Talk:Saatchi Gallery

Timeline and controversies

Comment and discussion invited on the points below. Ty 08:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

• There is no need for the timeline, as that is what the main article is anyway, so the timeline should be merged to it. Ty 08:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

• The controversies section would be better merged to the main text, as it is impossible to tell the story of the gallery without including controversies. Ty 08:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Agree 2 - personally I don't mind a separate timeline too strongly. Johnbod (talk) 10:15, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I think the timeline has too much detail at the moment. Place the detail in main text and keep the outline? Ty 00:19, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, probably better - I know most people don't like the things at all. Johnbod (talk) 00:33, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits by User:Infoart

User:Infoart made an edit, which was promotional in tone, as well as removing valid material.[1] I toned down the promotional element, restored and added material, all referenced.[2] Infoart's last edit then made significant changes[3] with the initial edit summary, "information, better references, removal of unnecessary negative content, streamlining." I have again restored and added material with refs and edited the promotional content.[4] (The diff is since some technical material added by others re. image deletion and interwiki link.) What follows is my analysis of the last edit (as defined above) by Infoart.[5] Please add comments underneath each point and/or to "overall comment" and/or the "conclusions" section. Ty 08:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

• Weakened structure of article by removing headings for specific previous locations of the gallery and replacing with the generic "previous locations". They each have a distinct history, which should be addressed. Ty 08:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

• Removed image of Damien Hirst, who is a key figure in the gallery's history. Image should be in the article. Ty 08:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

• Removed image of the County Hall gallery. Should be in the article. Ty 08:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

• Removed well known Hirst quote, when County Hall opened in 2003, ""I'm not Charles Saatchi's barrel-organ monkey ... etc". as well as Hirst's dissociating himself from the show and related info. This is a significant event and a well known quote by Hirst. Both should be included. Ty 08:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

• Removed section on Momart warehouse fire and Saatchi's reaction to it. (This is in the Timeline section, but with less detail, and without Saatchi's comment.) Should be included. Ty 08:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

• Removed section on New Blood show with Stella Vine. (This is in the Controversies section, but with different details, without the hostile critical reception and Saatchi's speaking out angrily against the critics - an unusual/unprecedented occurrence.) Should be included. Ty 08:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

• Removed section on Saatchi's well known comment that most YBAs would be "nothing but footnotes" in history, Saatchi's selling of YBA work, including Hirst's shark for nearly £7 million, and the fact that this was likened to his earlier selling of his US art collection. Relevant points, should be included. Ty 08:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

• Removed all mention of the County Hall court case with landlords Cadogan Leisure Investments, a significant event. (Replaced it with "The move here however was unsuccessful and short lived".) Should be included. Ty 08:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

• Misrepresented reviews of the Duke of York's HQ with "Responses to the new gallery have been positive", and cherry-picking to prove it. There has been a fair amount of adverse comment in mainstream papers. I have balanced a positive and negative review. This is representative. Ty 08:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

• Added 7 external links to reviews of the new gallery. Excessive. Ty 08:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

• Overall comment on the above. Ty 08:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Conclusions

• The history of the Saatchi Gallery is one of controversy. The gallery often creates it with provocative actions and gains considerable publicity from this. This should be reflected in wikipedia, as should the history of the gallery, not just the current image in a sanitised version, which Infoart is seeking to create. This is a violation of WP:NPOV. Infoart has stated that he has written texts on artists for the Saatchi Gallery web site. He created around 150 articles on artists who all had in common being in the Saatchi collection, every article having an external link to the Saatchi site. This resulted in a massive cleanup of them by a task force from WikiProject Visual arts. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts/Infoart articles. I think it may be time for Infoart to be cautioned not to edit the Saatchi Gallery article directly, but to post suggestions on the talk page for other editors to review. Ty 08:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. He/she has now been around for a good while but shows little sign of willingness to respect the purpose and policies of WP. Johnbod (talk) 10:13, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Excessive detail on the new gallery added to Charles Saatchi.[6] Ty 13:17, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Reply From InfoArt

Thank you very much for your feedback re: the Saatchi Gallery page. Constructive criticism is always welcome, and still learning. Is much appreciated. I would like to clarify a few concerns however:

1) I do NOT work for the Saatchi gallery. I am an independent art critic who has researched the collection intensively for 10 years. Consequently I have very good relations with the gallery and access to very up-to-date and factually correct information concerning the collection.

