Talk:Robert Hughes (critic)

Road accident

COMPERE: And what is the outline then of the prosecution's case?

DAVID WEBER: The outline is that Mr Hughes was on the wrong side of the road, thus driving dangerously causing grievous bodily harm to Mr Kelly and Mr Bennett, who were the most seriously injured in the other car. He was on the wrong side of the road and the other car had slowed down as Mr Hughes had not slowed down.

It was night, the conditions were dry in that there was no moisture on the road, but Mr Hughes was on the wrong side of the road and this is what caused the accident. That's what the prosecution is saying. http://www.abc.net.au/pm/stories/s124527.htm

JANA WENDT: Hughes came face to face with oblivion. Driving in the other direction, three young men saw Hughes' car heading straight for them on the wrong side of the road. They say they flashed their headlights and hit the horn, but it was too late. http://sunday.ninemsn.com.au/sunday/cover_stories/transcript_1445.asp

Hughes was deeply unimpressed by the reaction to his accident. He later told The New York Times they could tow Australia "out to sea and sink it". Not only that, he found the Prime Minister an "ignoramus" and judged there was a conspiracy among "malignant little newspaper hacks". He also maintained that "Ozpress" hated expatriate writers, and "might as well be Serbians".

The criminal charges were not the end of the affair. Mr Cock and his deputy, Lloyd Rayney, also sued Mr Hughes for defamation in December 2000 for remarks he made about them after he was acquitted in Broome. Among their concerns was a remark allegedly made about Mr Rayney, whom Mr Hughes described as "an Indian gentleman". Hughes denied reports he called him a "a curry muncher". http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/04/14/1050172542343.html

Robert Hughes no longer Australian

Robert Hughes is no longer Australian. It seems that in 2003 he relinquished his AO and Australian passport, and became a US citizen.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/10/26/1067103267044.html

Nationality or culture is more than a matter of choice/citizenship. And there is an Australian culture which has nothing to do with citzenship. Germaine Greer and Jill Ker Conway are hardly ever in Australia. Rupert Murdoch is a U.S. citizen. I'm sure many people would argue that there is much about Hughes that remains Australian, including his decision to live overseas and become a U.S. citizen. :-) Grant65 | Talk 15:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

In fact Hughes denied the report completely:

ROBERT HUGHES: Somebody wrote this extraordinary piece in the Herald the other day, published in the Herald, saying, "Now it can be revealed that Robert Hughes is no longer a citizen of Australia. He has turned in his passport, he has returned his Order of Australia, he has done this, that". This was total and complete fabrication.

JANA WENDT: You have not turned in your passport?

ROBERT HUGHES: I have not turned in my passport, I still travel on it. I have not abandoned my Australian citizenship and, certainly, although I don't normally wear that little gold button that goes with the AO, mainly because everybody in America thinks it's just a lost earring. I mean, I don't know where they get this.

JANA WENDT: All right, so you haven't done it – how do you now feel about Australia?

ROBERT HUGHES: I feel nothing but love for Australia and 90 per cent of Australians. I feel nothing but contempt for the people who went after me as they did.

Elitism 13:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

If he became a U.S. citizen on or after 4 April 2002 he would not have lost his Australian citizenship automatically. In order to cease being Australian he would have needed to formally renounce his Australian citizenship under Australian law. Handing back an Australian passport in itself would not cause loss of citizenship. JAJ 23:49, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Large scale deletion of material

I am reverting the changes by Adam Carr and/or PDH, until there has been discussion of the deletion of a large amount of material from the article, including (e.g.) Hughes' current place of residence, mention of the defamation proceedings against him, the charge of racism, etc. I would like a point-by-point explanation of the deletions.

Please bear in mind that one person's "gossip and trivia" is another person's "vital details". Thanks, Grant | Talk 08:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

• Many of those things need cites, which they don't have; which means that they can be removed per WP:CITE and BLP. In addition the previous version of the text was not written in an encyclopedic tone. We are writing an encyclopedia here after all.--Peta 08:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I did not delete the reference his current place of residence, I moved it. The rest was unsourced gossip. Adam 08:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I now see the place of residence, crammed into a pragraph about his first wife.

