Talk:David Choe/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Warrant for Deletion

Not sure if lack of notability is warrant for deletion if the article is properly referenced. In any case, it would be good if Paulsboutique could give a more detailed explanation for the deletion tag.melonbarmonster (talk) 14:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that there is a 5 day countdown before the article is deleted on the tag. I removed the tag to stop this countdown in lieu of the lack of discussion here.melonbarmonster (talk) 14:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow. Isn't there a WP:LINKS policy on this wiki? The last section is almost half of the article... --Elitre (talk) 20:48, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I will be cleaning up and expanding this article over the next week or so. Please excuse the dust. Commandax (talk) 08:41, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I have expanded the non-free fair use rationale on the two images flagged by Moonriddengirl. Appreciate any guidance. Commandax (talk) 06:57, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm removing the "non-free" tag for now, since no one else has weighed in. Happy to discuss anyone's concerns over the rationale for these images, just let me know.Commandax (talk) 19:37, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Puffery

This article is an exercise in how not to sound encyclopedic, written by an WP:SPA who may not be aware of our guidelines. For instance, they claim that "Fecal Face" is a reliable source, somehow, and they don't seem to realize that the Fecal interview doesn't prove that "He achieved art world success with his "dirty style" figure paintings—raw, frenetic works which combine themes of desire, degradation, and exaltation". (Never mind that "art world success" is a bit challenged.) If you actually read that "interview"--it's not much of an interview, more like an open mike session prompted by gimme questions--you will see that Choe himself is the only one who uses the "dirty style" phrase, and that as such this particular source, even if it were reliable, could never bear out the claim about "art world success".

Editor also removed the peacock tag: I'm about to put that back, pointing to such puffy peacocky phrasing as "Choe, an inveterate gambler...", "Choe departed on the first of many adventures, and spent the next two years freight-hopping, hitchhiking, hustling and stealing his way around the United States", "Choe continued his obsessive traveling, from making an expedition to the jungles of the Congo to painting graffiti and murals around the globe alongside the world's greatest urban artists for the street culture brand Upper Playground", "focusing on his career and channeling his self-destructive impulses into less risky pursuits such as gambling and drumming". Actually, comparing the style of the article's prose and the Fecal interview, one might be tempted to, well, let's not, for now. Drmies (talk) 23:28, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

And now I discover that this and this were used as "references". Drmies (talk) 00:02, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I notice that the source contains stuff like "Your monster Scion truck was pretty sweet," which is not indicative of a professionally-authored source. Their staff do not all have @FecalFace email addresses - combined with the whimsical tone of "interested?" filling some slots makes me curious if it is volunteer run?

However, it does not need to meet Wikipedia's requirements for citations in order to be added as an External link or Further reading. This is generally a better place for interviews, which are rarely acceptable sources anyway, because they only provide content directly from the article-subject themself, rather than an independent critic. I would also consider the source acceptable for something we would accept a primary source for, such as a birthday.

The editorialized content Drmies put in quotes is not Wikipedia's writing style. Even if it appeared in The New York Times, we still wouldn't use it.

I'm working on a whitepaper right now IRL, but I can take a look tomorrow(ish). CorporateM (Talk) 01:22, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Dmries, I'm confused by that last remark. Are essays and interviews published in printed books not valid references for an article? (Seems we would need to delete half of Wikipedia, in that case.) Commandax (talk) 01:31, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
- You know what, that was hasty: for some reason I thought that the stuff was referenced in the Amazon entry, like in those "editorial" reviews. I probably saw what I expected to see, given the unacceptable tone of much of the article. And I'm not reinserting it, since it is on no way acceptable: those value judgments in the first part, which by definition are not factual, should not be stated as facts. As for the second part, why would it be worthwhile saying even more about what he has to say about himself? Drmies (talk) 01:51, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
CorporateM: Just for the record, I'm not the subject of the article, just a writer who once did a lot of research on Choe for another project, and thought it would be entertaining expand the general knowledge. The original article was a mess, and because of Choe's notoriety, it still gets a lot of vandalism, so I watch it fairly closely. I can tone down my "style," as it seems that might be what's causing friction. Commandax (talk) 01:31, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia's writing style is difficult to learn and not common anywhere else, including the source material itself. My background is in marketing, so I've always felt my learning curve was uphill.

By commenting before I've really looked into the article, I risk being wrong, or making a jerk out of myself (I do that sometimes). But at a glance where I think it needs to improve most is to be better aligned with Wikipedia's philosophical approach to covering the topic.