2)The reasons deletions were made to some of the content of the site is because the Saatchi Gallery have contacted me directly raising concerns over how their gallery is being represented on Wiki. Far from being a balanced argument, or presentation of historical fact, some of the information in the article is little more than gossip mongering, reguritating sensational lore from tabloid-orientated press. It has nothing to do with the collection or gallery as a serious subject, and does not facilitate an understanding of the gallery as an important international institution, and for a large part, serves to undermine its integrity.

The section comprising the quote from Damian Hirst is irrevlevant and inappropriate. Hirst is only one artist of the several thousand who have been featured in the collection over the years, and by no means the most important. The Hirst pieces referred to are no longer part of the collection. The representation of the "disagreement" over the Hirst exhibition is very biased, and is more relevant to Hirst as a topic than Saatchi. That there is a picture of Hirst placed next to it is again, off-topic.

Saatchi's quote re: YBAs as "footnotes in history" is taken entirely out of context. In this interview he is referring to an historical contextualisation of art in general -- in any generation there are but a very few who will be remembered in 20, 50, 100 years time. The text as it appears in the article suggests that he is dismissing the YBAs which is incorrect and insulting.

And again, the reference to Stella Vine's work and Saatchi's response is out of context as well as misleading. Vine is a well-respected artist who has shown extensively internationally, and her work - like any other artist -- has received mixed reviews over the years. Vine launched her career off the back of the Saatchi show, which is something that would only be possible if her work was well received.

The David Lee quote is biased as well. Saatchi has never denied selling work -- however this is an integral part of his methodology of collecting. Saatchi is not and never has been a dealer.

The section on the County Hall court case, is again, a biased report. This was, in the grand scheme of things, a reatively minor event in the gallery's history, and is given too much emphasis, especialy considering there were many other factors not mentioned that instigated the move.

3) Additions about the Duke of York's HQ space are from a selection of the most recent publications about the site. Please do edit/expand if you feel this is biased.

3) The Saatchi Gallery's concerns are that the Wiki page should accurately and factually represent their activities in an unbiased light. They are very concerned that people accessing gallery information through Wiki are being bombarded with out of date or incorrect information, and would like their Wiki entry to be very current and concise. The gallery has asked me to pass on the message that unless this page is cleaned up and edited they will remove all Saatchi related content from Wiki and possibly instigate legal action.

4) The Saatchi Gallery have also raised a concern about the user Ty. Ty has previously been in contact with me regarding Saatchi content, often censoring or arguing my contributions with his own poorly researched opinions. This user's knowledge of contemporary art is apparently questionable and it is evident he has a malicious agenda when it comes to Saatchi. Consquently, The Saatchi Gallery have asked that he be barred from making edits on any Saatchi related pages. I fully respect Wiki's open contribution policy, however, I do believe any disagreement should be resolved through constructive debate, and not aggressive messaging or bullying -- something which appears to be an increasing concern with the user.

Please message me back at your earliest opportunity. And if you would like to speak with someone at the Saatchi gallery directly, please leave your email on my talk page -- a gallery representative will be in touch with you directly.

