Template:Did you know nominations/Abel Azcona

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:05, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Abel Azcona

(
)
  • ... that performance artist Abel Azcona's works take his body to the limits and are usually related to social issues? [1] / see citation in article

** ALT1:... that Abel Azcona has been sued by the Catholic Church for his artistic work?

Created by Lolay1983 (talk). Nominated by Paul2520 (talk) at 16:16, 28 December 2019 (UTC).

  • The ALT1 hook is interesting but the article itself is ineligible, due to not adhering to neutral point of view and lack of sufficient citations in a BLP. I encourage the nom to address the issues in the article and ping me for a re-review. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:46, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Lolay1983 and/or John B123, can you take a look at these issues? = paul2520 (talk) 13:37, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Unfortunately, it appears that Lolay hasn't been active since the day of the nomination, so more eyes may be needed in any case. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 14:41, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
I'll have a look. John B123 (talk) 20:03, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
  • The original editor has since returned to editing and appears to have made changes to the article. A second look is requested; courtesy ping to K.e.coffman. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:03, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
@Paul2520: the page is still not eligible. As of today, there's a new set of tags on the article: 16 Jan version. Please let me know if you plan to do further work on the article. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:29, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, K.e.coffman. I can't commit to addressing these issues. I'm not the article creator or expander; I just nominated it as previously it looked like a great new piece.
@Lolay1983, John B123, and Narutolovehinata5: can any of you address the issues? Otherwise, we might have to retract the DYK nom. = paul2520 (talk) 17:55, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
@Paul2520: I've only really been involved in as far as fixing cite and other errors on the page rather than content. Lolay1983 is working hard to improve the article, but another couple of editors seem to be doing their best to frustrate his efforts. John B123 (talk) 18:33, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
@John B123: Yes!!! Thank you for your support. Please help me fix the handicaps!Lolay1983 (talk) 22:49, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  • The issues have now been resolved and the tags removed. A further look is requested; courtesy ping to K.e.coffman. John B123 (talk) 19:57, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
@John B123: thank you for the update. I've removed excessive list items; I want to give it a few days before approving to see if these changes stick. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:07, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Which source supports the ALT1 hook: "Azcona has been sued by the Catholic Church for his artistic work"? No source is provided together with the hook. Since the source is likely to be in Spanish, I would appreciage a quote + a translation into Eglish, in addition to the link / source. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:50, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
@Paul2520: ping the nom, just in case. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:52, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
I'll include the sources and some translation. I hope this helps everyone get a better understanding, if you consider that more sources need to be added to the wiki article, these next ones will help support the information. For the first time in Spain, the Catholic Church, represented by the Archbishopric of Pamplona and Tudela (who represent the Catholic Church in the north of Spain), come up as the whistleblower against Azcona and have had more than five years of trials.
In this source and text the intervewer speaks about the complaint against Abel Azcona, in this one I'll give you the translation:
For the Archbishopric of Pampñona and Tudela, Azcona's intention was to "mock" and "despise" Catholics. The most curious thing is that the ecclesiastical institution explains that "the fact that there have been some cases of pedophilia in the Church cannot justify the imputation of this despicable criminal conduct to those who profess a religion." The Archbishop is trying to downplay "despicable behavior" while recognizing the existence of "some cases", to confuse what was denounced by the artist with an alleged intention to offend every Catholic. The Court denies this argument and defends the artist's freedom of expression: if there is criticism or provocation there can be no derision, offense or befa.
The Archbishopric assures that the fact that there have been some cases of pedophilia in the Church cannot justify the imputation of this conduct.
[2]
In this source and text, they talk about the Church denouncing Azcona as well, I'll give you the translation too:
The Archbishopric of Pamplona-Tudela mobilizes against the exhibition by Abel Azcona
The metropolitan archbishop of Pamplona-Tudela, Francisco Pérez, has convened a mass of 'repair' this Wednesday, at 19 hours, in the cathedrals of Pamplona and Tudela, after the "attack on the faith" that in his opinion is the exhibition by Abel Azcona, which shows the word 'pederasty' with consecrated hosts. Francisco Pérez strongly condemned this action against "religious freedom" and against "all Catholics."
[3]
English news article about the persecution agains Abel Azcona because of his work, as explained in the wiki article there were 3 denouncers after the Catholic Church of Navarra, Christian Lawyers, who are part of the church as well, add up to the denounciation:
[4]
These are two new sources that talk about Abel Azcona in the trials:
[5]
[6]
Official website of the Church of Navarra against Abel Azcona and explaining the denounce:
[7]
If you need anything else, ask me and I'll translate for you. Lolay1983 (talk) 23:31, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Reviewer's comment: I am uncomfortable approving this article for DYK. The article creator appears to be rather inexperienced, while the nom has not assisted with verifying the hook, nor with addressing issues in the article. For example, the lead of the article currently states:
Azcona's works are exhibited [in] the Leslie-Lohman Museum of Art in New York[1]...
I checked the museum web site, which did not list Azcona in its permanent exhibition, which "are exhibited" generally refers to. It's unclear what else may be inaccurate in the article. I won't be able to continue to review the nom given the on-going issues with the page. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:52, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ SCAN (September 20, 2014). "Someone Else by Abel Azcona in New York". Scan Spanish Contemporary Art Network. Retrieved January 9, 2020.
@K.e.coffman: At the time of the "nom", it seemed to me that the article met the DYK criteria (being new, sufficiently long, well-sourced, reading as neutral, etc.).
I updated the wording of the line you mentioned; the Leslie-Lohman exhibit was clearly in 2014 per [8], so not current.
What are the other on-going issues you mention? If they are easy to address, I can take a look.
@Lolay1983 and John B123: I do want to say, great work -- the article is interesting and well-formatted! I'm very grateful to see the earlier issues addressed. I will request your help with the "on-going issues", but I can help where needed. = paul2520 (talk) 23:07, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
@Paul2520: It's unclear from the text provided above whether the Catholic church has indeed "sued" the artist. It appears that he was tried in a criminal court, prosecuted by the state. If you could look into that and provide a link to the source supporting the hook, that would be great. My general concern is that there may be additional misrepresentations in this BLP. I only checked one cite and found incorrect information. --K.e.coffman (talk) 17:45, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Hi K.e.coffman, thanks for clarifying. I see from [9] (linked above) mentions "The Spanish Association of Christian Lawyers has filed a criminal complaint for "desecration" against the artist Abel Azcona" (translated via Google). This is confirmed by the two cites on that line in the article, which I've updated.
I do slightly prefer ALT1, but both are good. However, this alternative is more accurate:
ALT1b:... that Abel Azcona has been sued by the Spanish Association of Christian Lawyers for his artistic work?
Unless you think we should use "The Asociación Española de Abogados Cristianos (Spanish Association of Christian Lawyers)".
Thoughts? = paul2520 (talk) 18:10, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
I think it's easier to understand now. Thank you very much for the effort. Lolay1983 (talk) 23:17, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
K.e.coffman what are your thoughts? Can you approve this, with the updates? = paul2520 (talk) 00:18, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
  • K.e.coffman hasn't responded to pings and talk page messages, so a new reviewer may be needed. I have concerns if ALT1b is suitable due to BLP issues; can something else be proposed that doesn't involve him being sued? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew
That sounds great, BlueMoonset! cc: Narutolovehinata5. = paul2520 (talk) 17:53, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Sounds good to me too John B123 (talk) 18:14, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
I'd be fine with it if it's not considered to be disparaging, but I'd just like to know if "enfant terrible" is considered a negative nickname (in which case I'd have reservations). I'd also like to hear the nominator's thoughts on it. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:22, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Narutolovehinata5, did you check the enfant terrible wikilink? Personally, I wouldn't consider the term disparaging in context—the Webster's definition strikes me as one an artist would be very happy about—but pretty much anything can be viewed in a negative light or adopted in that way by a critic regardless of original intent. The source didn't seem to be using it in a negative fashion (it was part of the article headline and in quotes there). BlueMoonset (talk) 22:12, 21 March 2020 (UTC)


