From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Wikipedia CD Selection
WikiProject icon Expressionism is included in the Wikipedia CD Selection, see Expressionism at Schools Wikipedia. Please maintain high quality standards; if you are an established editor your last version in the article history may be used so please don't leave the article with unresolved issues, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the DVDs.



1 2 3 4 5 6


It would be hard to argue convincingly that Kafka's works are 'expressionist.' Could we remove this or at least have a reference? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:34, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't have enough literary sources to hand, but his play is published in a volume of Expressionist works, and the publisher Kurt Wolff indicates that Kafka is usually grouped with the Expressionists in literary histories (even though he personally disagrees with this classification). The Kafka Encyclopaedia contains a long entry on Expressionism and details his affinities with the movement's literature. Stanley Corngold has a chapter on "Kafka as Expressionist". Sokel makes a similar argument, I believe. Rather than removing, what's needed is a clarification of the relationship for which specific critics have argued.  • DP •  {huh?} 10:01, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
I second the request for sources and clarification here. I actually don't think he's usually grouped with the Expressionists in literary histories (not, as far as I'm aware, in German scholarship) although he may be sometimes. His prose style is so different from the Expressionists that it seems that it's largely the infelicities of canonization that lead him to get lumped in with them. I deleted the Kafka sentence before seeing this thread; I'll restore it now, but with a by whom template on it, since it's too big a claim to stand unsourced and unmarked. Sindinero (talk) 08:27, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

expanding this article from the Spanish article[edit]