Many thanks.--81.159.113.122 (talk) 16:06, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I have posted at WP:AN/I#Saatchi Gallery complaints and legal threat, to which you may contribute. Regarding your specific points about article content, it would be easier to conduct a discussion if you made each point under the relevant topic in my post above. You have forgotten to log in with your user name. Ty 23:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I have reinstated the Saatchi Gallery page to the version that was present before I made any ammendments whilst we continue to resolve the issue regarding edits and the Gallery's legal position. Infoart (talk) 16:11, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately that is not going to work. If there are legal issues the gallery must handle then through the appropriate channel. Ty has explained the reasons your edits were reverted. If something is covered in major media sources, it needs to be included in this article per WP:NPOV. --Leivick (talk) 17:45, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Protection

Following the unexplained removal of a large amount of text by an IP editor with this his/her first article edit, I reverted to the earlier version (my usual practice when that is done). I was then asked to semi-protect the page, but as this is a content dispute that is usually not considered appropriate, so I've protected the article fully for 72 hours. If anyone wants to make an edit through protection they can request it by using the template at the top of the article. If any Admin wants to change the protect level, they may, I will not consider it wheel warring. Doug Weller (talk) 12:22, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

As an uninvolved admin, I support this protection and I hope that the representatives or agents of Saatchi Gallery will use this time period to discuss any desired changes to the article. Attempting to force changes by unilateral edits will not work. When faced with content disputes, Wikipedians evaluate proposed changes using a consensus-based discussion process to interpret and apply our core content policies (Verifiability and Neutral point of view). SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:43, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Disputed content

I have copied specific content points from the post above by 81.159.113.122 above, and put them in separate sections, so they can be discussed. Users should be aware of the core editing policies: WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. Content must be derived from secondary sources deemed reliable per WP:RS. These sources should be represented objectively. Personal knowledge, opinion and evaluation are not valid to create content. There is also policy on user conduct per WP:NPA, namely that editors should focus on content, not the alleged defects of other editors' characters. (There are other places on wiki to raise user conduct.) Any other points concerning the article can be raised by adding new section(s) below the existing ones. Ty 01:42, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Damien Hirst

The section comprising the quote from Damian Hirst is irrevlevant and inappropriate. Hirst is only one artist of the several thousand who have been featured in the collection over the years, and by no means the most important. The Hirst pieces referred to are no longer part of the collection. The representation of the "disagreement" over the Hirst exhibition is very biased, and is more relevant to Hirst as a topic than Saatchi. That there is a picture of Hirst placed next to it is again, off-topic. -- Excerpted from post by 81.159.113.122 above.

Hirst is one of the most famous artists in the world and hugely significant for the Saatchi Gallery and contemporary art in an interaction for over ten years constantly in the media. The article says Saatchi sold Hirst's shark and can easily include more details on work no longer being in the collection. The representation of the "disagreement" follows the sources. Hirst's rejection of his past major patron is relevant to this article, as is an image of the artist. Ty 02:45, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Needs to be included. Hirst and the Saatchi Gallery are intimately linked. To say that he was just another artist who happened to be featured in the collection is ludicrous and blatantly revisionist.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 23:52, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

YBAS "footnotes in history"

Saatchi's quote re: YBAs as "footnotes in history" is taken entirely out of context. In this interview he is referring to an historical contextualisation of art in general -- in any generation there are but a very few who will be remembered in 20, 50, 100 years time. The text as it appears in the article suggests that he is dismissing the YBAs which is incorrect and insulting. -- Excerpted from post by 81.159.113.122 above.

You might like to suggest how this should be phrased, deriving from acceptable sources. The Sunday Times article said, "He [Saatchi] said last year most Britartists would be likely to prove "nothing but footnotes" in the long term." Other sources report this similarly,[7] including an interview with Stuart Semple on the Saatchi site.[8] Ty 02:45, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Stella Vine

And again, the reference to Stella Vine's work and Saatchi's response is out of context as well as misleading. Vine is a well-respected artist who has shown extensively internationally, and her work - like any other artist -- has received mixed reviews over the years. Vine launched her career off the back of the Saatchi show, which is something that would only be possible if her work was well received. -- Excerpted from post by 81.159.113.122 above.

What exactly is misleading?[9] By "it received a hostile reception", I meant the New Blood show in general, not specifically Vine's work in it. Is this what the problem is? It can be clarified easily enough. Ty 02:45, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Ty. I don't read this as a criticism of Stella Vine at all. If all controversial exhibitions were removed from the article what would we be left with :)--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 23:30, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

David Lee quote

The David Lee quote is biased as well. Saatchi has never denied selling work -- however this is an integral part of his methodology of collecting. Saatchi is not and never has been a dealer. -- Excerpted from post by 81.159.113.122 above.

