Talk:A Surge of Power (Jen Reid) 2020

Does this require its own article?

I'm just curious if this art piece meets the standards required for it to have its own article, or if it would be more appropriate to instead remain wholly in the artist's own page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Quinn) which already references the statue. 2A01:4C8:C46:25DC:2128:8153:9A7E:3ABD (talk) 09:28, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

That would depend largely on whether it meets the notability guidelines. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:42, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm sure that with the international coverage this statue is notable in its own right. However there are other Quinn statues that are notable but that do not have their own article. Maybe a better time to raise this is in a week or so when the dust settles (or doesn't). Victuallers (talk) 09:46, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree (in relation to a better time being about a week from now to determine its suitability as a standalone article). Hence, why I originally raised it in the first place. I do believe it's not within Wikipedia's usual practice to release an article first and THEN determine its notability a week (or longer) down the line. I thus feel its addition is somewhat premature at this stage; especially for it to be listed as "high importance" within the BLM and Bristol WikiProjects, and since there's so little information about it even as is.2A01:4C8:C46:25DC:C448:35CE:D6A4:C3A0 (talk) 14:16, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

High importance?? Nearly every thing is assessed as "low" ...the "top" division is rarely used. If you want to amend it then I'm sure very few will challenge it (including me). What I am hoping is that MARC QUINN will SEE THIS MESSAGE and help us solve the issue of pictures of the statue. Is it Marc and Jen's idea that Wikipedia should not have a good image of this sculpture? I suspect Marc's statement that is "isn't permanent" is self deprecation ... and he would'nt object if it was made permanent and doesnt intend to remove it (ie not "temporary"). He may not realise that his statement that it is temporary is causing Wikipedia to delete pictures of it (I hope he will help). Victuallers (talk) 15:18, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Maybe I'm reading it wrong (I probably am), but the Talk page does appear to be listed in the "high importance" sections of the Bristol (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:High-importance_Bristol_articles) and BLM (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:High-importance_Black_Lives_Matter_articles) WikiProjects. As I'm not a part of, or affiliated, to either group I'm not sure if I'm actually in a position - or have the authority - to remove those designations. Am I right in thinking that the reason for the designation (at the moment) is with thehopes that it would reach the original sculptor's attention and/or a third party to obtain a better quality image? Similarly, I'm quite new to the whole editing process and so don't know the precise protocol with regards to what to do about an article if I feel it's been published too early (i.e. does not pass the notability criterion) aside from first raising it up in the Talk page to discuss with the relevant contributors. Ultimately, that's my main issue - as long as it's determined that it's passed the notability muster (particularly: WP:SUSTAINED and WP:EVENTCRIT), I'm satisfied and have no further problems. 2A01:4C8:C46:25DC:C448:35CE:D6A4:C3A0 (talk) 15:41, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

The importance of Marc Quinn would have guaranteed this article's notability even without its temporary citing. No Swan So Fine (talk) 10:20, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

If that's the case and consensus, that's fine by me. The reason I originally raised it was mainly because none of his other works appeared to have sufficient notability as to warrant their own individual articles and so wondered why this particular work warranted one within hours of it being erected; and so thought it odd, premature and potentially agenda-driven (i.e. biased). However, at this juncture, there looks to be enough material on the subject for a standalone article separate from the artist's article to be worthwhile. 2A01:4C8:C46:25DC:6560:FC87:4289:BCF (talk) 22:06, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

It passes WP:GNG by a mile, because of the world-wide mainstream media coverage about it. We have large numbers of articles about far less famous statues. -- The Anome (talk) 22:15, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. At this point, there's been plenty of coverage. 2A01:4C8:C46:25DC:6560:FC87:4289:BCF (talk) 22:30, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

It wasn't necessary to create it in the first place, but now that it's here, I suppose it's significant enough to remain for about a month, after which (I guess) everyone's going to forget about it. That is when it should be deleted. HalfdanRagnarsson (talk) 16:24, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

I had wondered why the original statue didn't have an article until recently. The decision is that it was notable enough to have one, but no-one got around to writing it. There is: Actions_against_memorials_in_the_United_Kingdom_during_the_George_Floyd_protests (and I presume ones for other countries). I suspect that this one will stay notable, being the first one. If so many are built, we might need Statues replacing toppled statues installed without authorization but I suspect it won't be that many. It is the installation in place of the original that makes it notable, as that is rare. Gah4 (talk) 18:02, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Transient- permanent

I commented on one of the targetted photos:

• This in the terms of the UK fop law is a permanent work, in the sense that it is not transient like a performance artist. It is 'claimed not to be permanent, in the sense that its final location is in dispute- like the Elgin Marbles.

That is permanent in common usage which has nothing to do with copyright law.

• Marc Quinn said in radio interview that the installation was done in such a way that it was designed to make it difficult to remove- thus showing the artist intention to protect its permanance.
• The Bristol Mayor has stated, that the statue will be moved which he can't do if it is a transient work. He said what goes on the plinth is for the people of Bristol- he can't do if it is a transient work.

There has been an attempt to speedy delete, with an option of nomination this for deletion. The is a nonsense as this image is legit, and a debate needs to be had to decide help WP to understand fop. I fear that the existing fop may need to be clarified by UK case law. I am no lawyer but it seems like our confusing definition of notable ; this is a case of us meaning not transient while Marc uses the word to mean he expect that it will be been moved several times. ClemRutter (talk) 17:56, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm convinced, but we have our over keen rule keepers to deal with. I think WMUK/WMF should exercise their legal judgement to establish de facto case law. The WMF are surprisingly bold in some of their legal pronouncements, ignoring the infamous precautionary principal. Victuallers (talk) 23:14, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Yup, ridiculous - the legal definition of permanent is being misunderstood Mujinga (talk) 00:10, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Photo

Could someone please take a photo showing the sculpture more clearly, like the second one in Guardian article (ie against sky, not trees)? PamD 05:26, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Slave trader, philanthropist