I restored a expand template removed some time ago. The user who removed it said that it wasn't helpful, but didn't give further information on why, nor did the user respond to my query on their talk page. I'm not hell-bent on this template, and if there's a good reason it shouldn't be there, then that's fine; but it seems to me that if ever an article could benefit from translation (and thus from this template), it's this one. The English article is sketchy, incomplete, and somewhat self-contradictory; the lead doesn't really address what's covered in the article, and the "Origin of the term" section is disorganized, misleading, partially inaccurate, and contains what seems to be original research. The Spanish article, by contrast, is a featured article, well-sourced, well-organized, comprehensive, and worthy of the status of an encyclopedic entry on art history. For these reasons, I think the template should stay unless there's a more appropriate template, or until the discrepancy between the qualities of the English and Spanish articles disappears. What do others think? Sindinero (talk) 21:49, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Before changing this article it requires consensus from other editors who have worked on it. User:Freshacconci is a senior visual arts editor and has expressed a negative opinion concerning your proposal. I am removing your template until you gain approval from the community, thank you...Modernist (talk) 22:41, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
With all due respect, that's not exactly how consensus works on wikipedia. For one thing, consensus is not permission, and nobody needs "approval" to edit a page (see WP:OWN), and for another, adding an article template is not changing it in the same way that altering its content would be. As someone who is not totally ignorant of expressionism, I say that the article needs serious work, and adding a template pointing out a specific, useful resource is not at all equivalent to making serious changes to a more established article. All the good work that the editor in question has done does not entitle that editor to make summary revisions without discussion. I'm trying to proceed via WP:BRD, but I haven't gotten any answer at all as to why the template was inappropriate. Of BRD, we've gotten B and R, twice now, but still seem to get hung up on D. Ball's in your court, as they say. I respect the contributions that you and the other editor have made, but arguing a homine isn't how wikipedia works either. S/he may well be a senior editor, a PhD student, or a PhD - on wikipedia, credentials are irrelevant - it's the reasons and justifications that matter. These templates exist for a reason, and the burden is on the person reverting to say why the template doesn't apply. Sindinero (talk) 23:18, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
In my opinion, add quality content, forget the template, if you are taking material from the spanish article, translate the material in user space and add it...Modernist (talk) 23:32, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Ideally, that would be the best solution. But templates are used in the interim to indicate problems (and possible solutions) with articles. Do you object to the expand template as such, or its use in this case? In my opinion, only a well-reasoned argument for the latter would justify the deletion of the template. Opposition to the template as such would be something to discuss at the village pump, not here. Sindinero (talk) 02:02, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Then take it to the Village pump...Modernist (talk) 02:05, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
You misunderstood me - what I said was that if you object to the template as such, you would need to take it to the village pump. If you accept the template as such but don't agree that it's appropriate for this article, then a specific reason is needed, which is what I've been trying unsuccessfully to get this whole time. If neither of those are the case, then the template should be restored. That all seems in line with policy and the basic demands of consistency, no? Sindinero (talk) 02:28, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
The Spanish article looks terrific by the way...Modernist (talk) 02:26, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
I object to the template because of WP:OWN (the template implies the article is under a particular point of view) it discourages other editors from working here and it creates an unnecessary artificial parameter to the article. If you want to go to the village pump go ahead, but if you want to edit then edit...Modernist (talk) 02:43, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
First you say that people wishing to edit this article must secure "approval," then you say you object to the template because it discourages other editors from working here, citing WP:OWN...? That doesn't make much sense, and I'm likewise unsure what an "unnecessary artificial parameter" is. These templates exist for a reason. Wikipedia is a multilingual project, and a lot can be gained for weak articles by translating strong, or in this case featured, articles to fill them out. I put the expand template on this article to include new users, not discourage them. If you read about the template, you'll see that it automatically includes this article into a likely watched by more people than watch this article. Eventually, one of them may decide to help out, thus bringing another editor into the process and improving this article. Again, the templates as well as the emphasis on interWiki translation are a part of Wikipedia. If you object to this template's existence, then you need to raise that in the appropriate forum, whether the village pump or templates for deletion. If you don't have a specific objection to the template's applicability to this article, then it needs to be restored. Again with all due respect, "a senior editor doesn't like it" is neither particularly welcoming nor is it adequate justification for removing an accepted template. It's also contrary to Wikipedia policy. Sindinero (talk) 10:39, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
As mentioned either edit or don't...Modernist (talk) 10:44, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
By that do you mean that the template can be restored? If yes, then thank you; if no, then you still haven't answered my questions above. Sindinero (talk) 10:48, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Restore it but be mindful of WP:OWN, as I mentioned...Modernist (talk) 10:56, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for that. The whole purpose of placing a template like this on an article is with an eye towards its eventual removal. I hope this will help this article gets to where it needs to go. Could you be more specific, though, of what you mean by "be mindful of WP:OWN"? Sindinero (talk) 11:13, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Basically you don't like this article and you do like the spanish article, you are saying about this article - WP:IDON'TLIKEIT and about the spanish article you are saying WP:ILIKEIT implying its a better article, in your opinion, others may have differing points of view, is what I am saying...Modernist (talk) 11:18, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Heh? That's not what I'm saying at all. The Spanish article is a featured article - I think it could be a good source of material not because subjectively I prefer its take over this article's, but because it's been through an extensive review process, and is substantially more complete than this article. Individual preference or opinion has nothing to do with it. When I put the template there, I was thinking more of the fact that the Spanish article is featured and this article is start-class than of any particular point or point of view; these classifications indicate, if you like, a consensus on the relative quality of these articles. Does that make sense to you? Or do you actually think that the English article is better than the Spanish one?
It's also starting to get tedious that you keep turning policy points I mention around, as if I were the one violating them. Pretty sure that your statement that editors need permission to edit a page qualifies as WP:OWN, if anything does, and that your statement that "User:Freshacconci is a senior visual arts editor and has expressed a negative opinion concerning your proposal" falls under WP:IDON'TLIKEIT more than anything I've said. Sindinero (talk) 11:31, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
