Talk:Thomas McEvilley

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

A clear start[edit]

After the latest edits on the article by Dave, I removed the text and image on systems art and refraised a sentence all on Thomas McEvilley earlier request. I hope we can make I clear start now to expand this article agian, and I hope that we can work on this together. We can lay our differences aside, and use this talk page in the way it is ment in the first place. To change ideas about improving the article. I would like to continu here to talk about that. -- Mdd (talk) 13:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for your patience and understanding. I think a lot the problem has been culture shock, of which the shock of new notability is a part. Thank God Tom does not have to endure a malicious reputation smear; he would never get over it. It is true that when a large number of socially uncontroled hands get in these matters errors are rampant. Let us say that if x people are involved in a set of articles they might have an error rate of y. If nx now get involved then you might find an increase of errors to ny or more. What the critic might not realize is the increase of n in the size of the audience and n in the size of the true material made available. So for an increase n in errors you get a powerful new capacity. If you then have a mechanism in place to reduce the errors you get all this new capacity for free! I remember Jack Caskey decried what he saw as a decline in the field now that it seemed to slipping out of his control and that was way back in the 1960's, ancient history for most of us. Again, culture shock. It isn't out of control, merely in wider control and I do believe the correction mechanism is in fact effective. The whole Wikipedia/Nupedia issue reflects the same shock. I am not going name any names but certain very nasty experienced editors surviving evidently from Nupedia times formed a resistive clique to drive the masses off of Wikipedia by being insulting. I only got one thing to say to them. How could you possibly do 2.5 mil articles by YOUR methods? Harvard University (and a few others) has thrown its entire prestigious weight onto the side of the people by having much of its previously nearly inaccessible library put onto the Internet. Hoorah! If it were not for Google Preview it would be pretty tough to write quality articles here. Anyway, there is a bit of published still rare biographical info on Tom. I knew I saw it somewhere. I am not going to be involved in this article now. Take it easy on Tom. Some authors clamor for the publicity and insist, demand, we put them and their stuff on here. This is a different case. If you write about Tom's work, make sure you read what you are writing about, OK? If you need me you know where I am.Dave (talk) 10:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

mdd I would again like to request that you put this talk page into archive or even better delete it into the history section as I see you have done before.

if/when I have time I will submit a draft from the page you made for me.

please respect my request to put this talk page in a less visible place.

it has been a week since I first asked and I am not going to engage in any discussion--now please archive this or place it in the history area. thank you, jdb76.15.46.220 (talk) 01:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I archived the all previous discussion. There clearly have been a lot of confusion on both sides and I apologize, that I couldn't clearify this earlier and save you all the trouble. At the moment the article is in a format from which it can be expanded again. New data and sources can be add to the biography and work sections etc. I watched the two video's and I do believe this article can use a lot of more apropriate content. It is still in a premature state, but that is with a lot of articles like this. We are working on it and this will improve sooner or later. Good luck. -- Mdd (talk) 12:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikify & cleanup[edit]

User:Orangemike just added an wikify + cleanup tag on this article, which I don't understand. I have written about 200 biographical articles on the Dutch and English Wikipedia in the current format and untill now all seems right. If this article should be wikified and cleared up so does about 500 other biographical articles I am workin on in the field of systems science. So User:Orangemike please tell me what I am missing here. -- Mdd (talk) 11:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problems are all minor. He's referred to as "Tom" instead of Thomas; there are minor grammatical and spelling errors; article titles are italicized, rather than put into quotation marks: that sort of thing. And I concur: many articles here are in need of similar touch-ups. We all do what we can, where we can. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I think we have an other way of working. I have wikified about 100 articles last year who where in serious trouble with the Wikipedia:WikiProject Systems and I still have some dozends to go. But these where in fare worse shape then this article. I personly find it these tags here rather offending. But I have learned to accept that people work here with different quality standards. And my own standard is also rising. -- Mdd (talk) 13:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the tags. These should only be there because there are mayor reasons. I do appreciate any touch up, but:
  1. I agree with minor grammatical and spelling errors
  2. I never heard of the rule that, "article titles are italicized, rather than put into quotation marks".
  3. I don't understand the argument that "He's referred to as "Tom" instead of Thomas". Maybe in the first sentence his nickname has to be added (tom). Can anybody explain?
I don know that arguments like this are no reason to tag this article with a Wikifi tag. -- Mdd (talk) 14:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's in the manual of style, especially Wikipedia:Manual of Style (titles). --Orange Mike | Talk 15:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks I changes the italicized article. Next. What about his nickname or do you say "usual name". I cannot find who to solve this by the book. How do we proceed with that? -- Mdd (talk) 19:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Movies on YouTube and video.google[edit]

There are at the moment two video's on Thomas McEvilley on YouTube and video.google but these links don't seems to be stable:

Now I found a new link for the YouTube video:

Does this work -- Mdd (talk) 12:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It works for me in The Netherlands. -- Mdd (talk) 12:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube and VideoGoogle are not normally considered appropriate external links. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok but these are very interesting... and there are very interesting new movies on YouTube. I even started a project there to collect these rather notable movies, see here. -- Mdd (talk) 13:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone know Prof. McEvilley?[edit]