Do we really need to have this debate on Edward Colston here too. Some say one ,some say something the other. Isn’t it sufficient for this discussion to take place around the Colston article and not here too?--Egghead06 (talk) 05:48, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

umm, which debate here about Colston?? Victuallers (talk) 07:11, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Presumably the use of the word "philanthropist" as a descriptor. Given that was the reason the original statue was raised, and given the word is used on the other related articles, I don't think there is an issue using it here too. - SchroCat (talk) 10:23, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Was Colston a philanthropist? That slave trader? Colston made his fortune through human suffering. How many human beings were branded like cattle with the company initials RAC? In the 19th century he was promoted by rich and selective group of Bristol businessmen. Controversial than, controversial today. Disgusting. The Society of Merchant Venturers helped set up and run many of the institutions and charities that still bear his name. They are accused of continuing to "celebrate a slave trader". He was promoted as a local benefactor in Bristol, but his charities supported only people aligned with his political and religious views. The wording should be amended so as to avoid describing him as a "philanthropist". --217.234.67.242 (talk) 13:14, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the trade he was involved with was disgusting - a stain on the historical conscience. But we don't make such value judgements in the articles, we go by what the sources say. Although the source of his money was tainted, he acted with the proceeds as a philanthropist by giving away to what he considered worthy causes - as anyone who gives money to charity does. The very reason he has a statue is largely down to this philanthropy - without it there would have been no statue to pull down. We can't ignore that part of his character or history if we are to address the subject in a neutral manner. - SchroCat (talk) 13:19, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

The reference to Colston as a "philanthropist" has been discussed at a WP:RFC (closed as "deadlock") and is now again under discussion at WP:DRN#Edward Colston. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:32, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Soapboxing

@SchroCat: No, I cannot emphasise how important this is, and as I already wrote, and please educate yourself: the very reason he had a statue is because 170 after his death a bunch of extremely powerful and wealthy group (SMV - Society of Merchant Venturers) were frightened by growing working class unrest. Colston had been a SMV-member for almost 40 years and left huge trusts in their care. Most gruesomely, they keep Colston’s hair and nails as relics in their meeting hall. Disgusting. During the Victorian era SMV were a key part of the project to launder Colston’s reputation building what local historian Rev HJ Wilkins called “the Cult of Colston.” This was an ideologically-driven campaign to represent him not as a bloodthirsty slave trader but as “one of the most virtuous and wise sons of their city” as was written on the statue’s plaque. The aim was to inspire the workers of Bristol into adopting his values to make them more "productive employees" and not to revolt against exploitation. There should be no place for this sort of organisation, a typical elite body that uses philanthropy to launder reputations and assert undemocratic control.

It is recognized that Colston’s statue was erected around the same time as monuments were being erected in the US retrospectively glorifying the Confederate cause, and so paving the way for the introduction of Jim Crow (segregationist) legislation. In the same era, statues proliferated throughout Europe and the British Empire which championed colonialist figures such as Cecil Rhodes and King Leopold.

• The Slaver’s Protectors: "During the Victorian era SMV (Society of Merchant Venturers) were a key part of the project to launder Colston’s reputation building what local historian Rev HJ Wilkins called “the Cult of Colston.” This was an ideologically-driven campaign to represent him not as a bloodthirsty slave trader but as “one of the most virtuous and wise sons of their city” as was written on the statue’s plaque. The aim was to inspire the workers of Bristol into adopting his values to make them more productive employees."

Stopp adorneding Colston’s toe-nail clippings! --217.234.68.159 (talk) 07:16, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

It is not "soapboxing", as we have once again, two time in a row "philanthropist" in the article. By your doing. Do you want to insult? --217.234.68.159 (talk) 08:01, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

• SchroCat - please stop deleting/archiving comments by others in this active discussion. As per WP:TPO Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed, but normally you should stop if there is any objection --LukeSurl ^{t c} 09:14, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes please leave it so we can fairly discuss the applicability to the article. Gah4 (talk) 09:29, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

OK, now to discuss it. The article is about the new statue. (Well, for a short time anyway.) How much discussion of the previous statue in its place is needed? I suspect not very much, but lets fairly discuss it, and not remove things without discussion. It took me much longer to figure this out, having to follow all the delete/restore, than to just read it. Gah4 (talk) 09:32, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

• Fuck me ... you think Colston's toenails and the "Confederate cause" are relevant and worthy of consideration?? See WP:TALK#OBJECTIVE ("Comments that are plainly irrelevant are subject to archival or removal"), which means I'm within the guidelines to archive or delete.

  IP, I'm sorry you cannot write, spell or put a coherent argument together, but apparently some people think your drivel is worth keeping here. What I will point out to you - as I have done on your talk page - is that if you actually read what has been written in the discussion #Context in lead - and engage your brain when you do so - you will see it was me who suggested an alternative version that was in place for most of yesterday and was only changed this morning. Your drivel is best directed at the person who wants the full description of Colston in the article, not at me, who has trimmed it down to what it currently is. - SchroCat (talk) 09:36, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

This comment SchroCat is uncivil and self contradictory. If comments that are clearly irrelevant should be be deleted then your comment above should have been deleted by you as you wrote it. It is uncivil and its says nothing useful about anyone but yourself. I would delete it, but I think you should consider it as it undermines any of your future comments. Victuallers (talk) 08:16, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Why are you trying to stir up trouble nearly three weeks after the last comments here when there has been no grief or aggravation on this page since then? Disruptive attempts to stir more dramah? Making such vacuous comments say nothing useful about anyone but yourself. Don't bother replying, I'm not interested, and don't ping me again. - SchroCat (talk) 08:28, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Removers