It is Lee's bias then. Wikipedia is just reporting it per WP:NPOV. He is a well known critic of Saatchi and often quoted in the media, so it is legitimate to include that. It would also be legitimate to include someone contesting Lee's view. Ty 02:45, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I would add that Saatchi would really help themselves if they offered a public response. They could just as easily publish a press release indicating their view or anyone could find a newspaper article in response. Like Tyrenius said, that would be legitimate to include. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:30, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Ty and Ricky.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 23:24, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

County Hall court case

The section on the County Hall court case, is again, a biased report. This was, in the grand scheme of things, a reatively minor event in the gallery's history, and is given too much emphasis, especialy considering there were many other factors not mentioned that instigated the move. -- Excerpted from post by 81.159.113.122 above.

It is a notable event, when a major international gallery is taken to court and evicted, followed by the liquidation of the company administering its tenancy for failure to pay £1.8 million as ordered by the court, especially with the allegations that were made on both sides. This is revealing about the way the gallery operates. There is plenty of coverage in sources.[10] The wiki text is restrained, bearing in mind the first paragraph in this Guardian report.[11] Ty 02:45, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, for the "other factors not mentioned", do you a reliable source as to them? Perhaps a press release or a response of some type from the gallery? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:31, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

The claims and counter claims of a court case aren't appropriate because they have already been played out in court. The court made its decision, that decision was reported and it should be included in the article. The specific reason for finding against the gallery, as reported in The Guardian, was the two-for one deal: [12]. All the rest is the usual flim-flam of a high stakes court battle. WP's committment to neutrality shouldn't consist of giving both sides of an argument that has already been settled in court. So, the part about the landlord's representative kicking artwork, although its kind of funny, should go; but the reference to the gallery's "deliberate disregard" for the landlord's rights should also be rephrased so that it specifically refers to to the two-for-one deal. The other Guardian article used to support the claim that the company running the gallery went into liquidation [13] makes it clear that this was involuntary, and although the WP article uses the phrase 'forced into' it gives the impression that the gallery cut and run to escape its debts. The Guardian article states that Charles Saatchi has offered to settle approximately 90% of the debt, presumably from his personal resources, but the issue is still ongoing. All in all the the whole thing can be summarized in a couple of sentences (A court judgement forced the gallery out of County Hall, finding that Donova, the company formed to run the gallery, deliberately disregarded the terms of its tenancy by offering a two-for-one deal. Donova was subsequently wound up with debts of £1.8m, of which Charles Saatchi has offered to pay £1.6m as a full and final settlement).--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 23:13, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

WP's commitment neutrality is defined by WP:NPOV, which means representing the view of sources, so if they see fit to record something, we should follow their lead. I suggest rephrasing the opening to "There were ongoing difficulties between the gallery and Makoto Okamoto, the landlord, whom the Disability Rights Commission threatened with legal action after the disabled toilet was closed."[14]

The judge made several findings, which contributed to the outcome. "The judge had the power to waive the forfeiture but declined to do so, he said, because of both the conduct of the gallery and statements by Mr Saatchi, who was not in court to give evidence about his allegations that the landlord and owner had harassed his staff." This conduct included "using rooms and moving works of art into areas not included in its lease" (for which £9,750 damages were awarded), namely "a brightly painted Mini car put on the steps and a builder's skip placed in the entrance to the building". It's worth including that Pete Waterman, a director of Cadogan, gave evidence. All from The Guardian.[15]

The sentence now in the article "On 8 October 2006, Danova was forced into liquidation with debts around £1.8 million, having failed to pay the amount ordered by the court to the County Hall landlords." is entirely accurate from the source and how the reader interprets it is up to them. I have no objection to including Saatchi's offer, but this should be put into the context that "Danovo was ordered last November to leave County Hall and pay its former landlords £830,000 by December 6 [2005] and a further £800,000 costs by December 13 [2005]. Since then the unpaid sums have been swelled by interest" and the liquidation hearing in the High Court was on 8 March 2006. Also accuracy to the source demands "a spokesman... for Saatchi said he had offered to pay... etc." The article does not confirm anything beyond that (the landlords do not indicate any awareness of the offer).[16]

Ty 12:50, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Structure

I don't like the way this article has a lot of historical baggage which gets in the way of providing a good simple overview of the current operations. I am not blaming anybody for this. Some of the historic detail is overdone but much of it is relevant. It is natural that the article has evolved as the organisation has changed. The trouble is that we have got to a structure that is very different from what we would choose if we were starting from scratch.

