Talk:Enrique Martinez Celaya

.

"Books" section

I don't think this article really needs the bibliography section, nor the section just for quotes, but it especially doesn't need a section just for listing various books that other people have written about Celaya. I'm moving that text here, in case it helps someone do further research on the subject. If someone wants to put it back in the article, I won't fight, I just don't think it belongs, especially not as a standalone, un-fleshed-out section. Jessicapierce (talk) 05:04, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Books

• Enrique Martínez Celaya: The Pearl. (Santa Fe, New Mexico: Radius Books), 2013. Text by Irene Hofmann. 320 pages, 160 color illustrations, Hardcover with jacket. ISBN 978-1-934435-71–7.

• Enrique Martínez Celaya: Collected Writings & Interviews, 1990-2010 (University of Nebraska Press), 2010. A collection of over sixty texts, from interviews and artist statements to blog posts, correspondence, and formal lectures that span two decades and reveal the important role that writing plays in Martínez Celaya's artistic practice. Paperback. ISBN 978-0-8032-3474-1.

• Enrique Martinez Celaya: Working Methods/Métodos de trabajo. (Barcelona: Ediciones Polígrafa), 2012. Text by Mary Rakow and Matthew Biro with a conversation between Leo A. Harrington, Mary Rakow and Enrique Martínez Celaya. 168 pages, 106 illustrations in color, Hardcover. ISBN 9788434313163.

• Martínez Celaya. Early Work. (Delray Beach, Florida: Whale and Star), 2006. Text by Daniel A. Siedell, Thomas McEvilley, Christian Williams, Enrique Martínez Celaya and John Felstiner. 392 pages, 315 illustrations in color, Hardcover. ISBN 978-0-9673608-6-7

• Enrique Martínez Celaya 1992-2000. (Cologne, Germany: Wienand Verlag), 2001. Texts in English and German by Charles Merewether, Abigail Solomon-Godeau, Howard N. Fox, Rosanna Albertini, Judson J. Emerick, Arden Reed, and Colette Dartnall. 282 pages, 99 color and 90 black and white illustrations, Hardcover. ISBN 9783879097654.

rewrite needed

This is a terrible article composed largely of obvious plagiarism. The article is rife with commentary and opinion clearly lifted from books and articles and websites without any attribution. The lede is not written in the style of a Wikipedia lede and the repetition of information seems placed with the goal of increasing the size of the article by filling in sections like "Writing." I see there have been problems with the artist's fans or perhaps paid contributors requiring blocks and admin deletions of texts for copyright violations. Since there seems to be very little in the way of reliable sources that discuss the artist and not just his work, I suggest removing all the obvious commentary from the lede and reduce the article to just his reliably sourced bio with mention of his awards for his work and teaching positions such as those at Dartmouth and USC. The glowing commentary and faux critiquing needs to go. Bodding (talk) 18:57, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

I edited the article this morning and removed the tag since now it reads more like a WP article than a PR release. Bodding (talk) 16:08, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

I have some questions about the information in this article. I can verify that some of the facts are inaccurate.Nothing major, but for example, there is no accent mark on the Last name and the birthplace information is inaccurate on two occasions. How can I go about correcting these issues? Also, How can I upload any new photos on this page correctly? User:EMC11240 (talk) 16:11 12 July 2019 (PST)

The birthplace information has been corrected. The edit with the accent mark on the last name has been removed. Please remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. This article on Enrique Martinez Celaya is the the biography of a living person. It not an indiscriminate collection of information, nor is it a newspaper. Information on the newest exhibitions do not belong here. Neither does every new photo or news item. Please familiarize yourself with the rules and style of Wikipedia and kindly respect those boundaries. Someone is always available to help at the help desk to point you in the right direction. You might also take the time to read the welcome message on your talk page. It has links that will help guide you in editing. Bodding (talk) 05:26, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Info box entries

I've removed the Info Box entry that claims Packer and Celaya were 'partners.' No sources claim any such status, nor do they claim they lived together. From what I've read, they dated for less than 24 months and continued to maintain separate residences. Ms. Packer also has had several relationships after her divorce. I didn't find any source that claims those relationships were "partnerships," either. I did not remove the mention of their relationship from the 'Personal" section, though I can't see a reason for it to be included there either. It doesn't seem to rise to the level of importance like a marriage would be or a significant long term relationship like Goldie Hawn and Kurt Russell. Bodding (talk) 02:27, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

removing 'neutral point of view' template

This template was added in response to a user who hasn't edited this page since 2020, and whose edits make up 11% of all edits. All info on this page is well sourced and does not seem particularly biased. Would anyone object to the removal of this template? Shelby novak (talk) 15:06, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

@Mifter Shelby novak (talk) 15:09, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Given the time passed and amount of changes I am not opposed to removing the COI tag however would note that parts of the article (including the intro) still do read to be rather promotional and not written from a neutral point of view. Additionally, the image you just added to the article appears (from a reverse image search) to a press photo and I have tagged it as needing permission demonstrating that the uploader is able to freely license it on Commons (if none is provided it will be deleted in approximately a week). Thanks, Mifter (talk) 01:00, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Update: I agree with Mifter in that this article still reads as promotional and not encyclopedic with a neutral point of view. Some of these edits are obviously from an editor/editors who are close to the subject with a view toward promotion of the artist. I just removed an entry that mentioned the subjects' talent agency. This isn't Variety, where that sort of information is common. I've also restored the COI tag. In addition, the new photo in the info box is purely promotional. This article is about the artist first and foremost. A clear photo of him belongs here. Photos of his works are welcome within the body of the article, but are not appropriate for the info box. Bodding (talk) 14:55, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

I've restored a previous photo to the info box that clearly shows the artist. The one replaced dwarfed the subject. Bodding (talk) 15:13, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't agree that this article seems promotional. The information presented is factual and I have checked sources and also added a few additional sources in an effort to expand points of reference. There seem to have been improvements over the last several years and I don't see problems with the information in this article. Thoughts? PolinaPatricia (talk) 00:03, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree, this page appears fine now. I think we should remove the COI tag. I'm also fixing some broken links for accuracy. Cmnpusa (talk) 19:00, 22 May 2024 (UTC)