As shown in footage of the removal, the workers & the vehicle they used are from a company called ETM. The article should be reworded, as it makes readers believe that council workers removed the statue, as opposed to contractors hired by the council. Jim Michael (talk) 12:48, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Does it make a difference? Ultimately, it was the city council who requested and were responsible for the statue's removal. Hiring third party contractors is pretty much par the course when a government body needs to do a non-routine task that requires specialised skills and knowledge. 2A01:4C8:C46:25DC:6560:FC87:4289:BCF (talk) 21:50, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

If it isn't too hard, I think the article could make it more obvious. When I read it, I did tend to believe that they actually did it. Gah4 (talk) 09:35, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's worth the difference. The council made the decision and paid for it to be done. The fact they sub-contracted it out (as is the norm nowadays) doesn't seem to matter: the council were the ones behind it. - SchroCat (talk) 11:17, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

I think you are right, but when I first read it I was imagining the council members going out and doing it. Gah4 (talk) 17:55, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Context in lead

LukeSurl, Can you explain why you keep removing the context from the lead? It only tells part of the story without the information you've removed. - SchroCat (talk) 13:28, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

See my comment two sections above. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 13:44, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

We don't need to go too far into detail on Colston the person, in terms of both positive and negative descriptions. This article is two removed from Colston himself (Edward Colston -> Statue of Edward Colston -> A Surge of Power (Jen Reid) 2020). I think the current level of detail is OK in the Background section and too much in the lede. With appropriate wikilinks the full articles on Colston and his statue are only a click away for the reader. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 13:22, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

To be precise, the lede does not need any job description for Colston, nor does it need to say anything about the Colston statue (defaced, thrown into harbour) other than its removal from the plinth. Neither of these are specifically about the statue that is the subject of the article - ledes should focus on the subject of the article and not tangential details about other subjects. These details are adequately covered in the Background section. If anything, we should be putting more in the article about Reid, who is the subject of the sculpture. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 13:32, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Of course it needs to describe who/what Colston was. It needs to be understood by someone who only reads the lead who the statue was of and why it was taken down. That's the context. If a reader who is only half interested reads a couple of lines, and clicks on a link to find out more, they may not come back to this page, and the point of all the information below the lead is for people to read - but you have to tell the whole story in a nutshell in the lead. Gutting it as you have done tells readers nothing about the background at all. - SchroCat (talk) 14:00, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I do not agree. Edward Colston is not the subject of the article. The Statue of Edward Colston is not the subject of the article. The removal of the Edward Colston statue is not the subject of the article. The necessary context is that a plinth was made vacant by the protests, leaving a space for the statue which is the subject of the article. We can expand on this in the Background section. This article is about a statue of Jen Reid, and it is not appropriate to devote more space in the lede to the man who was the subject of a different statue than to the woman who is the subject of this one. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 14:15, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

But you need the background to understand the context of why this particular statue (with a black woman and the black power fist) replaced it. I understand there is the question of the word "philanthropist": if we trim the description down to"statue of Edward Colston, who had been involved in the Atlantic slave trade, had been toppled, defaced and pushed into the city's harbour by George Floyd protesters the previous month", would that work? It has all the main points of the context as to why the statue was removed and by who. I think the lead will be massively lacking without some description of Colston and why the statue was removed. - SchroCat (talk) 14:26, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

There is an entire section - "Background" - in the article, giving detail of the statue of Colston that was toppled, and about Colston himself. There is absolutely no need for that detailed information to be in the opening paragraph as well. The opening paragraph should summarise the article as a whole, and the article is about the statue of Reid, not about Colston or his statue. So, the info about Colston in the opening paragraph should be removed or (as in my edit) severely trimmed. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:27, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

You need the context to understand why that statue, that plinth. Disembowelling the key points of the reason behind 'why that statue, why that plinth' is not the way to get people to understand. And you need to remember that studies of reader habit show a high proportion of people will only read the lead, not the rest, so the lead has to give sufficient information for understanding. There is an alternative suggestion above. - SchroCat (talk) 14:31, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I think it's still unnecessarily long, but it's certainly an improvement on the current version. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:34, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Better, but it seems to belie an assumption that this effectively is a sub-article of Statue of Edward Colston rather than an article about a sculpture that has independent notability. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 14:57, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't see how that conclusion can be reached. It's certainly no sub-article, and the main focus of the text is on the new artwork. But there has to be the context of how that artwork came into being - an explanation of 'why that statue, why that plinth'. It's obvious to us now, but in five or ten years it will be mystifying for people who want the potted version a lead is supposed to carry. A reader needs to have the context (ie. that the statue of someone involved in the slave trade) was torn down in protests and replaced by someone involved in the protests. If you take out the reason for Colston's statue being there, you remove the reason for the protest and the reason for Reid to have stood on the plinth. - SchroCat (talk) 15:02, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Maybe it's just me but - perhaps in our push for brevity - the paragraph does read a touch clunkily. Might I suggest "It was erected surreptitiously in the early morning of 15 July 2020, on the empty plinth originally occupied by the 19th-century statue of Edward Colston after it was toppled by George Floyd protestors the previous month due to Colston's involvement in the slave trade." 2A01:4C8:C46:25DC:6560:FC87:4289:BCF (talk) 22:26, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

The lead should be a concise, but also an accurate and neutral summary of the pertinent content of the article. Removing all but one of the elements in the brief summary of Colston's career leaves a very one-sided POV of him. That's not acceptable, especially as the main reason for the statue existing was one of the things removed. Our job is to serve the reader, not our own bigotry. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:42, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

The key point (about the slave trade) is in the lead - in terms of the statue, the slave trade is the pertinent piece of information. The more complete background description of Colston's career is in the Background section. We have the core information in brief form in the lead, and the more complete in the body. That is pretty much how it should be done in any article. - SchroCat (talk) 10:12, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree with SchroCat, per my comments further up this thread. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:17, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

No, that's only one of the key points. The others, and the reason for the statue in the first place, is that he was a trader, a philanthropist and an MP. Leaving out any of those could give a distorted view of him to the readers (remember those?). Now let's follow WP:BRD and restore the status quo until a consensus to change it is achieved. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:27, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