The Tate articles benefit from having a separate article about each gallery and another for the Tate organisation itself. That gives each article a clear focus and prevents them getting overlong or messy. I don't think we need to split off a separate article for each of the past locations but it might be a good idea for there to be one article about the current gallery and one about the organisation, its history and its other activities.

I would also like to see the article stripped down a bit. We don't need the complete list of artists shown. The Tate galleries don't have this and I don't think many other galleries do either. Of course, notable exhibitions like Sensation should still be mentioned. We can link to the list on Saatchi's site for the complete list, which will have the advantage of being updated without us needing to work on it. That said, it wouldn't do any harm to make a category for the artists. I think categories are tidier and more manageable than lists. I also agree with the comments above about the timeline. Lets strip it down and merge it.

What does everybody think? --DanielRigal (talk) 12:01, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

It follows a standard format of the chronological development of the institution. The same format occurs with Tate. The aim is not to provide instant access to current operations, but to show the whole story of the gallery. It's not a "what's on" guide, but a historical document. The article at the moment is not over-long, but more details are viable, and should it become excessive in length then Summary style can be applied.

The list of artists shown is a valuable record of the gallery's activities, which have been hugely influential. This information should be grouped under show titles, but the gallery's site does not record such information, so it is not easily accessible. I suggested this in some email correspondence with them, but nothing was forthcoming. There is an equivalent for the Tate with List of Turner Prize winners and nominees. Articles should be self-sufficient as much as possible and avoid sending the reader to external sites. "List of shows and artists at the Saatch Gallery" would be a viable article.

I agree with merging information from the timeline. The controversies section could also be merged, as the history of the gallery is inextricably connected with controversies.

Ty 23:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I see what you are getting at and it wasn't my intention to make the article into a "what's on" guide. I still think the article would be more accessible if it was simplified or restructured. Do you see any merit in splitting the article? If so, what sort of split do you think is best? --DanielRigal (talk) 13:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I've done some changes to section order and headings to try to make a more logical sequence. I think Timeline and Controversies shoud be merged into the main text to narrate the development of events in context. Compared to the length of a featured article like Douglas Adams this article is not too long at present. Splitting is a good procedure when any section does develop to article length in its own right, but I can't see this is necessary as yet. One possible candidate for its own article is the web site, if it is expanded. Ty 14:38, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits by User:Sharpen16

A brand new, single purpose account, created Saatchi Online earlier today, along with the following on its talk page;

I have put in a tremendous amount of effort to give Wiki readers as much information on the Saatchi Gallery in its 23yr history. I’ve checked the accuracy of all statements with a number of sources and am satisfied that this now represents a completely authorative and balanced in depth report on the galley. Could you please ask anyone who wishes to change information I have provided to contact me before they do so, so that their issues can be assessed by Wiki invigilators to avoid any further disagreements. Sharpen16 (talk) 04:21, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Setting aside the ownership issues here they went on to pad and fill this article with a lot of marketing style information; with statements such as

When The Saatchi Gallery first opened its doors to the public in 1985, access to contemporary art was regarded by many as the privilege of a specialist few. Collector and founder Charles Saatchi believed contemporary art should be available to everyone. By supporting and showing the work of Young British Artists (YBAs), the Saatchi Gallery became directly involved in fuelling interest in and contributing to the growing popularity of contemporary art.