As for the rest, I don't agree that it is is "gossip" and it isn't "unsourced" at all; look at the sources listed in the article's "References" section. They can be converted into in-text references if need be. As I was living here in Perth when the various court proceedings were going on, and followed them closely, I can assure you that the details in the article are substantiated. If anything, this article's description of what transpired is overly cautious. Grant | Talk 08:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

This piece on Hughes reads like a over-sensationlized unauthorized biography instead of an encyclopedic entry. It is littered with irrelevant gossip and overlooks the major milestones in his life. Even one of the intro sentences "well-connected family, lawyers..." what has that got to do with what made the critic? His father was a war hero and that's not mentioned. Wiki"Hello Magazine"pedia is a bloody free-for-all. -From Perth with all good intentions...DownUndr 15:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)DownUndr

well change it then. But is unlikely that deletions are the answer. Agreed that "well-connected family" is non-NPOV - but it is a pretty impressive family nonetheless, and is important to his origins and biography. Please please add the "major milestones" and the war hero references that are missing - without editors contributions this article will not improve. Reading his books RH over-sensationlises himself, putting much in the public domain that is usually kept private. But he is more than just a critic, he is a personality, a writer, etc... And yes, Wikip is a free-for-all ROxBo 08:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Personal life

This is better presented in a chronological order of the three wives. Happy with other changes, just recommend to keep the order. ROxBo 14:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Autobiographies (Things I didn't know) are not considered 'citable' sources for information and discourages NPOV. Removed material about wife 1 as potentially libelous. Incorrect maiden name of wife 2, changed to Whistler. Deletion of material on current status, location, etc, unnecessary. History of ROxBo changes to Hughes article show little original research, are numerous and trivial. History shows random deletions to wife 3, Downes, marginalizing instead of expanding topics on Hughes and Downes wiki page. Referring topic to third party admin as (??) vandalism. Suggest using Wiki Sandbox before making changes!!DownUndr 00:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)DownUndr

As the "lesbian girlfriend " referred to, might I say that Danne was clean and sober for 13 years when I met her in the late 80's. I think it fair to say Hughes is misogynist, and no woman good enough. Where are references to Hughes' drug use? Oh, pure as the driven snow you say? And he didn't inhale; just the usual distortions, which make all accounts like this unreliable propaganda. Ain't HE grand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.110.76.93 (talk) 04:38, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Isn't there an excess of dot points?

Surely his life does not need to have every event displayed as a list of dot points. Dot points should only be used where there is an actual list and not for blocks of text to separate paragraphs. Stellar 08:25, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Not rejected just discouraged. Have fun. Stellar 11:42, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Danton

His son's rather extraordinary life is relevant, IMHO ROxBo 04:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed!!!!!! If someone feels his (Danton) life is 'extra-ordinary' should a page not appear in the form of Danton Wiki- bio (Australia) and leave details of non-relatives out of RSFH page? DownUndr 14:18, 1 September 2007 (UTC)DownUndr

Yes, this page did exist but was recently deleted after merge discussion ROxBo 00:32, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Awards

If anyone can find the date for the award- NYPL Literary Lion, please add - have searched and it is not giving a date, but a reference to this achievement?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DownUndr (talk • contribs) 19:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 07:40, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

checked the achievement.org for the award to Robert Hughes, 1988, Golden Plate Award. There is no mention of Robert Hughes getting this award. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.98.92.31 (talk) 05:01, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Contact with Robert Hughes

www.trinivangheluwe.com189.217.84.231 (talk) 22:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Road accident section removed

I removed this section in accordance with WP:BLP, as it contained negative allegations about Hughes and had no sources. Looking higher up this talk page, I see that sources do exist; I'm not sure whether or not the content belongs in the article, though. In any case, anyone who wants to restore it should make sure the sources are incorporated. Robofish (talk) 16:26, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Barcelona

The book "Barcelona" is not mentioned in the Career section. Lifeofthemind (talk) 09:13, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Bad Habits

If you want to include and discuss Hughes's smoking, drinking, and otherwise bad habits - do so in a separate section with references...Modernist (talk) 10:31, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

If so, it was the sixties and the Push, so I suspect behaviour wasn't egregious for the subculture involved.....Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:53, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Relationship to Lucy Hughes Turnbull

Any reason why that shouldn't be mentioned in the article? She is his niece, and a reliable secondary source (NY Times) has mentioned the kinship. Why not include it here? It isn't as if the article is so long there is no space. User:Churn and change

Why was Hughes's ouster from curating the Venice visual arts role mentioned in Australia's "The age" removed?

Here is what the staid Encyclopedia Britannica has to say of the "The Age" (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/8893/The-Age):

The Age, Australian daily newspaper published in Melbourne and widely considered to provide some of the
finest news coverage in the country. It has been highly regarded for its dedication to accuracy.