The problem with these templates is that it does discourage editors to work on an article, especially new editors, because it appears that a project is underway or major edits are forthcoming, so why bother editing? Likewise, editors who do not speak the other language are at a huge disadvantage because there is no way of knowing just how good the non-English article is in comparison. Finally, I am not clear at all how the English version of this article is not "where it needs to go". What does that mean exactly and why is the Spanish article better? Again, as a non-Spanish speaker I am at a disadvantage here. All Wikipedia articles need improvement, even FAs need upkeep. No one is claiming ownership here in any way. I just don't like these sorts of bureaucratic measures added to an article -- without any sort of discussion -- that can potentially preclude useful editing. As it stands, it appears to a casual editor that someone is going to replace large sections of this article, or the article as a whole, with the translated Spanish version, so why should I waste my time doing any edits on this article since they will just be replaced with the supposed superior Spanish version. As for taking it to the Village Pump, I don't recall reading anywhere that the Pump is some sort of overseer to all projects and decrees from above trump local consensus. This template is not useful and is a potential hindrance to good faith editing, especially from new editors who don't know their way around and wouldn't know the Village Pump if they tripped over it. We shouldn't need to go there to resolve an issue here. freshacconci talktalk 11:33, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
This is hardly a start-class article. It clearly hasn't been assessed in a while. The problem with relying on the standards of other-language Wikipedia projects is that an editor has no way of comparing this article to the other one. It was a featured article in Spanish Wikipedia. What exactly does that mean here on English Wikipedia? What is the criteria at Spanish Wikipedia? What sources do they use--I can't read them so I have no idea. I really don't see how this is useful in any way. It's one thing to see a good article in another language Wiki and move it over, letting others know what you're doing. It's another thing to leave a template and discourage any work from being done. freshacconci talktalk 11:39, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Oh, and I don't appreciate my edits being undone with the comment that my edit was "unexplained". That is bad-faith in the extreme. I clearly said in the edit summary that the template wasn't helpful. freshacconci talktalk 11:41, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Don't allege bad faith where there was none. I didn't undo your edit until much later, after you didn't respond to my question on your talk page. You said that the template wasn't "helpful," but this summary is itself less than helpful. Disagreeing with the purpose of a template as such is one question, to be discussed in one forum; in my opinion, removing the template here requires specific reasons why the template isn't applicable to this article. Sindinero (talk) 11:52, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
My issue was that you claimed my edit was done without explanation which is false. I explained my edit. You didn't like my explanation. That's the difference. freshacconci talktalk 11:58, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
That's actually not true - if you look both at your talk page, and at the opening comment of this section, I state quite clearly that you gave a justification for it, but that I requested more detail, which I never got. I didn't say that it was without explanation. It wasn't that I didn't like your explanation, just that I didn't really understand it. Look at my tone in my first question to you - I'm actually sincerely curious about your motivations. Saying that I just did it because I didn't like it is, if predictable, also unfair, and a touch petulant. Sindinero (talk) 12:07, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
As for "removing the template here requires specific reasons why the template isn't applicable to this article"; two editors have now provided detailed reasons for its removal. I hope this settles it. Anyone can add any translated text they wish. freshacconci talktalk 12:01, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Right. Anyone, that is, except for people who watch categories of translation or expand requests. Your reasons are also arguments against the expand template as such, rather than why it applies to this article, but perhaps you still don't see that.
I removed the template per above...Modernist (talk) 11:48, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
This is starting to seem less like consensus than total arbitrariness. No reason has been given about why an accepted Wikipedia template is specifically inapplicable to this article, and I don't feel that either of you are making good-faith efforts to meet me halfway. Yes, templates are blemishes on articles (which visual objection seems to be what your opposition boils down to), but they're necessary, and temporary ones on the way to improving articles. This feels a lot like WP:OWNership and editing by fiat. If you object to the template as such, then this is a larger issue to be dealt with elsewhere. The Spanish article is simply more complete, and anyone can see this. It's not like Spanish is an obscure language or something; perhaps you can't read it, but others can, and your the fact that you can't read Spanish isn't really the most solid ground on which to base your argument. I didn't put the template there to discourage anything - for the reasons I've repeatedly given above, I did this to encourage participation in this article, since I didn't have time at the moment to translate it myself. This article seems, if not well-researched, at least well-protected; if you don't want the participation of others, and would prefer to let it wallow than be improved by the collaborative tools of Wikipedia (among which expand templates), there's not much I can do. Sindinero (talk) 12:07, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Wow. Those are a lot of assumptions: "which visual objection seems to be what your opposition boils down to". Really? That is beyond patronizing and nowhere do we say we don't like the "look" of the template. No, my objection is clearly the wording of the template and its implications. Local consensus is still important. We object to the template. Maintenance templates are useful. I use them myself. But I would also be open to objections to their use if others felt it was heavy-handed. Why don't I take my issue with this template elsewhere? Because I choose not to get bogged down in the bureaucracy of the Village Pump and similar forums. My editing of Wikipedia does not require me to slog through all of that just because I oppose the use of one template on one particular article. Likewise "the fact that you can't read Spanish isn't really the most solid ground on which to base your argument" is beyond insulting. Actually, it's a pretty solid argument. I can't verify the content in the Spanish article. I have no idea if that article is ant good. I can't verify the sources if they are all in Spanish. I read some German but I would never ask other editors to just "trust me" on something I wanted to move over from the German Wikipedia. And again, you cry "bad faith" while indulging in it yourself: "This article seems, if not well-researched, at least well-protected". This is false and neither of us have made any statements that can be interpreted that way. We welcome any and all contributions to this article and may I add, our welcome is not necessary in the least. Edit, don't edit. It's not my call. What we object to is one template that we do not feel adds anything to the article. I have absolutely no objection to anyone moving text over from Spanish Wikipedia. I do feel that this template is wrong; it's worded to make it appear a major move is about to take place and editing is not welcome. It is extremely bitey and any potential discouragement of new editors should be avoided. freshacconci talktalk 12:34, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