This article is not about the statue of Colston, it's about the statue of Reid. We don't need to give every snippet of background information in the lead - readers use links. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:37, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

If we are to describe what he did, then we shouldn't describe just the one, and most controversial, aspect of that. We should either give due weight to each aspect, or alternately describe none at all. For now it badly fails the NPOV and DUE tests. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:25, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

If this was the Statue of Edward Colston article, I would agree that a more complete description of Colston is necessary (one that gives enough context to say why it was erected and why it was torn down), but this is the article on a piece of artwork. The part of Colston's history that is relevant for this piece of artwork - and this is just for the lead - is the connection with the slave trade (it explains 'why that statue, why that plinth'). In other words, we don't need to know - in the lead - why the statue went up, we need to know why it came down. Outside the lead we can give a more complete description that includes why it was raised, but the lead is supposed to summarise the key points as to how and why that piece of art exists, which the current version does. - SchroCat (talk) 10:44, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

This leaves the lead lacking balance, as I just wrote in reply to Ghmyrtle directly above. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:29, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Except that what you wrote to Ghmyrtle is flawed. The lead contains enough information to explain 'why that statue, why that plinth'. The lead covers the key point of why the statue came down, and that is because he was involved in the slave trade. We do not need, in the lead, to know why the statue went up. Instead we cover that in the body. There is absolutely no failure of NPOV or DUE. This is not the Statue of Edward Colston article, it is the article on "A Surge of Power (Jen Reid)", and it deals with the context in an appropriate manner when viewed from the point of view of the artwork. - SchroCat (talk) 13:38, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

That context is important though, if we interested in NPOV. IMHO, and per MOS:LEADPARAGRAPH, if we have the one, we must have the other. And even if you disagree, you should revert your removal of that balance until a consensus is achieved here. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:48, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

You're right that the context is important, but only why the statue was taken down. There is nothing inherently non-neutral in not covering why the statue was raised in the first place. The subject in this article is the artwork, not Colston, his career and statue, so I think we have the right balance. - SchroCat (talk) 14:53, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

It is blatantly non-neutral to use a one-sided description of Colston in the lead, and it means casual readers will get a distorted context. We need to restore it all or remove it all. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:08, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

I disagree, given the subject of this article, and I don't see anyone else supporting that position at the moment. Perhaps it's best if we leave the question open for others to chip in to see if a different line of thinking comes up. - SchroCat (talk) 15:12, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough, but don't forget to revert your last edit, to restore the status quo version pending any future consensus supporting your removal of that content. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:16, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Might it be a workable compromise if we simply took it all out (Colston's philantropy, political career and involvement in the slave trade); leaving it all in the background instead? Ultimately, the key points that the abstract needs to cover is that a statue was placed on a vacated plinth after the previous statue was removed by a third party (i.e. the Jess Reid statue was placed there after the Colston statue was removed by George Floyd protestors). Why the initial statue was removed by said third party in the first place is ultimately less relevant and is an additional details not immediately needed to understand the article. The message behind the Jess Reid statue would've been the same whether it'd been placed on that plinth or at any place. Otherwise, the subject of the article should be about the plinth or the location, rather than the Jess Reid statue. A big reason why I can understand how just including Colston's involvement in the slave trade in the abstract/introduction, to the exclusion of everything else he did, would be inappropriate, is that it gives the impression to the reader that he has a statue commemorating him BECAUSE of his involvement in the slave trade. Which is at worst factually untrue and at best a highly contentious claim not universally held by the general public. 2A01:4C8:C46:25DC:140:E13D:778A:BB32 (talk) 17:48, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Sounds like a good compromise to me. Like I said above, we need to restore all the context in the lead, or remove the rest of it. Having no context is better than the current misleading and non-neutral selected partial context. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:12, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Missing content x2

1: There's no description of the sculpture: nothing tells us it's of a black woman in contemporary clothing.

2: How high is the plinth (3m?): this makes the stealthy installation the more impressive. Can't see it in the Colston statue article or NHLE listing.

I can't do much today: broken internet connection and only feeble data signal to phone, so can't SOFIXIT. PamD 13:49, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I've added "young black woman" per this source. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:12, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Reid as co-artist?

In the joint statement made on Quinn's website both Quinn and Reid describe the work as a collaboration (R: I’m collaborating with Marc Quinn on this project..., Q: I contacted Jen via social media to discuss the idea of the sculpture and she told me she wanted to collaborate.). I can't see any text from Quinn where this work is presented as solely his own, in fact the Guardian reports him saying “Jen created the sculpture when she stood on the plinth and raised her arm in the air ... Now we’re crystallising it.”.

Normally artists' subjects are not credited as artists (a question more common in the field of photography), and news organisations seem to generally describe this as Quinn's work. However if Quinn and Reid agree this is a collaborative work, then it seems this should be reflected in this article. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 14:06, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I've edited to this effect. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 14:24, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Copyright status of the available photographs

I emailed Marc Quinn's studio about him issuing a statement to say our existing photograph was OK, in effect whether images of his 'temporary work' were free to use; as FoP is being disputed. For newcomers there are two copyrights to consider: that the photographer releases them as CC-BY-SA works, but also whether the artist agrees to the images of their 3D non-permanent work being CC-SA free.

I got an answer to the email but not to the question. They sent a press pack saying we were free to use an image from there, as an alternative. Simplest, if I just quote, Thank you for getting in touch, we’re glad to see the Wiki page and thank you for all of your hard work and effort! We have a selection of press images which have captions, were taken by the studio, and are available here:

https://drive.google.com/drive/u/1/folders/1871OhRS-NP_pbnwt5Yy0ddtoD9sqHG2Z

Does replacing the lost image with one of these solve the problem? If using, please can you ensure that each image with the title that they have been given in the Drive, and be sure to include ‘Copyright Marc Quinn studio’? You can also read Jen and Marc’s statements here if you’d like to add anything further. We appreciate your time on this matter and watched with admiration as the Wiki page has grown over the past 24 hours.