That is clearly a reliable source. As to the diff summary "Not relevant to Hughes's life" what does that mean? Being ousted from the Venice role is not relevant to NPOV on a bio? Churn and change (talk)

Unsourced and BLP violations

Appears to be a history here of unsourced claims and BLP violations, made perhaps by accounts with less than noble intent. Most recently there have been persistent attempts to add unsourced claims on cause of death by a single account [1], who has supplied no references, nor used the talk page to explain their edits. Previous edits have included this [2], and this [3], wherein a former wife of the subject is referred to as an 'art groupie'. If one has the desire to rummage through article history, it's possible that divergent factions have warred over content that best serves their agendas. Whatever the case, if it continues the article can be protected and accounts blocked. At the very least, more eyes on this will be a good thing, and may discourage the nonsense and curtail more draconian action. JNW (talk) 21:32, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

This seems very straight forward to me, repeadly inserting, editwarring no less, the phrase about the effect on the family is so loaded and malevolent, why are we even talking about this. There is low intent, and then there is this. Ceoil (talk) 21:36, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

My sense is that this is an account belonging to someone who was close to Mr. Hughes, and though they may have made some constructive edits, there nonetheless is a conflict of interest which has compromised neutrality. Several of the above sections also referred to their edits. JNW (talk) 21:56, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

In that case, blocking is probably not the best or most sensitive way to go about this. Mr Hughes passing is still very recent. Ceoil (talk) 22:24, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello. Just to say that at least some of the material is sourceable. For example, p. 296 of Hughes' memoir says that Danne died of a brain tumour in 2003 and elsewhere details some of the exciting info on their LSD fuelled life together as a couple in 1960s London. There are several Australian obits which don't seem to have been used and they too mention the high life and also have more detail of the sort that has been added and removed: such as that Whistler was a housewife and that Hughes had to pay out quite a bit on their divorce. [4][5] [6]. I have a feeling that by looking through these sources and the memoir would be useful in expanding the article with some of this material.Slp1 (talk) 03:53, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

The best thing would be (if someone was interested) to get this article to a pretty comprehensive, balanced and sourced state. I'm not really keen to get involved myself as I peripherally know/knew some of the people mentioned in this article..... Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:49, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

If you have access to the memoir that would be great. I am pretty sure the editor user:DownUndr has a conflict of interest and should not be editing this article at all. I am going to work on some article improvements, which means I will have to leave any further admin actions to someone else. But improving the article seems the only way forward at this point. -- Dianna (talk) 17:58, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I only have access to (fairly large) chunks of the memoir on Amazon, but suspect that more "distanced" sources would be preferable for most material. If you have any specific questions let me know and I will try and look it up.

Looking back, I see that DownUndr has made a very number of what I consider to be useful contributions to this article, including deletions of BLP-violating material, back when Hughes was alive and there was actually a real BLP concern. I agree that the main priority needs to be getting them to engage here with some specific sources... I have a feeling that for the most part they are probably out there. Slp1 (talk) 18:50, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd noticed that, too. Unfortunately in recent months their contributions have been unsourced, have often sought to ennoble or disparage various ex-wives of Hughes, as in the most recent edits [7], and have been poorly written, to boot. In short, not worth their resorting to edit warring over. Further, there's been a persistent attempt to add the matter of dementia by Alzheimer's, which if true, has never been supported by a source. This, too, was spun to original research [8]. Anyway, they've refused to provide any sources for months, but the engagement of neutral editors is welcome. JNW (talk) 19:47, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes. I agree that there have been problems. But I also think - and this is a general comment directed at myself as much as anybody else - that there is a general tendency on WP to revert edits wholesale rather than look to see if there are legitimate, sourced, edits that can be made based on them. In this case, I think there are. It was trivial to find that based on numerous reliable sources his marriage to his first wife was pretty darned exciting, to find that she did die of a brain tumour, that Hughes did indeed have to pay out a lot of alimony for the second divorce, and that some of the article's material (e.g. the film narration, see below) is dubious at best and should be deleted from the article until verified otherwise. Meeting DownUndr halfway would have improved the article and might have avoided their block. --Slp1 (talk) 20:03, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Wholesale reversions of problematic edits are understandable. The onus is really on the provider of content to support controversial material with references, and we know how often users will make multiple changes in a single edit that mix legitimate and unacceptable content together--it would be good to parse it, but it's often easiest to scrap the lot. At that point the original editor may respond by correcting their contributions, but I got the sense that DownUnder isn't inclined to meet halfway, per these edit summaries [9], [10]; their role here is, perhaps through a conflict of interest, that of WP:OWNERSHIP. When I became involved here a few months ago it was in the midst of the Alzheimer's edit war, which escalated because there were never any sources provided. Yes, an article can be improved by separating wheat from chaff through research, which is what's happening now. But DownUnder has not been inclined to work here so as to forestall a block. JNW (talk) 20:44, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) A case in point is the deletion of the material about the film Protected (film) that Downundr made. It is certain that "a" Robert Hughes was the narrator [11] But no other source (other than WP mirrors) mentions this RH in connection with the film, not his memoir nor the many proud Australian sources about him. In addition, at the time the film was made this RH was firmly ensconced in the US, and he made other pronouncements later in life which might not be keeping with participation in this film. Perhaps it was Robert Hughes (Australian actor)? Who knows. But I think for now it needs to be deleted. Slp1 (talk) 19:50, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