A template is bitey to new editors of an article, but this kind of goal-tending isn't? I guess I don't get this. The template's wording has nothing that would imply the imminence of a major move, and I think anyone who clicks around a little to learn more about these templates would see that. I didn't mean to insult your lack of Spanish, but it seems a bizarre justification to use, because the implication is that, to use Modernist's language, it needs your approval - if you can't verify the usefulness of the Spanish article, then we should assume until proven otherwise that it's not useful. The better course of action, for any of us, in any context here, would seem to be to step back where knowledge is wanting (I mean this in a non-judgmental way), to allow those who can read Spanish, and who do know about Expressionism, to check out the Spanish article and see what can be gained from translation. That's all I meant - that arguing from a lack seems counterintuitive. A template is a suggestion, nothing more, and doesn't require anyone to "trust" anyone on what's moved over or not. Anything that is then translated and moved into the English article would then, obviously, be subject to all the same stringency as any other new content. I don't see how you can interpret the placement of a template as a demand that all editors, whatever their linguistic facility, accept the content of the foreign article; that's just absurd. These templates often deserve to be removed, but only if the suggested foreign article isn't up to snuff, or the entry term ("Expressionism," e.g.) has a different meaning in a different cultural context, or for other similar reasons. If you can't evaluate the Spanish article, what I would do in your position is recuse yourself a little bit and allow the space and time for those who can, to do so. That's all I meant by protecting and goal-tending. I see where you're coming from but disagree with your rationale and interpretation of the template's purpose. Again, I'm not hell-bent on the template, but can you perhaps see how a total lack of response, and then the summary, dismissive, and arbitrary tenor of the response I finally got (from Modernist) might give the impression that the template was being rejected simply because someone didn't like it? Sindinero (talk) 12:50, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
The wording of the template is poor. This is what a new editor would see: This article may be expanded with text translated from the corresponding article in Spanish Wikipedia. It doesn't give any sort of welcome, or indication that you (the new editor) can do the editing. It says the article "may" be expanded, which to me sounds like it is imminent. How is any of this supposed "goal-tending" (which was simply a removal of a template placed by an experienced editor) bitey? Neither Modernist nor I have attempted to scare away any new editor that I am aware of. freshacconci talktalk 17:06, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps the template should be worded better, I can agree with you there. But 'may' is pretty open, and I think everybody knows that Wikipedia is the "free encyclopedia that anybody can edit," though the last half has been taken out of the motto. Any template, whether one referring to OR, to sources needed, or whatever, would seem susceptible to the risk you describe, and I'm not convinced that this is a good reason not to use a given template. Personally, I do think the translate template is extremely useful because it assigns the article to a category that people watch. A lot of editors contribute largely through translation of other Wikis, and they get their workload from these categories. But look, I appreciate you giving a detailed rationale; that's what I wanted in the first place. I definitely agree that local consensus is important, and that's why I haven't been edit-warring by restoring the template. I disagree with your assessment of the template's likely effect, but I see your reasons and am happy to cede the point.
The goal-tending I referred to earlier was in the context of a lack of a response, where Modernist incorrectly stated that new changes to an article need approval, and that the negative opinion of a senior editor was enough reason for a template to be, and stay, removed. Both of those claims go against wikipedia policy; more importantly, they're abrupt, dismissive, and - without further explanation - arbitrary. I don't think I can be blamed for getting the impression that the reason for removal of the template was something like "because we say so," and that Modernist, who at times acted more like a bailiff than a fellow editor, was intent on dealing with me by managerial diktat more than by explanation and reasoned argumentation. That's not acceptable; your justifications on the other hand, while I may disagree with them, are a way of reaching consensus. Thanks for taking the time. Sindinero (talk) 17:26, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Also, I didn't originally "cry 'bad faith'", you did, and incorrectly, as I pointed out, something you still haven't responded to. I never said that your edit was "unexplained"... Sindinero (talk) 12:52, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Your edit summary clearly states "restored expand template removed without reason". I gave a reason. You just didn't care for it. freshacconci talktalk 17:00, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
You're right, that's what it says, but context is important. This undo occurred a couple of weeks after your deletion of the template, during which time I tried, politely, in good faith, and all that, to get a more thorough explanation for your deletion. By "without reason" I meant on the one hand that your original edit wasn't satisfactorily explained. You said the template is not helpful, but not really why, or what would be helpful. I realize of course that edit summaries are just summaries, which is why I asked for a little more detail on your talk page. On the other hand, with "without reason" I meant that you hadn't responded to this question. Please assume good faith - my edit summary had nothing to do with the fact that I didn't care for it, as you allege, but that you didn't really give me enough information to go on. I should have been clearer, but it wasn't my intention to say that you had provided no justification whatsoever, just that it wasn't adequate for another editor (me, in this case) to work with. Communicating our reasons and motivations is, after all, the basis of any sound consensus. Sindinero (talk) 17:33, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
So in other words - you don't have time to edit this article but you just want to put a template on it because you like the spanish article better...Modernist (talk) 12:54, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
No, not at all. I'm tempted to ask whether you bothered to read my response to this accusation above. If you did, you can see that I explain this has nothing to do with personal preference or my own opinion. If you can't understand this point, it's not really my problem; I've been about as clear as possible. Sindinero (talk) 14:27, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
I read this in regards to the template - since I didn't have time at the moment to translate it myself...Modernist (talk) 14:37, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
That's correct, but you're reading in the wrong place to find my response to your main accusation, that my use of the template had anything to do with personal preference. Seems like you should be able to find my response on your own, but just in case, here it is --> I wrote: "That's not what I'm saying at all. The Spanish article is a featured article - I think it could be a good source of material not because subjectively I prefer its take over this article's, but because it's been through an extensive review process, and is substantially more complete than this article. Individual preference or opinion has nothing to do with it. When I put the template there, I was thinking more of the fact that the Spanish article is featured and this article is start-class than of any particular point or point of view; these classifications indicate, if you like, a consensus on the relative quality of these articles. Does that make sense to you? Or do you actually think that the English article is better than the Spanish one?"
Elsewhere in this thread I also detail why the Spanish article seems more complete than the English one. Not having the time to immediately fix a problem is pretty common; that's why maintenance tags exist, they're one of the excellent tools Wikipedia has for a collaborative and long-term improvement of articles. Sindinero (talk) 16:04, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

