Talk:Wikinews interviews painter Pricasso on his art and freedom of expression

This article is a featured article.
It is considered one of the best works of the Wikinews community.
See the archived discussion.

Original reporting notes

• Primary sources confirming Pricasso will be appearing November 5 - November 8 at Sexpo Australia: SexpoAustralia dates on Twitter, and tweet by Pricasso about it, archived link of same tweet. -- Cirt (talk) 06:16, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
• Links in the article questions themselves are primary sources that confirm the deletion discussion that took place on Wikimedia Commons and the cited comments by Jimmy Wales. (links remain as they were given to Pricasso himself in the original questions for background). -- Cirt (talk) 06:18, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
• Jimmy Wales profile on Twitter can be seen at link: https://twitter.com/jimmy_wales. Pricasso correct that Wales chose to include "Free speech activist" in his profile description, which states: @jimmy_wales You know, the @Wikipedia and @Wikia guy. Free speech activist, entrepreneur." see also archived link at 2 September 2015 by Internet Archive. -- Cirt (talk) 06:29, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Sources for Helen Zille quotes:

• Mayor Helen Zille has shrugged off the news that her portrait has been painted by an 'artist' who uses his penis as a brush, saying it is his constitutional right to exercise his freedom of expression 'in this unusual way'.
  • Cape Argus staff (7 May 2008). "Artist uses a different stroke on Zille portrait". Cape Argus (South Africa: Independent Online): p. 3.

• This is a free country. A free society throws up these kinds of people, who exercise their freedom in unusual ways. And if this is how he wants to do it, I must accept his constitutional right to do so.
  • Mayor of Capetown Helen Zille — cited in: Cape Argus staff (7 May 2008). "Artist uses a different stroke on Zille portrait". Cape Argus (South Africa: Independent Online): p. 3.

• [Pricasso] has achieved a good likeness and I can't imagine how he painted it without brushes or conventional equipment.
  • Mayor of Capetown Helen Zille — cited in: Cape Argus staff (7 May 2008). "Artist uses a different stroke on Zille portrait". Cape Argus' (South Africa: Independent Online): p. 3.

-- Cirt (talk) 06:46, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Interview responses:

• Interview responses by Pricasso emailed to Pi zero (talk · contribs), Blood Red Sandman (talk · contribs), and Scoop. -- Cirt (talk) 06:52, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Emailed a copy to Bddpaux (talk · contribs), as well. -- Cirt (talk) 08:27, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Sent a copy to RockerballAustralia (talk · contribs). -- Cirt (talk) 08:42, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Secondary sources:

• Secondary sources cited are really only for the little bits of info in the Background sect. The bulk of this article is the Interview, and Original reporting. -- Cirt (talk) 07:17, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Video file:

• The video file in discussion in the interview is File:Jimmy Wales by Pricasso (the making of).ogv. I gave a detailed point-by-point rationale as to why this file is newsworthy, at the file page. -- Cirt (talk) 07:25, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Hustler Magazine v. Falwell

• Hustler Magazine v. Falwell essentially is a United States Supreme Court case that ruled in a unanimous decision that parody and satire of a public figure are forms of freedom of expression and protected free speech.
• This link at the website OYEZ explains it pretty well. -- Cirt (talk) 07:37, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Note that I didn't need to use this as a source, as we have primary sources for the Original reporting, but there's some info here:

• The Daily Dot (archived.)

-- Cirt (talk) 18:39, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Video

In the role of reviewer, here are my thoughts about the video.

• The reporter has provided a lengthy list of reasons to consider the video newsworthy. The listed points all seem valid to me.
• However, it's more than a technicality that we ordinarily use the term "newsworthy" to refer to a property of an article as a whole. What matters here is whether embedding the video in the article is integral to the news value of the article.
• The video doesn't seem to me to add to the news value of the article. Any reader who wishes to see the painting being made can do so at the external site given by the interviewee in the interview. If no such external link were available, it's not immediately clear to me whether or not embedding in the article would be justified; but since the external link is available, I don't see any compelling need to also embed.
• To be clear, if the video were integral to the news value of the article, the reason for deletion from Commons would be inapplicable here.

--Pi zero (talk) 01:53, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Done. Removed embed from article and deleted, per Reviewer comments by Pi zero (talk · contribs), above. -- Cirt (talk) 01:59, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Review status

• I've source-checked the introductory material (failed to confirm Spain; one place I didn't get a chance to look, so it's possible I might restore it later, though tbh it drops out without too much damage since that list doesn't claim to be exhaustive).
• I haven't yet source-checked the interview itself against the material sent to scoop.
• I haven't yet done a thoroughgoing analysis of neutrality issues here, which I consider needful.

It is, however, about half past one in the morning where I am, so I need some sleep before I'd be able to complete this review. --Pi zero (talk) 05:32, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the review so far, and no worries about Spain, feel free to leave it out. :) -- Cirt (talk) 05:37, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

There does appear to be some neutrality difficulty here; how readily reparable, don't know yet. --Pi zero (talk) 15:40, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for the review to date Pi zero (t · c · b), I hope you'll find it able to be published soon. :) -- Cirt (talk) 16:49, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Neutrality

While news neutrality does not call for "balance" in the Wikipedian sense (it would be absurd, both in logistics and in result, to try to require each news article to report on opinions in proportion to how mainstream they are), it is necessary for news neutrality that readers not be misled. Interviews are sensitive in this regard: questions can bias by omission as well as commission. Here it may be possible to compensate with one or more editor's notes for the reader, as difficulties may impact the reader more than the interviewee. I'll first list here the difficulties I see, then consider what to do about them.

• There were several separate deletion discussions, on two different pages; the one page linked doesn't convey the size or duration of the to-do and doesn't include the discussion that actually resulted in a deletion.
• The accusations of harassment were not accusations against the artist, but accusations against the uploader.
• Technically Jimbo did not personally take part in any of the deletion discussions, although obviously he wields massive influence (highlights why our neutrality policy forbids analysis).
• The deletion did not occur before people could have a good laugh; it didn't happen until about six months after upload.

Okay, now that I've listed those, I need to think carefully about remedies. --Pi zero (talk) 17:36, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Pi zero (t · c · b), I agree with your points. You're absolutely correct that the one page linked doesn't convey the size or duration of the deletion discussion, and you're right that some clarification could be made about the accusations of harassment. It could indeed be pointed out that Wales did not personally take part in the deletion discussions, and it could also be noted the time difference between upload and deletion debate. I think these things would be quite suitable for an editors note, perhaps in brackets and italics. Thank you, these are superb ideas. -- Cirt (talk) 18:09, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Heh. Brackets and italics was exactly what I was picturing. :-)  --Pi zero (talk) 18:22, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Alright, great, glad we're on the same page on how to further improve the article. :) -- Cirt (talk) 18:26, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Just a note here to say that I fully agree with these editorial changes by Pi zero (t · c · b), at DIFF. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 19:17, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Review of revision 3891620 [Passed]

Revision 3891620 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 19:42, 12 October 2015 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: None added. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 3891620 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 19:42, 12 October 2015 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: None added. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Thank you very much for your thoughtful review.

I'm glad we were able to collaborate and compromise together so nicely.

I agree with all of your recommendations and editorial changes.

Thanks again,

-- Cirt (talk) 20:47, 12 October 2015 (UTC)