QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Wed 15th July 2009, 1:37pm)
QUOTE(MBisanz @ Wed 15th July 2009, 1:31pm)
QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Wed 15th July 2009, 1:27pm)
Although major newpapers like the Guardian are covering this story, there appears to be no mention of this in the Wikipedia article about the NPG
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Port...allery_(London)I really hope we can restrain ourselves from promulgating the idea that a random intellectual property dispute with a website, that hasn't even reached a court of law, is worthy of mention in an article about a museum that opened in 1856.
See my remarks above about the 'stolen pictures' idea. When Munch's Scream painting was stolen I think that was reported in Wikipedia. So why not the theft of an image - particularly when the stolen item can itself be shown on the encyclopedia.
Also, if you are going to use the argument that less recent and boring events like foundation in the 19th century is more important then you open a serious can of worms, like why should Britney Spears get more space than Wittgenstein, e.g.? When I point out things like this I get masses of abuse from those en-Wiki.
[edit] Yes I was right there is masses about when the Scream was stolen.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Scream#TheftsWhy not choose one of the more important stolen paintings and an article about it then have a section about when it was stolen? That would be very exciting and would provide endless opportunities for mischief (fortunately I don't go in for drama so someone else will have to volunteer).
I knew we had a rule on this:
Wikipedia:SELFREFQUOTE
When a notable person, especially a writer or media personality, mentions Wikipedia, there may be a temptation to add any such mention to their Wikipedia article. However, to avoid self reference, this needs to be balanced with its importance in their overall body of work. For example, a radio host mentioning on one show that he read his Wikipedia biography is not a very important event in his overall career. A rare exception to this is, for example, the article on John Seigenthaler, because the media attention surrounding his Wikipedia entry is now a notable event in his public life.
Not sure I agree with exactly how that is worded, but I imagine one lawsuit in the history of this gallery is hardly important to its overall body of work (which probably encompasses dozens of lawsuits, among other things, over the last 150 years).