keeping the "" external link[edit]

It appears User:Modernist is controlling the "Expressionism" wiki page. I think that link should be here. This is for the sake of any user choosing to view the next movement in expressionism.

Even though User:Modernist states

Modernist will take an extensive wikibreak and will be editing only when time permits.

he appears to be moderating this page.

Modernist stated on my talk page "recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. " Does this mean that "Modernist" can only make 3 changes on this page per 24 hour period? JuliusJeff (talkcontribs) 20:07, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

You would do well to read WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL and comment on content and not other editors...Modernist (talk) 20:21, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Though I am actually a bit busy working on a documentary film, I will email other individuals to post this link, which and I and they feel is valid. This link does justice to the wiki topic of "Expressionism." Thank you for informing me how wiki works.
btw There are many errors in wiki. Just because something is in print, can have little to do with accurate information. Newspapers and magazines often reflect the ideals of the owners who pay the employees [ie often for propaganda]. This also goes for peer reviewed journals. Look back in history, for example how the pharma industry funds research and pays for university professors etc.
Also, often external sources are good links for additional angles into the subject matter. I use them all the time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JuliusJeff (talkcontribs) 20:07, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
This external link looks like a commercial site. Rwood128 (talk) 21:01, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
"Original poArt Expressionism paintings are available to purchase. Some paintings are available as limited edition prints." Rwood128 (talk) 16:29, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

a few albeit brief comments. Rwood, how is this is a commercial site? This is a site sharing PoArt Expressionism - the expressionistic art that speaks. Like the page shows, each painting has its poem. Scot Aaron is actually anti-commercial and more into "sharing."

If you study art and grasp the potential future of art within changes of a movement, like expressionism, then poArt Expressionism which Scot Aaron has begun through his 16 years of expressionistic painting [done with this hands, watercolor pencils, and fingerpainting] each with its poem, does justice.

Actually I emailed Scot Aaron he stated his poArt Expressionism Art "will stand the test of time or will not." He is unconcerned about a link on wiki. However, I think that many students search wiki for papers and projects and deserve this external link.... I am very busy with a current project but may follow up on this talk. Regardless, this is a learning experience on wiki. Have a great Day, Julius — Preceding unsigned comment added by JuliusJeff (talkcontribs) 11:20, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

thoughts and comments on the poetry and art page[edit]

any additional talk on the Scot Aaron's poArt Expression addition.

example of poArt Expressionism

--JuliusJeff (talk) 11:28, 23 September 2012 (UTC)