This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Contents
Margaret Thatcher
There is a line in the "life" division which shows his work for Mrs Thatcher in 1979. Beside it is a completely irrelevant extract about General Pinochet. Delete?
Origin of name
soThe word saatchi doesn't sound Arabic, especially the suffix, "chi". Could it be Turkish? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.139.195.162 (talk • contribs) .
- I have deleted "in Arabic" until and unless it can be verified. Tyrenius 15:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
ساعة or 'sa3a' means watch. The chi is an Iraqi pronounciation of the suffix 'ji', which is added on to a word to denote a profession. An example of this is the Iraqi politican , pacha being an Iraqi dish.
- The word "saat" is Arabic, the suffix "chi" is Turkish. Lets not mix language structures please. "Chi" suffix is very widely used suffix in Turkish and i looked at most of the professions in Arabic and i have not seen any profession ends with "chi" except mr. Pachachi`s. Also in the article it is said that "saatchi" is a persian word. Please correct it.
- For example explanation of turkish suffixes please check it out. http://www.turkishlanguage.co.uk/ekler.htm
Saatchi is a turkish name, and it implies that his forebear was a maker, merchant or repairer of clocks or watches.Eregli bob (talk) 07:48, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
I believe in Arabic, it should be saaty, not saatchi, as in Thomas L. Saaty, also from Iraq. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.140.168.108 (talk) 10:45, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Tracey Emin
I don't think it's accurate to say that "Tracey Emin appear[s] not to understand the significance of [her] own random creations." True, she did a television interview where she appeared to be under the influence of alcohol or drugs and was not coherent. But she is certainly not unaware of the significance of her work. NSpector 23:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- I removed the whole bit about "curator as creator". It's unsourced and libelous to Emin. Freshacconci 00:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
-
- (Not to mention hardly new. A curator assigning meaning to a work of art not intended by the artist? That never happens!) Freshacconci 00:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
WP:BLP concerns
Posts 1, 2, 3 copied from User talk:Tyrenius and User talk:Infoart to centralise discussion. Tyrenius 01:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
1)Hi Tyrenius, I was in contact with the Saatchi Gallery a couple of weeks ago re: copyright clearence, and today they've contacted me on an unrelated Wiki matter. It seems that there has been some libellous material included in Charles Saatchi's Wiki page and the gallery were wondering who to contact to report their concerns and have this material permanently removed. I just had a look at the page, and in going through the page history I noticed that you've previousy edited out this material on June 20, but it has been reincluded since. Looks like it's be removed again today by another user, however the gallery are quite concerned that it should not be reinstated. Would you mind looking in on this matter? If you or another Wiki representative could please contact Philippa Adams at Saatchi gallery directly she would really appreciate it. Her email is: [commented out] Many thanks for your help. Very best, --Infoart 23:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- 2)I saw your note to Tyrenius re: Charles Saatchi. I'm not sure something can be permanently edited out of an article. Since anyone can edit wikipedia, anything can be added. It's up to vigilant editors to catch the vandalism and issue warnings. Vandals can eventually be blocked from editing, but vandalism will always be an issue. Occasionally, a page can be removed and an administrator can remove all traces of that article, especially if the article is libelous. However, in the case of Saatchi, he's too much of a public figure to be removed from wikipedia (and I'm guessing that's not what's wanted here anyway). He'll always have an article, and will probably always be a target for vandals. That's both the nature of fame, and wikipedia, I'm afraid. Probably not the answer you wanted. I won't contact the email you gave Tyrenius. I'm not an administrator and perhaps there is something else that can be done. But in my limited experience on wikipedia, I'm fairly certain that there's little that can be done but revert the vandalism as it happens. There are certainly a few editors who have the Charles Saatchi page on their watch-list, so changes will be monitored. I've added it to my watch-list and I sent a warning to the last vandal. If he keeps it up, I'll report him to admins who can block him. Freshacconci 00:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
-
- 3)There is a bit of a difficulty here. While some of the hostile version is outright false, much of it is just as reliably sourced (from here) as the material that is cited (from here), which ought to be just as much a concern over bias as it presents Okamoto as the bad guy. The trick is getting the balance. Gordonofcartoon 01:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Some of the material might be better dealt with in Saatchi Gallery with a briefer mention here. Tyrenius 02:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