I will write back to morrow and see what sort of copyright Marc wants us to include. Personally I would prefer to include an image from Marc's set, if they are open enough, as they are clearer.ClemRutter (talk) 19:15, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

A short report (video) on a German site. With interviews in English

https://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/bristol-skulptur-der-black-lives-matter-demonstrantin-jen-reid-wird-entfernt-a-eec46bd1-2f2c-43c3-b00e-522b287809c8

Qwertzu111111 (talk) 08:54, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Context 2

OK, start a new discussion, (leaving the one above), on how much context discussion on the previous statue is needed. Since there is now a whole article, Statue_of_Edward_Colston, on the previous one, it seems to me that minimal context is needed here. Unless that one doesn't stay around. Gah4 (talk) 09:42, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Both statues seem evidently notable to me. I can't envisage either article being deleted. LukeSurl ^{t c} 10:01, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't think Gah4 is suggesting that. S/he seems to be talking about the amount of context needed in this article. - SchroCat (talk) 10:05, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

I think the current sentence "It was placed on the empty plinth from which a 19th-century statue of Edward Colston, who had been involved in the Atlantic slave trade, had been toppled, defaced and pushed into the city's harbour by George Floyd protesters the previous month." is fine for the lead: it gives enough context, concisely, and interested readers can follow any of those three links for more information. PamD 11:40, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes. I was suggesting that if the other article went away, that this one would need more context. I don't know at all if that is likely. I do believe that the discussion here should stay, even though I agree that it doesn't belong in the article. (We can't discuss it not going in the article if there is nothing to discuss.) I also wonder, just a little bit, how notable a statue should be to have an article. More specifically, why didn't it have one before? If something is notable enough to build a statue for, should it be notable enough for an article? (I suppose that goes in the page on notability.) Otherwise, it seems about right to me now. Gah4 (talk) 18:04, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

I disagree with the current version; mainly due to the phraseology. By simply describing Colston in terms of his involvement in the slave trade without his other roles in history, it gives the readers the impression that the statue commemorates him BECAUSE of his involvement in the slave trade; which would be a very contentious claim to make. I feel it would be better if the paragraph was restructured to instead show that the George Floyd protestors were motivated by his role in the slave trade when they removed the statue. At least that way, it makes clear that this was why it was removed without intimating that it was why his statue was placed there in the first place. So, for instance: "It was erected surreptitiously in the early morning of 15 July 2020, on the empty plinth originally occupied by the 19th-century statue of Edward Colston after it was toppled by George Floyd protestors the previous month due to Colston's involvement in the slave trade." 2A01:4C8:C46:25DC:140:E13D:778A:BB32 (talk) 18:08, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

No, the article body makes clear his life and career, the lead makes no reference to the reason behind the statue's erection. We have an article abut Colston and one about the statue, where there is a lot more information. - SchroCat (talk) 18:14, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

It seems that the slave trade was very lucrative, so we shouldn't be surprised that he might have been rich. Also, however, we don't know in detail the thoughts and motivations of those who removed the statue. (Some, at least, have been removed for less obvious reasons.) Those who want to know more about Colston know where to find it. Gah4 (talk) 18:41, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

@SchroCat My comment was in regards to the introduction/abstract where the discussion is the most divisive on. @Gah4 If the motivation behind the removal of the Colston statue is unclear, then it is even more reason for the comment on his involvement in the slave trade be excluded in the introduction of the article as it would be editorialising. 2A01:4C8:C46:25DC:140:E13D:778A:BB32 (talk) 18:50, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

@SchroCat Having mulled on the issue further, I thought I might expand on my issue for added clarity. The problem isn't whether the detail can be found in Wikipedia but rather whether the article as presented biases the view of the reader towards a particular perspective or interpretation by selectively including certain facts and excluding others. Singling out Colston's involvement in the slave trade as the only detail about the man gives the impression that his statue is there, insofar as the introduction is concerned. If then including additional details about his life in the background is sufficient to provide the context relating to Colston's role in the Jen Reid statue, then I would think that the inclusion of his involvement in the slave trade in this section would be similarly appropriate. 2A01:4C8:C46:25DC:140:E13D:778A:BB32 (talk) 19:32, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree with IP 2A01:4C8:C46:25DC:140:E13D:778A:BB32 on this, any context, whether in the lead or elsewhere in the article, needs to give a neutral portrayal of Colston. There is an ongoing discussion above at #Context in lead relating to this. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:23, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Of course you do, but both you and the IP miss the concept of context. Without that, the lead is misleading, second rate and substandard. I don’t know why that should be our aim here. As I’ve said above (and has been ignored by defacto), I think it best if the noisier voices (yes, especially mine) are a little quieter to allow others to have their say. - SchroCat (talk) 00:01, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

I grasp your concept of context. My argument is that Colston's role in the slave trade is immaterial for a basic understanding about the statue and event, which is the function of the abstract/brief summary of the topic in the introduction. At most, the part that is actually pertinent is that the protesters removed his statue because of his involvement in his slave trade, not his involvement itself; a nuanced difference but a significant one. Hence, my earlier suggestion above about changing the phrasing of the paragraph. Because - and as I highlighted as my main concern, for which you have not addressed - is that singling out that specific detail, and burying every other detail about him to be searched either in other sections of the article or in entirely different articles, gives readers the impression that Colston has a statue as celeberation for his being a slave trader. 2A01:4C8:C46:25DC:140:E13D:778A:BB32 (talk) 01:36, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Ok, background says: 18th-century Bristol merchant, philanthropist and Tory Member of Parliament who had been involved in the Atlantic slave trade which gives three things besides the slave trade, and even at that doesn't say how involved he was in the slave trade. Seems that could have been a wide range of involved, and we don't need to make an assumption either way. Would it be better to say that in context? Gah4 (talk) 04:31, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

