Talk:William Samuel Horton

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sources, references, ISBNs[edit]

I’ve received email about my comments atop the draft, about an earlier version. I shall neither identify the sender nor respond to all the points that the message raises; however, below are a few points, and my responses to these.

your comments [. . .] are essentially that there would be a lack of reliable sources and references, which would prevent the article from being published

My comments weren’t on the non-existence of such sources. (I hadn’t started to look for them.) They were on the non-supply in the draft of such sources. (More have since been supplied.)

All references are from reliable companies, i.e. galleries and newspapers which are have been or are active selling/buying W.S. Horton paintings, or writing about him.

I’ve no reason to question the integrity of any relevant gallery or newspaper. But a gallery that deals in an artist’s paintings is not a disinterested source on that artist. Sources must be reliable, and one factor needed for reliability (as understood here) is independence from the subject. A dealer is not independent.

You say you need ISBN references on various publications I listed: but there is no ISBN because several of these are catalogs of W. S. Horton exhibitions which were published by the relevant galleries before the ISBN referencing system was fully implemented, as from 1976.

That’s a very reasonable reaction – but it’s a reaction to something that I didn’t say. I asked for an ISBN where it exists, but otherwise an informative “OCLC” (my careless mistake for “OCLC number”). See for example these lists in the article Teikō Shiotani, in which each item known to have an ISBN has the ISBN specified, and each that does not has an OCLC number (and also an NCID number, though this is of course completely unnecessary for Horton). – Hoary (talk) 02:16, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]