reviewed by critics or reporters, which would be great sources. Good luck! GoingBatty (talk) 23:06, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. The point I was trying to make on March 12 is that when I that a sentence on Hodges' IMDb biography is exactly the same as the biography page on Hodges' web site (not a blog post), it makes me wonder who the original author of the sentence was. Did Hodges copy it from Lepore, or did Lepore copy it from Hodges? GoingBatty (talk) 23:27, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@GoingBatty:For what reason would you state "hopefully the art series will be reviewed by critics or reporters", when it has already been stated publicly that both the film and book have a national press day scheduled for 12th June? You are seemingly making unfounded bias assumptions? With regard to the IMDb biography, your question seems very easy to answer if logic is applied. As the sentence appeared on Hodges' website a significant period of time before Hodges was ever listed in IMDb, it stands to reason that Lepore extracted the sentence when writing Hodges' biography on IMDb. Would you like me to check, as you seem to be suggesting some kind of deception, although which to me simply suggests prejudice. Expoarts (talk) 18:09, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Expoarts: I hope the press day is a big success for Hodges and all involved, and will result in lots of independent third-party sources for use here. As I stated below, I am not employed in the domain of fine arts. Therefore, I will gracefully bow out of this conversation, and wish you all the best. GoingBatty (talk) 00:00, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@GoingBatty: Inevitably, an official press day will generate third-party sources. However, I have already introduced numerous third-party sources here on this talk page, none of which have been used by any editor to improve the Hodges page. As such, what is the point of introducing yet more third-party sources, when they are not be acted upon. Ultimately, if there is no interest from anybody to improve Hodges' page (and given that I have introduced so much additional content here on this page), I will just edit the page myself and then sit back and wait for other editors to discredit it (which I am sure they will!). It's interesting to be that there seem to be plenty of editors looking to discredit this page but not one that is interested in improving and updating it. Notwithstanding, thank you for your contributions to date, which in the past, have been very helpful. Expoarts (talk) 16:49, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would also add, that in a link which I have previously provided above, two "independent journalists" for FVM magazine wrote "natural lighting in his works is a fascination of Hodges and its manipulation is his forte". In which case, why is this reference not used to correct the sentence to which I have referenced. Are editors actually reading the information I am providing with the intent of improving the page, or is the focus uniquely on trying to discredit the artist. Is any editor at any stage actually going to improve the page and edit the inaccuracies from the information I have provided, or is that of no interest? Expoarts (talk) 19:12, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Expoarts: Assuming good faith is one of the fundamental principles on Wikipedia. I have nothing against Mr. Hodges, and your use of words such as "discredit" and "prejudice" do not inspire me as a volunteer editor untrained in the fine arts to spend hours sifting through a dozen articles and videos to try to determine the notability of each one, and then rewrite the article to help you promote Mr. Hodges.
I suggest you do not edit the article directly, per Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. I'm concerned that if you continue to edit the article directly, another editor may negate your hard work by deleting it or tagging the article with an ugly conflict of interest banner. I appreciate that you have posted here and provided sources, and am sorry that I have been unable to find a qualified editor to help you. In yet another attempt to draw attention to this article, I have just posted to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cooperation#Help requested on Thomas Hodges (artist). Another option is for you to create a userspace draft of the changes you would like to see, which may be easier for interested editors to review. Good luck! GoingBatty (talk) 18:32, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@GoingBatty: Just to clarify, the objective of this exercise is not to "promote" Mr. Hodges, as it is clearly understood that this is not the purpose of an encyclopaedia. However, I would like to see the wrongly placed notoriety tag removed and also see the content updated and corrected. You also mention "continue to edit", but you will note that I have not made any edit whatsoever since my declaration of conflict of interest. Your userspace draft suggestion is a good one, and I will undertake that (as you understand, I am not an experienced Wikipedia editor and was not aware this even existed). My objective here is to see that this page pertaining to an artist that I represent, contains proper and accurate information and is not wrongly tagged (as is currently the case). Ironically, I also represent other artists listed here on Wikipedia, some of which are far less established than Hodges, yet their Wikipedia pages remain unquestioned. I maintain the opinion that certain edits on this page are nothing less than prejudicial and I'm also curious as to why Sionk (who is responsible for incorrect edits of this page), has ignored my invitation to correct and update the page with the additional information I have provided (my understanding is an editor is supposed to "improve" the page?). Another option that occurred to me, is that I ask somebody who is an expert in the fine arts with no conflict of interest, to register with Wikipedia (if not already registered) and make the appropriate edits. Thank you for your continued assistance with this page, it is appreciated. Expoarts (talk) 08:10, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@GoingBatty: I just saw that Sionk has marked the page for deletion, and I note your own comment on that talk page. Interesting that Sionk placed the notoriety tag only in January, since which I provided a mass of additional information (which Sionk has completely ignored!), and here we are prior to the end of March, and a deletion tag has been placed (this editor is obviously in a hurry!). As you are an experienced editor here on Wikipedia, perhaps you could inform me of the procedure to report this nature of prejudice by an editor? Expoarts (talk) 09:01, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Expoarts: Sionk's comments about the "World of Fashion Award" and the IMDb biography above and Sionk's initial statement at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Hodges (artist) lead me to believe that Sionk has reviewed the web sites you provided. I have seen no evidence of Sionk being prejudical against Mr. Hodges. The Wikipedia:Articles for deletion process (I wish it was called "Articles for discussion" instead) will bring more people to look at the article and this talk page, and should call out anyone who is being prejudical (for or against) Mr. Hodges. GoingBatty (talk) 20:26, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@GoingBatty: I am inclined to disagree, because I have provided more than enough information to evidence the notoriety of Hodges, but it's simply being ignored. I'm also conscious of the insinuations being made. As a foundation, we have made a general call for editors via a variety of social networking sites. Hopefully that will also help attract some editors to Hodges' page. Expoarts (talk) 08:51, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Stale
 – This edit request has gotten too old, is too confused in layout, and too much discussion has taken place to make heads or tales of it. I suggest you consider the points made in the discussion and resubmit. Try adding specific language for your requested edits plus the citations. (Something like "In June 2013, Hodges and his work was featured in Fearless Press.citation number" Do this line-by-line for each of the edits and say where you'd like them. – S. Rich (talk) 08:37, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question about recent deletion[edit]