The Saatchi Gallery’s commitment to contemporary art has helped contribute to London’s reputation as one of the world’s leading cultural capitals. The gallery does not shy away from controversy, choosing to exhibit work that is perceived to be provocative despite sometimes extreme reactions from the press and other commentators. This stance means that the gallery continues to have a strong impact on artists and art lovers.

and a lot of additions to the timeline going into a great amount of detail, but again filled with opinion and weasel words about the importance of each exhibition and/or the artist. It also removed critical paragraphs such as those detailing Hurst's disassociation with the retrospective, and a cut and pasted puff piece that was a Q&A with Charles Saatchi himself.

It smacks of the gallery's PR people again I'm afraid. --Blowdart | ^talk 13:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The quacking is deafening. And sockpuppetry. Sharpen16 says he's provided images,[17] but they've been uploaded by User:Infoart. Ty 14:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I've already done one sock report today; would you like to do this one? :) --Blowdart | ^talk 15:18, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

User_talk:RHaworth#Sharpen16. Ty 03:42, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

RE: Recent edits by User:Sharpen16

I understand there may be issues with some of the language in the edits I've posted, however language is something that can be easily edited or changed. The content is still valuable, and gives a very comprehensive overview of the gallery's history and current activities. Surely this material is valid and of interest to Wiki users. Might I suggest that instead of removing this content in its entirety, that this material be reviewed and editted by Wiki Administrators to ensure parity and adherence to Wiki editorial standards? Please advise. Thank you. Sharpen16 (talk) 17:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Considering there was so much of it, and you removed sections critical of the gallery or of exhibitions the entire edit smacked of a marketing whitewash yet again. In that sort of circumstance, coupled with the blatent advertising article you created previously it's safer and easier to simply remove the lot - it's up to you to remain factual and stop removing cited facts that you disagree with. Yet again this article appears to be the focus of attention that wants to only show the gallery in a good light; I don't suppose you'd care to admit your connection with it? No? --Blowdart | ^talk 19:08, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I tried to read through the added material but there was so much of it, and it was so blatantly inappropriate to Wikipedia, that I gave up. There may have been small parts of it that might have been acceptable but it is not our job to edit people's press releases for them. It is also unclear to me that the images were released under the GFDL by a person in a position to do this. As for the large chunks from The Independent and the Sunday Times, I can't see anything to indicate that they were not in copyright infringement. It is entirely correct that the edit was removed as a whole and there is no need for an administrator to review it. It is clear that the material was promotional and detrimental to the quality of the article and to Wikipedia generally. If Saatchi wants to publish a glowing, promotional history of his organisation he already has a perfectly good website to do it on. It might even be useful as reference material for Wikipedia, however to dump it directly into Wikipedia shows a lack of respect for its encyclopedic aims. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I should point out on the Saatchi Online (which now directs here) talk page he tried this nonsense as well;

I have put in a tremendous amount of effort to give Wiki readers as much information on the Saatchi Gallery in its 23yr history. I’ve checked the accuracy of all statements with a number of sources and am satisfied that this now represents a completely authorative and balanced in depth report on the galley. Could you please ask anyone who wishes to change information I have provided to contact me before they do so, so that their issues can be assessed by Wiki invigilators to avoid any further disagreements

That has WP:Own issues of course; but smacks of trying to stop people editing marketing spiel rather than understanding what a wiki is and how it is not to present Saatchi's own point of view. --Blowdart | ^talk 19:55, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

There is some useful factual material there, and I've just copied some of it across from Saatchi Online, but it had to be edited for WP:PEACOCK and WP:WEASEL. It was also unreferenced, but I don't doubt its accuracy. Ty 04:25, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

You have way more patience than I have *grin* Good stuff. --Blowdart | ^talk 05:49, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I want to make it clear that I agree with your blanket reversion of the material, as in totality it was quite unsuitable. Ty 06:47, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

• This admin fully endorses what other editors have done. Sharpen16 clearly, a) has a COI and should not be editing this article at all and b) has little concept of what an encyclopedia is: an interview with Charles Saatchi, for example, is source material and does not belong here. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 05:52, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