I expanded the context to reflect notoriety in previous years prior to its toppling. This is important as it reflects the fact that anger was the statue was present prior to the Floyd protests.No Swan So Fine (talk) 05:21, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

@Gah4 That's in the Background section, where as my issue is specifically in the article's Introduction section. Colston's involvement is similarly mentioned in the background section and so, by the standards you've established, mentioning his involvement in the slave trade in the background section (as opposed to in the introductory section as well), would be sufficient as well in terms of providing context. The introduction to an article sets its tone. My concern is that all including his involvement in the slave trade specifically in the introduction achieves, particularly the way the parapgraph in phrased, is that it frames the city and people of Bristol are a bunch of racists because they erected a statue to honour someone for selling and buying slaves. 2A01:4C8:C46:25DC:140:E13D:778A:BB32 (talk) 09:44, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Well it seems that it was made in 1895, and I suspect that by today's standard the people of Bristol were racist. But it isn't fair to judge them by today's standard, and even more, it isn't up to the context section of the article to do that. But okay, would it be reasonable to put philanthropist or parliament in context instead? I suspect that his slave dealings are the reason for the toppling, but do we have a WP:RS for that? Gah4 (talk) 12:54, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Map

Doesn't seem to indicate location correctly: compare with map in The Centre, Bristol. PamD 23:43, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

PamD, Has this been resolved? Curious if this section can be archived. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:28, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Another Believer I see that the map is now labelled "Location in Clifton, Bristol where the sculpture is now held by Bristol City Council", which seems pretty pointless: the location of the council's museum storage area is not of significance to the reader. I'd have thought that a map showing its original position would be the only relevant map to include, but I'm not a maps technical expert so can't offer to produce one , and the map in Statue of Edward Colston shows that statue's journey to the water, not just its original location. PamD 18:55, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

@PamD: Wikipedia has a vast array of alternative toys. The mapframe parameter in the infobox is not one I use- it makes too many decisions for you and wont let you mark multiple points. For that one uses |module= {{OSM Location map}}. I have editted the page with a map showing the plinth, and the storage location. I have been playing with maps as I couldn't understand the documentation and need maps for each school article I destub. I have some blank matrices on my user page. I was particular proud of this transparent overlay.Little Venice ClemRutter (talk) 21:30, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

@ClemRutter: Looks good, thanks. PamD 06:43, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't think we can be sure that the statue is currently in storage at the museum — if it was moved or collected from there I doubt that would have made the news. As Pam says, where the statue is/was in storage is not really of interest to the reader. Personally I'd be happy with just a pointer to the plinth, or no map at all. This map was added to the article when the location of the statue was a significant thing, and now it sits awkwardly in the article. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 09:21, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree with LukeSurl, we do not need the map as we no longer know where the statue is. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:40, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I think the site for which the statue was created has significance, even if it was only there for just over 24 hours, so a map showing that spot would be useful, appropriately labelled, something like "Site of the plinth on which the statue was installed on 15 July 2020". PamD 19:13, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

The first question that a general reader asks is where is it- the general reader in much of the UK doesn't know Bristol- it is just Wikipedians that wish to be picky. Maps are more informative than prose for some of us. There seems to be a general fear of OSM map markup code. If you want to add another 30 or so markers it would be possible. Changing the marker label is trivial. ClemRutter (talk) 09:56, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

I've removed the map for now. A pointer to the plinth may be interesting in the article at the right point, but for the infobox I don't see it appropriate to put on a location when we can't be certain where it is. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 12:53, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

• The current location of the statue has no significance - the council's storage area could be anywhere. But the location of the plinth for which the statue was designed, and where it stood in its brief public exposure, is central to its story, and I support the reintroduction of a map which shows the location of the plinth. PamD 08:03, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

• I've put a map in with a pointer to the plinth in the section about the statue's temporary location. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 08:52, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

@LukeSurl: Thanks, looks good. PamD 11:54, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to new editors & Women in Red project

Good morning to you all- well it was morning when I started this post! I was thinking that we must have a lot of dedicated sincere folks who are looking at a Wikipedia talk page for the first time- and watching a Wikipedia page develop.

I know we say that 'anyone can edit Wikipedia- and start a new page. That may have be true 13 years ago when I started, but there is now a steep unwelcoming learning curve- a sort of institutional cliquism. Yes studies have been made- acknowledged- and it has just got worse. That doesn't mean that the regular editors are unfriendly- just battle scarred. In fact we are desperate for you to join us. If you have got an idea, talk to me on my talk page-- or any of my sympathetic friends who have posting here. We will gently get you started.

We have the Women in Red project where Wikipedians world wide try to address the gender bias, register a user name and click on Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red to join. There are hundreds of little tasks to do- correcting typos- rewriting my appalling English- matching photos with articles- checking references.

We dont have a Wikipedia:WikiProject Taking a knee but its a great title. This could be the first article. I do think we need one to embrace Black lives matter issues- but even if we want to, we can't achieve much without an influx of editors. ClemRutter (talk) 18:08, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

I am not so sure why this is here, but it might be a popular page for new editors. Yes there isn't very much to tell new editors how to start. I suspect it is best to start making small edits to a page, but there might be some cases for whole new pages as a first try. Gah4 (talk) 19:07, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

• A Surge of Power (50115756351).jpg
• A Surge of Power (Jen Reid) 15th July 2020.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:15, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

See also - Scott Holmquist

I do not see sufficient connection to justify the see also link to Scott Holmquist, particularly as there is no article for the specific sculpture. - LukeSurl ^{t c} 19:42, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Kreuzberger Standbild

I am unsure whether the connection is close enough for it to be included, and the article in not very strong, though the reference is certainly is. Both Jen and the Dealer have done something 'wrong in the eyes of the law' and are being celebrated by the artist. Both statues were removed immediately by the authorities. (July 2020 and October 2019) Their causes were however different- and Holmquists work has a lower profile in the Anglophone world. The pose that Holmquist used is remarkable similar to the one adopted in Thomas J. Price forthcoming Hackney sculpture. Can I share the problem with you all. ClemRutter (talk) 19:42, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

• I have removed this, as per my comments in the section above. Also the Scott Holmquist article currently currently has no detail at all about the Last Hero sculpture. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 11:16, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
  • OK- Describing statues is outside my competence! There is no mention in the :de:page. We need an expert here. The reference is solid. Thanks for being decisive. ClemRutter (talk) 12:09, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

First?