General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.

Overall: (1) Citations. All paragraphs fully sourced except the first paragraph of The fathers section. The source used for the second paragraph/quotation does not support the previous uncited paragraph. That said, it is an impressively long, well-researched and well-cited article, so that one paragraph is a small proportion of the whole. In my opionion, in this case one unsourced paragraph is not an issue here. (2) Neutrality: In spite of comments about neutrality above, I don't see any non-neutral content (I'm guessing it has been rewritten since those comments were made). The courage and resourcefulness of this artist shine through the basic facts without any comment needed (and no such comment is used) - so I don't see any problem with neutrality. (3) Plagiarism: I cannot get the copyvio detector to work today, and nor could I during the past week. It times out. Therefore I must give benefit of the doubt regarding plagiarism. The text style does not contain any hallmarks of plagiarism as far as I can see. (4) Hook citation: I cannot access the citation for the hook ALT0, but since the hook is supported by the main text taken as a whole, I would not dispute its veracity - therefore I take the hook in good faith. (5) QPQ: The QPQ is fine. (6) Conclusion: I am happy to tick this one. It's a worthwhile article about a very interesting artist, who has a very moving backstory. I did not know about this artist, and I'm glad to have read the article. Thank you for creating it. (7) English language: I should add that one or two sentences are awkward linguistically and need a little correction, but I don't think this would affect the DYK. (8) Best hook: I think that ALT2 is the best hook, because it's hooky and it's an apposite description of the artist. Storye book (talk) 22:05, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

NB: To make life easier, I have struck out the first part of the above conversation, it being no longer relevant since the article has been much changed since then. I think that more points below the struck-out section have also been dealt with, but I have left the rest of the conversation alone to keep things simple. I hope that helps. Storye book (talk) 22:05, 26 March 2020 (UTC)