Talk:Van Briggle Pottery

Removal of commercial link

I certainly have no problem with the trend toward not allowing commercial sites to use wiki as a spam platform.

However, many commercial sources are used when they are obviously also legitimate sources of expert information. (Example: The Chicago Tribune is a commercial web site, yet a legitimate source of wiki information)

The links to free information and history pages on the commercial web site Just Art Pottery Just Art Pottery is another such example. The owner of the site is widely known as an enthusiastic collector of American Art Pottery, is very generous with information, is sought after as a public speaker on pottery, and is willing to help anyone who has questions about pottery. Yes, he sells pottery. That is not a crime. He is also an invaluable, reliable, expert resource on this topic.

I feel strongly that the links to the Just Art Pottery information pages should be restored (they were deleted). There is a fine line between blocking spam links, and having a knee-jerk anti-business bias. VanBrigglePottery 18:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Article about Pottery, not about founder

Someone appears to want the article about Van Briggle Pottery to be redone as an article about it's founder, and redirected links from "Van Briggle Pottery" etc. to "Artus Van Briggle."

I suggest if the author of those changes wishes to write an article about Artus Van Briggle, that he do so without vandalizing other articles. There is certainly enough about the man's life to warrant a full article on it's own right, however this article about the oldest American pottery is about that institution from founding until today, not about the person of the founder.

significant impact on the Art Nouveau movement worldwide

Really? Please could someone give decent supporting references to this hyperbole. I challenge this claim as it looks to be suspeciously like fans promoting their own passion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.169.244 (talk) 16:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

You "challenge this claim" of his fame based on what? Your sarcastic use of "Really" displays an oddly emotional quality regarding a simple historical subject. While it may be said that the author(s) of this article appear to be van briggle pottery "fans" - I counter that you appear to bear a grudge of some sort against either him or them. Are "fans" of VanGough forbidden from contributing? Are "fans" of Degas automatically suspect?

Here are just a few of countless references to Van Briggle's fame regarding the Art Nouveau movement. His pieces are displayed in museums worldwide as examples of Art Nouveau. He is credited with "putting Colorado Springs on the map" for that very Art Nouveau contribution.

http://antiqueshoppefl.com/archives/abrandt/briggle.htm "Van Briggle was a key figure in bringing the concept of Art Nouveau to the United States."

http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=9477794 "He was best known for his "Art Nouveau" designs and rediscovering the lost Ming Dynasty formula for satin matte glazes. He won numerous awards from prestigious organizations such as the Paris Salon, the Saint Louis Exhibition, the Lewis and Clark Centennial, and the Arts and Crafts Exhibition in Boston. Pottery pieces made by Artus Van Briggle are displayed in museums that include the Metropolitan Museum in New York City, New York, the Smithsonian Institution in Washington D.C., the British Museum in London, England, and at the Louvre in Paris, France."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,439201,00.html "Van Briggle's pottery created something of a sensation, winning awards at the Paris Salon of 1903 and the St. Louis World's Fair of 1904. But it's not easy to get a sense of the man who - more than anyone else - first put Colorado Springs on the international arts map." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.11.124.226 (talk) 00:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks as if User 86.153.169.244 has upset User 72.11.124.226! I'll don't wish to get in the middle but I can not find in any of the references given by User 72.11.124.226 anything to substantiate the claim of the pottery being a "significant impact on the Art Nouveau movement worldwide". Sure they praise the pottery and the man but where is it about the impact on the global movement? (and by the way when I followed the foxnews link it was about Bigfoot: did he work at the pottery :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.54.238.178 (talk) 03:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks as if there are a couple of individuals who intensely dislike the Van Briggle Pottery and are putting this particular entry under a microscope and trying their hardest, using the excuse of inappropriately applied rules, to reduce it to rubble. The above links are in regards to the person of Artus Van Briggle, who was indisputably foundational to the Art Nouveau movement. (Foundational = He was in at the beginning, his works were world-famous at the time, world famous to this day, displayed in museums worldwide as examples of Art Nouveau, and no serious art historian would deny those facts.) Only a disturbed person with a grudge would go to such lengths to remove any references to Van Briggle's contribution to the Art Nouveau movement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.11.124.226 (talk) 23:45, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

"... who was indisputably foundational to the Art Nouveau movement." No he was not. You have not been able to support this claim. I can not see any evidence of any intense dislike of Van Briggle Pottery, rather objection to fanboy hyperbole. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.224.42.88 (talk) 17:46, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I have no objections to your edits; they make the article more neutral without destroying it altogether, which previous persons have seemed to desire. However your snide use of the insulting term, "fanboy" to describe the previous contributor(s) to this article is not necessary, and reduces your credibility. Snide put-downs from people like you are a detractor from the Wiki experience, not a positive addition to it. 72.11.124.226 (talk) 02:50, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Now I've had time I have undertaken a few edits to remove some of the overblown text without removing content. It may also be worth commenting that at least part of the cause of the flare up from 72.11.124.226 could have resulted from his/her misunderstanding of what "foundational" means as it is not "his works were world-famous at the time" or "world famous to this day" etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.224.42.88 (talk) 21:59, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