What I mean is that, from Wikipedia's perspective, those that are close to the subject are not objective about it. So we rely on independent, credible sources that can talk about the subject impartially. ie. we're less interested about what Choe says about himself, as much as we are about art critics, journalists, etc. Currently the article has a lot of extensive quotes and materials that are repeating what he's said. CorporateM (Talk) 01:55, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually, our style is found in other places--encyclopedias. I'm reading an entry in the Dictionary of National Biography right now, and it's just the same style as ours (and so it's terrifically difficult to paraphrase). Drmies (talk) 03:04, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Got it. So would you guys grant me some time to pull the style back and lock down more "credible" references, rather than just deleting entire sections? That would be much appreciated. Commandax (talk) 02:22, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

No problem. I was thinking the same thing. Feel free to ping me later on if you'd like me to take another look. CorporateM (Talk) 02:25, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Great, thanks! Will do. Commandax (talk) 02:28, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not about to start deleting more: the fluff is too intricately interwoven with the valid stuff. The guy is obviously very notable, and he deserves a decent article. Drmies (talk) 03:04, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Choe has divulged that he regularly invents his personal history thus making every interview, claim, podcast, quote... more unreliable than usually expected. My recommendation is that the contributors to this page need to proceed with caution. Hesperian Nguyen (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:34, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Notes

This statement "In the graffiti world, he is identified with the bucktoothed whale" doesn't appear to be supported by the source? Does anyone know where it came from? CorporateM (Talk) 20:53, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Added reference. Commandax (talk) 20:20, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I may try to re-incorporate a Works section at some point, as we would actually want this section to be quite substantial, the art-work itself being what he is best known for. I might try to move some info from the Lead about his work with Facebook, etc. here, trim the life story a bit more and also incorporate some stuff like his birth-date into his biography. CorporateM (Talk) 00:17, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

A few things I figure could be moved to create a Works section

His early art-work as a child on super-heroes, etc.
His magazine work for Hustler, etc.
His famous impromptu exhibit at the ice cream store
Slow Jams
Prison art
More recent work for exhibits, etc.

These topics could be extracted from the Life section to create a narrative on his works themselves. I think either chronological, or reverse-chronology would be fine. CorporateM (Talk) 05:12, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I think extracting those topics from the Life section would make the Life section a pretty awful and pointless read. I think it would be better to use the second paragraph of the introduction as a basis for a Work section, then work in some descriptive analysis from art critics, etc. I have the reference materials to do this, but due to other obligations, I would need a week or so to gather my resources and write it up. Can we hold off on further development until then? Commandax (talk) 20:19, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

That sounds good. The article is shaping up quite nicely. CorporateM (Talk) 20:59, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Repeated attempts to add 'sexual assault' and the 'massage incident' to article

It is a clear violation of WP:BLPSOURCES, and WP:GRAPEVINE. The terms 'sexual assault' can imply and implicated the Wikimedia foundation the target of a lawsuit, to which it is not entitled. The only two sources that were presented were a tabloid journalism article (which cannot be used) and a primary source claiming it as not a big deal. Regardless, WP:LIBEL must be read and understood by editors who wish to add this. I've started this talk page discussion as a way to discuss this changes, but as it sits, it is a clear violation of Biography of living person's policy. Tutelary (talk) 18:57, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm unclear as to how someone confessing to rape and they, themselves, saying it's "not a big deal" means it can't be included. Choe uses the words "rapist" to describe himself on the podcast. Also, the term "tabloid" seems to be arbitrarily applied to xojane. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.4.247.41 (talk) 11:21, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

When they have been convicted in a court of law, then we may use the terms, 'sexual assault' and 'rapist' in terms of this context. However, David himself has recanted and as I said before, the only reliable sources I've been able to find are Tumblr blogs. If you have any reliable sources on the subject, and in obligation of WP:DUE, we may then have a chance to add this section.Tutelary (talk) 11:30, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Choe has apologized for saying these things after repeat protest and multiple new sources covering the issue spanning over several years. I've added a sourced and objective summary of this controversy. Hesperian Nguyen (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:01, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on David Choe. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

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) 19:07, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on David Choe. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

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) 18:16, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Request edit on 12 January 2020

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. Per WP:V, WP:DCOI.

No replacement, but I thought we could mention the footage of Choe in Banksy’s film Exit Through The Gift Shop under “Other Media.” Footage of Choe is featured in a brief montage of graffiti artists early in the movie. The footage may be brief, but it’s a notable appearance of his in an award-winning documentary.

Edit can be found below, to be included under the Vice mention in Other Media:

Exit Through The Gift Shop, documentary film (appearance during graffiti montage) (2010)Inkbusy9800 (talk) 16:33, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Reply 12-JAN-2020

Disclosure and references requested

If the COI editor receives, or expects to receive, compensation for any contribution they make, they must disclose their employer, client, and affiliation to comply with Wikipedia's terms of use and the policy on paid editing.
A reference for the requested claim should also be provided.

Regards, Spintendo 17:55, 12 January 2020 (UTC)