History of this article

Attempts to turn this article into a promotional piece have been going on for well over 2 years. See Talk:Saatchi_Gallery/Archive_1 and AN/I discussion. Ty 03:54, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Also see The Observer, 26 October 2008 - scroll to "Tales of mystery at the gallery"![18] Ty 03:57, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Crikey! I was not aware this had got press coverage. If that doesn't demonstrate that abusing Wikipedia is likely to bring an organisation into disrepute then nothing does. --DanielRigal (talk) 09:46, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposal

Could an official Wiki representative please email [email protected]? This discussion re: editing might be easier to resolve over the phone. Many thanks. --Infoart (talk) 20:41, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

You've been asked already to stop using multiple accounts; why do you insist on attempt to use the Sharpen16 account again? I notice with interest that you're still ignoring COI; including editing the Charles Saatchi article as well. Again this is not how wikipedia works. You've been told this before; you've been given notice of how to contact the legal department and you're still under some impression that there are official editors. They aren't. --Blowdart | ^talk 21:19, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree 100% with Blowdart and I would also like to add some things:

1. This is Wikipedia, not just any Wiki based site. Please, at least, try to get the name right. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia built using Wiki technology. The key word here is encyclopedia not Wiki. It is no more appropriate to expect an organisation to be able to write its own entry on Wikipedia than it would be for that organisation to demand the right to write its own entry in any other encyclopedia, such as the Encyclopedia Britannica.
2. I am also moved to wonder what the Saatchi Gallery would think if some Wikipedians were to contact it and make heavy handed and inappropriate suggestions that the Saatchi Gallery should publish a big load of content which they had written, which was contrary to the gallery's interests and objectives, on its own web page. I don't think they would like it and they would be entirely justified in feeling aggrieved by such an improper suggestion. Of course, nobody would ever dream of doing such a thing to them and I suggest that they show us the same degree of respect and back off before they damage their good name any further.
3. I would also point out that the Mediawiki software is 100% free and that there is absolutely nothing stopping the Saatchi Gallery, or anybody else, from starting their own Wiki site which they are very welcome to run according to their own rules.

--DanielRigal (talk) 21:42, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I've flagged this nonsense on the admin noticeboard --Blowdart | ^talk 21:49, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey guys, please remain civil. COI problems are rarely solved by being confrontational. Kaldari (talk) 02:10, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

These COI problems have been going for years with this editor (and similar ones). WP:IDHT is not an adequate response and really he knows (or should know) better. I understand the exasperation. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

The responses seem remarkably restrained in the circumstances. There is a proposal to community ban Infoart on AN/I. Ty 03:13, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

RE: Court Case Edits

Recent edits I've posted re: ruling in the Danovo court case have been reinstated, along with the court file reference number if you care to look it up. Also please note, Danovo is spelt with an "o" not an "a" -- has been corrected. You are completely misleading Wikipedia readers by deleting my point about this. Perhaps you would like to put your name and email here so that the Saatchi Gallery’s legal representatives can contact you and clarify your ‘confusion’. In the meantime it appears you are hiding behind anonymity to obfuscate the facts in order to support your own anti Saatchi agenda.--Infoart (talk) 11:17, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

As I said on your talk page you are not supplying reliable sources - unless you can provide reliable links, and a court case number which no information on how to look it up is not one. Yet again with the legal threats and the complete misunderstanding of how wikipedia works? As I also pointed out you should really be concentrating on proving you can release the uploads you have performed on behalf of the gallery under the GFDL as you need the artist's permission and not just the gallery's, something Saatchi's legal wizards should understand. --Blowdart | ^talk 11:40, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Discussion on AN/I. Ty 01:43, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Saatchi Gallery. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071009230920/http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/article2027070.ece to http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/article2027070.ece

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 14:24, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Saatchi Gallery. 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:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://canadianpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5h2n0_uU4_uFB_So2dIh3VbROZzSg
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060926080243/http://www.royalacademy.org.uk/exhibitions/usatoday/ to http://www.royalacademy.org.uk/exhibitions/usatoday

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 09:04, 29 November 2017 (UTC)