This source supports him as a narrator [12], but I won't vouch for its reliability. JNW (talk) 19:56, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I found that earlier, but it says the info comes from WP, so no, not reliable at all!!Slp1 (talk) 20:03, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Very good. JNW (talk) 20:44, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Further sources, and what's missing

Beyond the purely biographical, this would greatly profit from an elaboration as to why he was the major critic of his era. There are good sources that refer to his personality and tone as a writer [13], [14], [15], an explanation of which is more important than the facts of his personal life. For a writer who's compared to Ruskin and Shaw, this is the missing piece we've yet to fill in. JNW (talk) 22:31, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Also, someone who is more familiar with his life and career could beef up the lead. I don't know what other aspects would be considered the most important to include. -- Dianna (talk) 05:39, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

I am pretty sure User:Downundr is a relative or close associate of Hughes, and therefore has a conflict of interest. I have reverted the recent addition, as some of the material inserted into the article does not appear in the quoted sources. For example, the quoted source does not say that Downes flew with Danton after the accident. Another example: the quoted source does not say that Lorna Pegram directed Shock of the New. Excessive details about Downes have been removed. This article is not about Downes. All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible. There's more information on this topic at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. -- Dianna (talk) 01:43, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Brothers

One of the brothers of art-critic Robert Hughes is/was (according to "Early life" section) Thomas Eyre Forrest Hughes, former Attorney General of Australia, born 26 November 1923. ANOTHER brother of art-critic Robert Hughes is/was (according to "Personal life" section) ANOTHER Thomas Hughes (Thomas John Hughes), born 9 September 1892. Thomas John Hughes's parents were Felix Hughes, labourer, and Felix's wife Maria Hughes née Boudan). The parents of art-critic Robert Hughes were Geoffrey Forrest Hughes and Margaret née Vidal. So why didn't Robert Hughes the art critic have EITHER of the same parents as his brother Thomas John Hughes? And why were TWO brothers of Robert Hughes named "Thomas" if they both lived long enough to have adult careers sufficiently noteworthy to get into Wikipedia? Please explain.76.8.67.2 (talk) 08:50, 11 May 2014 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

Academia.edu

Intrigued by the deletionism of new chum Passacaglia1969, I commenced investigating the source of which he complained, academia.edu, which has the appearance of a reputable site. Before finding the WP link, I sought to read the relevant learned paper 'Robert Hughes and Andy Warhol’s ‘stupidity’' by Jakob Zaaiman [London 2018]. I was amazed to discover that the website was urging me to download 30 other papers (which I was able to avoid)--an experience I've never had with any other 'academic' website. I was relieved to find that situation explained in the WP article. Bjenks (talk) 07:09, 21 July 2020 (UTC) Ooh, er... After I registered for that one download, academia.edu emailed offering me 95,184 papers on Academia discussing "Art Theory and Criticism." What have I let myself in for? Be warned, colleagues! Bjenks (talk) 10:04, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Jakob Zaaiman

The questionable deletion excises the derogatory opinion of one Jakob Zaaiman whose notability and reliability have yet to be established. The edit was appropriately reverted by User:Modernist, calling for a discussion on this page. In my view, there's nothing wrong in allowing space for a disparaging critique, provided same is intelligently reasoned by a qualified author and is not merely a jaundiced POV. So far, I haven't found that is true of Mr Zaaiman, but reserve my opinion pending more study and discussion. Bjenks (talk) 07:09, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

The Zaaiman critique is reasonable to me; providing a useful reference...Modernist (talk) 11:58, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

In a way, it's always refreshing to see a challenging alternative POV. But there is a weakness here, in that Zaaiman trenchantly pushes a dichotomy between "modern art" (which he loves) and "classical, museum-quality ‘beauty’" (which he seems to be disparaging as something he believes Bob Hughes was addicted to). Personally, (as a big fan of, e.g., Turner, Matisse, Cézanne and bits of Picasso) I can see plenty of continuity between the "classical" and "modern" themes and techniques—and I have no doubt that Hughes also saw that continuity. In other words, Hughes is being artfully misrepresented by Zaaiman, but that's nothing new in the space of art criticism. Bjenks (talk) 05:50, 22 July 2020 (UTC)