Is this the first unauthorized replacement statue related to George Floyd protests? Is it the first related to any protests? First for any reason? Do we need Statues replacing toppled statues installed without authorization? Gah4 (talk) 18:04, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Permission

We currently have two somewhat contradictory statements in the article:

• Quinn initially asked Mayor of Bristol Marvin Rees for permission to erect the statue, but was refused as Rees thought it was “not the correct next step for the city”. - referenced to this paywalled Times article of the 20 July
• The statue was neither commissioned by the local authorities, nor was formal permission sought for its erection. - referenced to the statement on Quinn's website 15 July -> "No formal consent has been sought for the installation.".

This seems to be a contradiction. I can't access the Times article but if it factual and has been summarised correctly in the article it would seem that Quinn used the word "formal" in an obfuscatory way - if there were discussions with the Mayor beforehand then permission was effectively sought, and whether these discussions were "formal" or not is not really important. If the Times article is correct I think we should remove the latter statement as it misleads more than it informs. Please could someone who has access to the full Times article comment here and/or act on this. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 20:26, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I've added a quote from the paywalled Times article, and corrected the title of that article. Later on it says "Mr Quinn said that he had not asked for formal permission to erect the statue and that it was always meant to be temporary.", so both versions seem correct though perhaps contradictory.

Useful info: If you have a UK public library ticket you probably have access to NewsBank, which includes hundreds of local, regional and national UK newspapers, last 5 to 25 years of each, right up to date: I wasn't sure if The Times was included, but it is. If your local public library doesn't subscribe it's worth trying to join another library - Lancashire wasn't fussy about residence when I joined it years ago before moving here. Public library digital services are a fantastic resource, paid for out of your Council Tax, so use them: in Lancashire they include the Times archive from 1785, British Library Newspapers 1730-1950, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, the full Oxford English Dictionary in all its 12-volumed glory, and much more. PamD 20:48, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

@LukeSurl: we shouldn't remove either - to pick one above the other would contravene WP:DUE/WP:NPOV. We can compare and contrast them, and leave the reader to draw their own conclusion. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:58, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

@DeFacto: good point. I've made an edit to this effect. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 11:16, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

DYK nomination tweaking

Hiya, there's some last minute tweaking of the DYK hook going on at Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Queue_6:_A_Surge_of_Power_(Jen_Reid)_2020 if anyone is interested to comment on it. Mujinga (talk) 21:43, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

It's currently on the mainpage in the "Did you know?" section. Nice one everybody! Mujinga (talk) 09:40, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Good article?

WikiProject Black Lives Matter is hosting an editathon for Q1 2021. Would any editors be interested in nominating this article for Good article status? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:34, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

• A Surge of Power (50115756351).jpg
• A Surge of Power (Jen Reid) 15th July 2020.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:19, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Noting that the deletion discussion was closed with the comment "Can be uploaded to local wiki as fair use, probably." if anybody wants to look into doing that here. --Lord Belbury (talk) 11:25, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Or can someone rescue commons:File:Statue "A Surge of Power (Jen Reid) 2020".jpg and copy it into en.wiki before it too gets deleted? PamD 15:02, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Here's the extraordinarily legalistic deletion discussion for one of the deleted images; it focuses on whether the sculpture was "permanently" affixed to its plinth. Which is a bit curious; it was certainly placed in such a way as to be fixed in place by its own weight and thus stay in place indefinitely, unless someone with some serious heavy lifting equipment had come to move it, and if you have suitable equipment, or a sufficient number of sufficiently annoyed people, nothing is really "permanently" mounted, no matter if it's bolted down. -- The Anome (talk) 15:23, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

The Anome, it was the intention that was the key. It was always meant to be temporary, and that's all that matters IMHO, whether it ultimately stayed for an hour or a decade, so photos of it were therefore copyvios. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:31, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

DeFacto, section 62 of the relevant legislation ( https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48 ) says: "(1)This section applies to ... (b)sculptures, models for buildings and works of artistic craftsmanship, if permanently situated in a public place or in premises open to the public." There is no mention of intention. Since there doesn't seem to be a specific statutory definition of the word "permanent", you then have to go either to a dictionary, in which case the definition varies depending on which dictionary you choose -- some mention intent, and others don't -- or to case law. Either way, it's an extremely grey area. -- The Anome (talk) 18:44, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

The Anome, yes, but it was never "permanently situated in a public place". This is clear because: a) when it was placed it was only expected to be there temporarily - i.e. it was not expected to be "permanently situated in a public place", and b) it has now been removed, so it was only temporarily there - i.e. it was not "permanently situated in a public place". -- DeFacto (talk). 18:56, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

DeFacto, yes, but if intent or expectation (and by whom?) is not part of the actual legislative definition then (a) is irrelevant, and if (b) applied, then the removal of any statue could be regarded as retroactively invalidating the copyright exemption granted in the Act. It is indeed complex, and I can see your reasoning, and I appreciate that taking a cautious position in an ambiguous case is in the best interest of Commons, but I don't think it's necessarily the last word on this. -- The Anome (talk) 19:20, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

The Anome, no. It was declared to be a temporary installation, so was a temporary installation, even if it hadn't already been removed, and even if it was there forever. If it was declared as a permanent installation when it was installed, then it would have been "permanently situated in a public place", even if it was removed, for some reason, after an hour. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:34, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