I looked at all of the references for his career, but they are all kind of short and fragmentary. Does anyone know Prof. McEvilley? Could someone interview him about his career, and publish it online or somewhere else? He is oviously an important scholar, someone should do it. -- Margin1522 (talk) 18:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not Wikipedia's job. This article is is doing what it is supposed to do - when books by McE are referenced we can get some idea of who wrote them. The same thing is true of this author as of any other current - they aren't dead yet so no one has dared to write a biography and there are no biographical sources. We can't work those up and he can't tell us about it. We are not newspaper journalists writing articles for the yellow pages. We only work from published material. It's a sort of median arrangement - he doesn't get to control the article and we don't get to investigate further than published, credible sources. If you really want to know someone, point to that person in the mirror and ask yourself who that person really is. That's not our job, either. Best.Dave (talk) 10:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation[edit]

I added pronunciation based on his saying his own name at the start of [1] moogsi(blah) 13:02, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Essays and other lists[edit]

I removed the list of Essays as minor works; Wikipedia is not a catalogue (WP:NOTCAT) and not a CV repository, and it is therefore not appropriate to provide exhaustive (and generally unmaintainable) lists of minor works such as published papers, individual poems, essays, newspaper articles and so forth. An editor has seen fit to restore the list without bringing a discussion here, so here we are. I think the list is superfluous. If there is evidence from other authors, i.e reliable secondary sources, that McEvilley is known specially for his essays, in particular essays A, B, and C[refs x, y, z], then of course it would be right to keep such a list. Currently the article is poorly cited, many sections being wholly without references, and the amount of space devoted to lists, including an excessively long and improperly used "See also" list, is excessive. Either these lists should be cut down, or the text and inline references should be expanded considerably. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:48, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

_____________________ I encourage you to explore The world of contemporary art theory and criticism, The cutting edge of postcolonial studies, post gender studies, post-modernism as defined by Thomas McEvilley the world-renowned ESSAYIST. You can begin with the links to the Cotter in NY times and Densons biographic huff post obit. It will be a an enriching journey, however until you have done that modicum of research, please stick to editing biology. These McEvilley essays are world historic, published in books and in some cases re-published in many books, translated into Spanish, German, French, Italian, Hindi, Estonian the list goes on.... and essential parts of classroom syllabi. Essays that literally changed the world. When I was growing up, the question on everyone's lips was “ where were you when Kennedy got shot”. In the art world of the 80's/90’s the question was and is “ where were you when the primitivism controversy hit Artforum“. McEvilley is the hero that brought postcolonial studies to the mainstream art world and changed it forever.

If there is a more proper way to list these MAJOR essays, please show me a template for the form in which you would prefer to see them, but do not censor them because you think the word essay is equated with minor.

this wiki list of essays,added by I know not who, have all been published first in world class journals such as art forum art in America Frieze Parkett etc and then subsequently published in book form as either anthologies or monographs on artists or art movements. Heads It’s Form, Tails It’s Not Content—published in book
On the Manner of Addressing Clouds- published in more books and syllabi and translated more than can be counted
The Monochrome Icon --published in book
“I Am” Is a Vain Thought--published in book
Art History or Sacred History?--published in book
Doctor, Lawyer, Indian Chief: ‘Primitivism’ in Twentieth-Century Art at the Museum of Modern Art--published in book and republished in at least 20 books and translated in at least 6 languages resulting in the complete restructuring of Museum curatorial practice and MOMA being ousted as racist..
The Selfhood of the Other--published in book
Another Alphabet: The Work of Marcel Broodthaers--published in book
History, Quality, Globalism--published in book
Penelope’s Night Work: Negative Thinking in Greek Philosophy--published in book Arrivederci, Venice: The Third World Biennials The Tomb of the Zombie


this list comprises essays that are the text of books published on individual artists as monographs or Museum catalogues and make up art historical records of such.
Paul McCarthy: Performance and Video Works: the Layering (2008)--published in book Here Comes Everybody (1994)--published in book James Lee Byars and the Atmosphere of Question--published in book and republished and translated into several languages Charles Dellschau: A Higher Vision Is A Basic Demand Of Poetry.--published in 2 books

quite frankly this is a short list of major essays , McEvilley was prolific and at the top of his field. An encyclopedia is a portal to further research and these writings are an essential offering.

as for the see further section, I have no idea who added it, but McEvilley is cited on so many Wikipedia pages it's hard to count them all.

I would love to clean this section up and add more relevant references but I don't know how

just curious—what brought you to this page to begin with? I sincerely encourage you to explore this author.Lblackcloud (talk) 15:59, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

hi can you please tell me why you are trying to de-legitimize this authors page? citations for the list of essays would be so long most have been published and republished many times and in different languages a few were added by me but most have been added by other editors, long before I started on here, who have recognized their importance as a finding tool

what exact form do you want it to be in? have you looked at other authors pages who are art critics/theorists? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Danto please don't mess with his page but just saying these are writers who wrote essays that were MAJOR Lblackcloud (talk) 15:46, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

_____________-google McEvilley essay
https://www.google.com/search?q=thimas+mcevilley+essay&rlz=1C1GGRV_enUS751US751&oq=thimas+mcevilley+essay&aqs=chrome..69i57.5474j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
pleas explain why you are attacking this author's legitimacy?Lblackcloud (talk) 22:25, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Thomas_McEvilley&oldid=1201874715"