In [edit] the reference to Hodges works in private collections was removed and the title of the header changed. Why is this? Works in prominent private collections are equally as important to works in public collections and as such they should be listed. It is incorrect to state that only public collections are relevant. Expoarts (talk) 22:43, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they're not equally important, to be honest. Every artist makes private sales. Wikipedia puts much more importance on artists who have works in major public collections, such as museums. The claims about work in private collections were cited to blog posts that had lifted the info from Hodges' website bio. Private collectors are much less likely to publicise their art collections, so much more difficult (if not impossible) to verify. There have been questions here about whether Hodges meets Wikipdia's notability criteria and, if he has originals of his work in the collection of a major museum and a university, that may be a good claim of importance/public recognition. Sionk (talk) 03:43, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong, both private and public collections are equally important. In many cases, private collections exceed the importance of public collections. You are employed in the domain of fine arts? You wrote "There have been questions here about whether Hodges meets Wikipdia's notability criteria and, if he has originals of his work in the collection of a major museum and a university". It seems to me only you have raised those questions? Will you be editing this page to include the additional information and links that I have provided or are all of those also not relevant in your opinion? Expoarts (talk) 09:27, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Expoarts: I am not employed in the domain of fine arts, which is why I am not making any assessment of notability. Sionk (talk · contribs) provided a link to Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Creative professionals, which gives the following criteria:
Authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, and other creative professionals:
  1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.
  2. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.
  3. The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
  4. The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.
@Sionk: Correction, you are making "assessment of notability", because you tagged the page as questioning notability, yet by your own admission, you are not employed in fine arts and seemingly have a limited understanding of the subject. You quote four criteria and based on what you have quoted, there is clearly no question of Hodges' notoriety. As such, would you like to remove your tag, as you have clearly made an error? I asked if you were intending to edit this page to update the additional (relevant) information which I have provided, which included a major solo exhibition at national level and two new bodies of work. You have ignored that question! Are you actually interested in improving this page or are you simply interested in trying to discredit the artist, because my impression is the latter? Expoarts (talk) 18:45, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
While it seems that Wikipedia puts more emphasis on public collections, others may believe that private collections are also important. If you're interested in changing the criteria that Wikipedia uses to determine notability, you may wish to post to Wikipedia talk:Notability (people). Hope this helps! GoingBatty (talk) 23:18, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@GoingBatty: You wrote "it seems that Wikipedia puts more emphasis on public collections", which seems to also suggest that Wikipedia does not preclude private collections. As such, why would I wish to change the criteria that Wikipedia uses? The edit was obviously an error as whilst Wikipedia may put "emphasis" on public collections, I can see nothing to suggest that private collections should be precluded (public collections were already listed). The edit was completely unwarranted as the listing was perfectly accurate as was. As such, this edit needs to be reversed. Expoarts (talk) 18:45, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Are they verifiable? Unlikely. A long list of private sales may also be WP:UNDUE without good reason. Some things are appropriate for an encyclopedia and other things should stay in the CV/artist's promotional material. You are clearly intent on promoting your artist in great detail, but this isn't the place to do it. Sionk (talk) 20:49, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Sionk: You are mistaken, I have no intent to use this page to "promote" my artist, but by the same token, you seemingly have the intent to discredit the artist. As I have stated (and in a accordance with the Wiki criteria that you yourself posted above), this artist clearly meets the notoriety requirements. With regard to the "long list of private sales" to which you refer, this is not the intention, nor did it exist before you wrongly edited the page to exclude the mention of both "Private and Public" collections. Are they verifiable?, in some cases yes, and where not, citations can be requested and added in due course. As such, I once again invite you to remove the tag which you wrongly placed and edit the page with the additional information that I have provided, to thus both improve and correct it. My interest is to eliminate inappropriate and incorrect edits, nothing more and nothing less. Expoarts (talk) 16:59, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've raised an Articles for Deletion discussion to try and resolve these issues with the help of other participants. Clearly there ahve been questions hanging over this article for several years and they're not going to get sorted out by a 'tit-for-tat' between the two of us. Sionk (talk) 17:48, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see many "questions hanging over this article" until your recent appearance on the page (which to me simply raises the question of your true objective here). I agree, this page needs "other participants". When I have some time free, I will create draft edits of the page in my Sandbox (as per GoingBatty's suggestion). Hopefully this will be of assistance to the new participants, if and when they arrive. Expoarts (talk) 12:59, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Thomas Hodges (artist). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:23, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Thomas Hodges (artist). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:24, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy[edit]

should the below article be added to this page?

https://news.ltn.com.tw/news/society/breakingnews/1095464

Incompetent88 (talk) 09:42, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

From what I understand from Google Translate, Hodges lost a lawsuit and had to pay a model a large sum of money for displaying and selling photos without her consent. Seems worth mentioning briefly. The article also gives some general biographical info about Hodges and his wife, so useful for supporting his general notability. Sionk (talk) 12:02, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate any help in doing this, I have never edited a wiki article before but thought this was important Incompetent88 (talk) 12:30, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Thomas_Hodges_(artist)&oldid=1205403739"