I've sent a message to the deleting admin on Commons. I should be able to upload one of the files locally this week with a fair use license for use in this article. LukeSurl ^t c 20:59, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

As one of the people whose photographs will apparently be deleted from wikimedia, I am distictly unimpressed that my photograph is being taken offline *on the anniversary of the Colston statue's removal*

• ClemRutter: thank you for re-uploading my photo under the fair use category. I concur
• I've uploaded a new image, which focuses on the crowd surrounding the statue. This is documenting the installation and immediate reaction. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:A_crowd_celebrates_the_arrival_of_A_Surge_of_Power_(Jen_Reid)_(July_15,_2020).jpg
• My public google photos album Bristol Political has all the photos and more (Tesco riot aftermath, random political graffiti, Colston statue deposition aftermath etc). Take/upload what you want. Black Lives Matter; Bristol's history matters more than copyright nuances SteveLoughran (talk) 22:08, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

We have a case of two nations separated by a common language. You really needed to have spoken to someone experienced in UK Criminal Damage Law before committing such an egregious error of judgement. To say this was a temporary art work means you are not liable for criminal damage- any other wording and you are liable to be charged and face a jail-sentence. If that had happened: Bristol would have been torched. :Protest organisers can attempt to lead, but cannot control them or stop them from going too far. Marc Quinn was using exactly the right language to prevent arrest. Of course it was permanent- the opposite is transient. (as explained earlier in this page) It was permanent long enough to get the relevant press coverage in the papers that are not WP:RS as well as those that are. So what is the wiki definition of permanent, and we can dismiss that rubbish about intention unless you have a reference that passes all our tests. Do we delete all the commons images of Stonehenge because it is temporary, at least in intention. The intention here was that it remained. It would be profitable to discover whether 'temporary' is 'permanent' or 'transitory'.

OK I will say it- there is a race issue here. The Colston statue was toppled and desecrated because he was a slaver- Jen Reid was a hero fighting the remnants of that racism that are still present today. Wikipedia is above all that, unbiased, and nonpolitical. That deletion was a political act to the black kids I taught- and the white kids wouldn't understand what the fuss is about. That deletion is seen as evidence of institutional racism within WP. WP needs to report the story not become the story.

A good barrister would rip holes in your 62-1-b argument. That says that FOP applies to sculptures, ( model and works of art) if located permanently... (it is a question of where the comma is placed).A good barrister would point out that this is a sculpture so that is enough. If an argument ensued he would point out that it was there permanently overnight. The fact of its removal by those other than the artist, shows the authority who contracted its removal had considered it permanent (too permanent for their liking) It wasn'transiently getting onto a tram on the arm of a politician. It was there permanently because the police didn't instantly remove it. You see the law has to be intrepreted- Barristers are experts in case law, and none has been quoted here. I wrote this yesterday, previewed but was interrupted- I am posting it now as these issues do need to be discussed further. ClemRutter (talk) 18:50, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Maybe we need an article on Jen Reid herself. That could pull in the new mural of her on Stokes Croft, Bristol, her actions during the Colston statue iconoclasty, and add more context, as well as recognition that her actions have become symbolic in Bristol and elsewhere. SteveLoughran (talk) 23:01, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

That's a great idea! On a quick look now one year on there are multiple reliable sources establishing notability related to the statue but also a book project and various other things, so I've created a draft to work on at User:Mujinga/DraftJenReid. SteveLoughran or indeed anyone else feel free to throw in more links or indeed collaborate on writing the article together. Please edit! Mujinga (talk) 08:09, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

great start! I can contribute the new mural on stokes croft. Again, the wikimedia copyright police may say "not allowed", because of UK copyright rules. But I've just looked at the Banksy collection and there are no concerns about the Banksy street mural there being put up with a CC-licence. It's almost as if some of the wikimedia editors have an objection to a specific statue. I wonder why. SteveLoughran (talk) 18:12, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

That's now live at Jen Reid (which previously redirected to this page). Mujinga (talk) 13:27, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Artists

The second sentence of the lead reads: "Both Quinn and Reid are credited as artists". This is a summary based on the sourced content in the article. I'm not sure why Reid was removed from the infobox again by PamD here, after I reverted, with explanation, its earlier removal by Keivan.f here. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:21, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

The article says "making the same raised-fist pose she struck on the plinth shortly after the Colston statue's removal"... in my mind (Yes OR) she and her husband created all the art and a team of technicians used a 3d printer to create an "installation" based on their work. Victuallers (talk) 07:32, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

OK, fair enough: it seemed unlikely but on reading to the 5th sentence of the "Description and creation" section I see that she is credited, sourced, as artist. Have self-reverted. Sorry about that. PamD 07:41, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

PamD, fair play. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:44, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Actually looking at the sources (1 and 11) I'm not really 100% convinced that she is "artist" rather than "inspiration", but I'll stay out of it. Possibly she's "artist" of the installation which comprised putting the sculpture up onto the plinth, though not of the sculpture itself. PamD 07:48, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

PamD, this isn't a sculpture in the traditional sense though - it was not crafted by hand from a solid block of stone or clay. It sounds more like this is a 3d 'photo copy' of the live 'sculpture' that Reid created by posing her body. If the same digital process was used to create a resin copy of, say, an original sculpture by Michelangelo, who would you expect to be credited as the artist? -- DeFacto (talk). 08:32, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Quinn credits Reid as a Co-artist in the literature produced with the sculpture. It's certainly unsual, and there's actually some text in the 'reactions' section about one commentator calling this a loophole for Quinn to deflect charges of exploitation. Nevertheless, it seems both Quinn and Reid both publicly agree this is a two 'artist' work, and that's sufficient for the lead and infobox. --LukeSurl ^t c 08:39, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

I suggest that the lead is clearer if we combine the first two sentences, for readers who expect the first sentence to be a summary of key info, so I've tweaked it. PamD 11:02, 12 July 2021 (UTC)