See User talk:Malikeel. Different identities have been used to replace material in the article. Tyrenius 02:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Regarding the substance of the reverted material, see The Guardian, 22 October 2005, where it can be found. That does not necessarily mean of course that it will be included in the article in the way that it has been. That would give it undue weight, per WP:NPOV. Tyrenius 02:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Since there has been contact from an involved outside third party, is this a matter for the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard? As it does not appear to be pure vandalism (thus simply revertible) and falls under Due Weight/Sensitivity considerations it may be that we need the assistance of BLP warriors in keeping this article within guidelines. LessHeard vanU 12:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Yep; that'd be good. As I said above, some of it is straightforward reversion fodder, but a summary of the dispute within BLP constraints is going to be a rather more subtle task, given that a lot of the crit appeared reliably sourced and only wrong via the undue weight given. Gordonofcartoon 12:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, caution is needed, so that one event does not get blown out of proportion. For anyone editing this, there are also reports in The Times.[1][2] Tyrenius 21:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- I'm awaiting a response from Infoart before submitting a notification to WP:BLP/Noticeboard since I am roughly three parts removed from the original comment. I would prefer someone with a closer knowledge of what has been said to be available for clarification if needed. If the re-inclusion of the unflattering material continues I will refer anyway. LessHeard vanU 22:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, caution is needed, so that one event does not get blown out of proportion. For anyone editing this, there are also reports in The Times.[1][2] Tyrenius 21:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Yep; that'd be good. As I said above, some of it is straightforward reversion fodder, but a summary of the dispute within BLP constraints is going to be a rather more subtle task, given that a lot of the crit appeared reliably sourced and only wrong via the undue weight given. Gordonofcartoon 12:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Thank you
I've just received word from the Saatchi Gallery that Tyrenius has been in contact with them. Thank you very much for your speedy reply T. And for the kind advice from everyone. Best, --Infoart 18:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Transparent PR?
'their new agency quickly overtook their former agency in Britain's top ten'
This is such a vague, self-agrandising claim that it looks certain to be a touch of publicity. It doesn't: - define 'top ten' of what - define 'quickly' - provide citations
Wikipublicopaedia, yet again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.141.137 (talk) 20:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
New Chinese art
Please wait for the reviews before inclusion, so we have quotes and comment on how notable the exhibition is regarded. Not every Saatchi exhibition is notable, and not every notable Saatchi exhibition has launched a new movement. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Nigella Lawson image
It is perfectly suitable in an article about an individual to have a photo of that person's wife. It is someone of considerable relevance to the subject. Ty 01:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
- I would say it isn't really needed. Is there a reason for it? Most bios don't usually include on?--Tom 14:08, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
If most bios don't, then some bios do, presumably when the spouse is prominent in that person's public life, which is the case here. She is well known in her own right and coverage of Saatchi in the media often includes her. This makes it appropriate in this article. Ty 02:36, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
But NIgella Lawaon isn't "prominent" in C Saatchi's public life. ie art other than perhaps attending some private views, whatever "the media" or gossip columns like to write about. She was and is prominent in her own career. What other bios on Wiki have an image of a spouse unless they are known for working together or in the same field ?Rrose Selavy (talk) 15:14, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- On the top of my head, Chiang Kai-shek's bio includes pictures of his four non-notable spouses, and George W. Bush has a picture of his children and wife. Although I don't have any strong opinion as to whether we should keep or remove the picture of Lawson, I would tend to think it's quite natural to have picture of relatives, especially close ones, in biographies. Laurent (talk) 23:01, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
