Talk:Psychedelic art

Re: Gwen-chan (talk | contribs) (replaced non-free copyrighted image with public domain image from Commons)

BTW, the removed image was being used with permission from the artist. --Thoric (talk) 20:34, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I saw that, but a completely free, public domain image with no constraints on how it is used or credited is the ideal. GwenChan 20:46, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Until one is supplied, and not removed, I put the original image back -- which again, has permission from the artist to use on Wikipedia. Please do not leave this article without an image! --Thoric (talk) 21:04, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Psychedelic artists

The Psychedelic artists section is too contentious to leave almost completely unreferenced. I suggest we remove all those without references supporting a statement that the person makes psychedelic art. Ideally if the artist's article has a reference it should be included here. - Shiftchange (talk) 00:06, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I would say the proper procedure would be to try to source such references, rather than remove those currently without. --Thoric (talk) 19:59, 12 May 2015 (UTC) Here is one reference we can work with: http://psy-amb.blogspot.ca/2012/11/42-modern-psychedelic-visionary-artists.html

Actually no. Anybody can challenge any un-sourced claim, remove it and ask for a citation from a reliable source. You don't build an encyclopedia by hoping statements are true. - Shiftchange (talk) 13:10, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I didn't say you couldn't challenge it. I'm saying that it would be far more helpful to add the citations you so desire rather than delete content pending someone else adding said citations. Also, WP:Verifiability states that, "any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source". So if you have a specific name on that list you are challenging, feel free, but you shouldn't just blanket challenge the entire list as a whole. I do not feel that the list of psychedelic artists is considered to be material that is "likely to be challenged". --Thoric (talk) 21:31, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Having a long list within an article is not great style. This could either be a separate list, or there could be a category Psychedelic Artists that would allow people to access a dynamic list. Presumably in each article there would be sufficient referencing to support the claim. (I favor the latter approach.) LaMona (talk) 14:36, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

"Zero Tolerance" Image

What exactly is the relevance of the "Zero Tolerance" image in counterculture section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:C3:C202:5330:4C7E:AEBE:ABC2:7DCC (talk) 16:52, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I removed it, and replaced it by a more appropriate image. It was probably added by the user who created the image.Teknad (talk) 10:06, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Biased Language

Hi!

Just wanted some clarity and context around the statement "Underground Comix were ribald, intensely satirical, and seemed to pursue weirdness for the sake of weirdness." Without context and citation for this, I find "weird" to be suggesting of biased language. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maisonmartin (talk • contribs) 17:56, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

"Entoptic art" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Entoptic art has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 29 § Entoptic art until a consensus is reached. cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 14:24, 29 April 2024 (UTC)