It may be helpful to note that shortly after the article was created in 2006, the following was stated. "Its founder had a significant impact on the Art Nouveau movement worldwide, and his pottery is foundational to American Art Pottery." Note how, over time and with many questionable edits, the wording changed. I find the original statement to be 100% accurate and completely within any encyclopedic norms, and I will replace it in the lead paragraph, with citations. Artus VanBriggle was NOT "Foundational" to the Art Nouveau movement, as he did not have an impact on it until about 20 years after it started in Europe. He DID, however, have a large and documentable impact - and leadership role - in the AMERICAN art Nouveau movement. In fact, it is completely reasonable to say that he and a few other American artists had a significant impact on the Art Nouveau movement worldwide, which is what the article originally stated.

Now, going back over 2 years and reading here and there, it is obvious that this article was written by a Van Briggle enthusiast. The creator's NAME was "VanBrigglePottery"! 199.244.42.88 seems to think that such "fanboys" are something to be made fun of and insulted. I would remind him that Wikipedia was built by "fanboys" of the topics they wrote about, and he should drop his attitude lest someone file a complaint about his propensity to insult and belittle other users. I doubt Wikipedia appreciates people roaming around their site dispensing insults to contributors.

The article did and does need to be worked on to make it more neutral and encyclopedic, but it is not as seriously flawed as the hysterical tone of some would suggest. The very nature of Wikipedia is that it - and the articles in it - start out rough, and get polished over time. The assessment above that someone appears to bear a grudge against the topic or it's contributors seems to me to be accurate. It wouldn't be the first time that edit wars were persued from one topic to another out of spite. 199.244.42.88 seems to be no stranger to edit wars.

There are 2 ways to approach editing an article: Out of respect for the topic and the contributions of those who preceded you, and out of disrespect and disdain for the topic and those who preceded you.24.21.105.223 (talk) 07:15, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

My god rarely have I read such a pompous load of self-righteous crap. If anyone needs to drop their attitude it is user 24.21.105.223 who has made no beneficial contributions to the article and whose input has been limited to posting unhelpful and snide comments on the discussion page. Compare this to the efforts I have made to edit a flawed article into something approaching an encyclopedia article, only then to receive what is in effect abuse. I have nothing to fear about "someone file a complaint about his propensity to insult and belittle other users", not least as what is going to happen? But also as user 24.21.105.223 would clearly be condemned and punished but whatever irrelevant punishment would be metered about by an website.

User also accused me of making fun of "fanboys" - I did not. I noted that overblown content was of such origin. Similarly the accusations of "seems to be no stranger to edit wars" is false.

And it seems a possibility that user 24.21.105.223 and user 72.11.124.226 are the same,and so the judgement that "The assessment above that someone appears to bear a grudge against the topic or it's contributors seems to me to be accurate" carries no weight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.224.42.88 (talk) 08:38, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Even the apparent corrections he or she notes are flawed: "Its founder had a significant impact on the Art Nouveau movement worldwide, and his pottery is foundational to American Art Pottery." is claimed to be "100% accurate" and yet later in the same sentence this became "He DID, however, have a large and documentable impact - and leadership role - in the AMERICAN art Nouveau movement." Impact on American Art Nouveau does not necessarily impact globally, and it was an established and recognised movement pre-Van Briggle only means the impact is nationally. All credit for that but further extension is flawed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.224.42.88 (talk) 08:23, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

You are clearly over-wrought and emotional about this article, 119.224.42.88. I wonder why. Maybe you should take a break? Throwing around wild accusations on top of the snide put-downs which you have already issued, indicates to me you need to walk away. If you take a breath and read what I wrote, you will see that I AGREED with you that the claim that Van Briggle was "Foundational" to Art Nouveau is not supportable. However, the man clearly DID (it is well established by my citations and others in the article) have a significant impact on American Art Pottery, and the international Art Nouveau movement, as he received a number of international awards for his art. The only remaining question I have, is this: Why are you so focused on discrediting Artus Van Briggle? Your first edit anywhere on Wikipedia was not to any article, but to insult other contributors on THIS discussion page. Odd. Very odd. 24.21.105.223 (talk) 08:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

"over-wrought and emotional." No I am not.

"indicates to me you need to walk away" is your opinion to which your are entitled, but it doesn't mean it is correct.

"the man clearly DID (it is well established by my citations and others in the article) have a significant impact on American Art Pottery," I do not disagree.

"and the international Art Nouveau movement." No.

"as he received a number of international awards for his art." This is not the same as 'significant impact on .... international Art Nouveau movement."

"Why are you so focused on discrediting Artus Van Briggle?" I am not. If I was I wouldn't have take time and effort to improve the article.

split

This really should be two articles-one about the artist/founder, one about the pottery. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 23:15, 24 October 2008 (UTC)