There are thousands of bios on Wiki - it's not common practice at all . quite the opposite. I wouldn't think it "quite natural" at all, for the reasons I've already stated. Rrose Selavy (talk) 00:56, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- An article about a person contains information relevant to that person, including birth place, education, career, private life. That is put in the text and there is no disputing it is all relevant. An image is simply another way of presenting information. If the information is relevant, then it is relevant in an image just as much as it is relevant in text. The two modes of presenting information complement each other, and also bring out certain aspects not possible in the other mode. We are here to present information for the reader. I fail to see why any reader would not think this a useful and informative addition to the article. I don't see why you are so keen to withhold information from the reader. Ty 01:06, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
You miss the point , is is not about "withholding information" . it is about consistency compared to other Bio articles within Wiki which no one has demonstrated that the practice of including images of spouses is widespread or consistent,. Anyone who wants to know what Nigella Lawson looks like can click on her name in this article to be taken to her wiki article where exactly the same picture is displayed , so your allegation that such information would be withheld from the reader is unfounded and incorrect. Rrose Selavy (talk) 02:21, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- If you do not include it, you are, by definition, withholding it. There is no policy or guideline that vetoes its inclusion. You have not addressed the point that if information is valid in one form, e.g. text, it is valid in another, e.g. imagery. Wikipedia:Other stuff exists is a long-devalued rationale. You have not found agreement here for your proposal. Ty 02:31, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Again you miss the point, countless images are potentially withheld from articles for very valid reasons. even if referred to in the text - it is included elsewhere and you haven't found agreement for including and duplicating the image in this article in the first place! It is clear from the edit history I am not the only person who has queried its use and I was not the first. You are obviously very attached to the image. The link you provide refers to articles and their deletion or inclusion and is irrelevant to the issue of what to include in an article . No one has disputed that this article should not exist . I have made my point and now have other things to do with my time. Rrose Selavy (talk) 03:14, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Rich list
The Maurice article says that Maurice "was number 366 in the Sunday Times Rich List 2008, with an estimated wealth of £220m in advertising and art". How then when he's grouped with Charles in 2009 can they be at 439th place with a joint fortune of £120m ? I'm not sure they suffered such a decline at that time. Any clues ? -Sticks66 12:41, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Hyper-realism
I once visited Saatchi's home in St John's Wood in 1974 or 75. I recall being impressed by the large presumably American hyper-realist paintings on the walls. I particularly remember one that had the tail fin of a vintage Cadillac plus a supermarket.. this was the same time as American Grafitti. His taste for this style seems to go unmentioned? Wwwhatsup (talk) 09:28, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Off-topic
A box about Hirst has appeared at the bottom of an article about Charles. I do not know what it is doing here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.27.109.117 (talk) 09:50, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Charles Saatchi relationships
Trinny Woodall looks confident she can deal with Charles Saatchi and can deal with it if, "live grabs you by the throat" [1] John Diamond was also confident Saatchi would be good for his wife when he know she would soon become a widow. [2]
Sadly the dying man's confidence was misplaced.
Saatchi is now ten years older, weaker (physically and psychologically) than he was when he married Lawson so Trinny may be able to manage him. Also Trinny may be content to stay just his friend. Wives or girlfriends of Saatchi may conceivably fear his influence if they leave him or don't do what he wants. Nigella's friends claim she fears this though outsiders can't tell how reasonable or unreasonable the fear may be.
Unconfirmed roumours suggest her (Nigella Lawson's) ex-husband may be behind banning Lawson from entering the USA. “Nigella has said several times that she believes Saatchi is out to ruin her. Clearly she puts nothing past him. This is a dreadful situation, she feels she will never get away from him,"[3]
- ^ Nigella Lawson Tweets 'Slut's Spaghetti' Recipe After Ex-Husband Charles Saatchi's New Lover, Trinny Woodall Appears To Mock Her In Online Birthday BlogFrock, horror! Trinny Woodall takes Nigella Lawson's old seat
- ^ Nigella 'began affair with dying husband's blessing'
- ^ Saatchi's revenge: Nigella Lawson's ban from US 'blamed on bitter ex-husband'Nigella Lawson's US Flight ‘Ban': Was Charles Saatchi To Blame?
The time to look out for trouble could be after they marry, if they do. Proxima Centauri (talk) 10:19, 24 April 2014 (UTC)