Talk:HA Schult/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Recent removals

You have removed the following information from the article, Rhode Island Red:

• During the controversial German debates of the 1960s, some conservative critics had even questioned whether Schult's work qualifies as "art". See [1]

The original source says:

• The controversy of the sixties, when conservative critics asked whether Schult would make art or not, was no longer in their (the art experts') mind (or no longer worried them). ("Nicht mehr die Kontroverse der sechziger Jahre treibt sie (die Kunstverständigen) um, als konservative Kritiker die Frage stellten, ob Schult überhaupt Kunst mache.") See [2]

This means that, according to the source, only during the controversial debates of the 1960s, some conservative critics had questioned whether Schult's work qualifies as "art". Therefore, I have reincluded the information. Wikiwiserick (talk) 18:43, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

False. I did not remove the entire portion you quoted. I simply changed this:

"During the controversial debates of the 1960s, some conservative critics had even questioned whether Schult's work qualifies as 'art'."

to this:

"Some conservative critics in the In the 1960s questioned whether Schult's work qualifies as art.

I think the problem here is, mainly, that you are not a native English speaker and can't discern when the language you use comes across as wonky. I'm trying to help with that so please stop being so quick to revert and be indignant, as this is emblematic of a second/third problem -- WP:OWN and WP:COI. I hope you soften your approach lest this become a bigger problem that it already is. "Controversial debates of the 1960s" is meaningless/vague/poor English, so your reversion has been reverted. Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:04, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

It is not meaningless, as the source emphasizes that only during "the controversy of the 1960s" some conservative critics questioned whether Schult's work qualifies as 'art'. This is of some importance and must be mentioned in the article. Instead of deleting the first half of the sentence you should rewrite the passage, sticking close to the source. The source clearly says that there were controversies about art during the sixties in Germany. Joseph Beuys was also part of these controversies. Wikiwiserick (talk) 00:29, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Which controversy of the 1960s? The point is that in English, "controversy of the 1960s" has no meaning in this context -- certainly no meaning that would qualify as encyclopedic. It's simply not specific enough to merit inclusion. There have been controversies about art in all countries and in every decade, not just Germany in the 1960s. You can't stick close to the source because the source is in German and your interpretations/translations are lacking, so please keep it simple and encyclopedic. Also, I reverted you last change again beuase the source does not make this statement specifically in reference to "happenings". Rhode Island Red (talk) 03:18, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I am still not interested in getting involved with the larger extended dispute here, but I agree with Rhode Island Red that "During the controversial debates of the 1960s" is a strange and awkward phrase that does not seem to convey any clear, encyclopedic meaning. The original German language text works ok, but meaning is lost in the translation and verb tense change. Such a literal translation of the source is probably not necessary or desirable here. VQuakr (talk) 03:23, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that the statement must be seen in the context of controversies of the sixties about happenings as an art form (such as Schult's early "Situation Schackstraße" of 1969), as another source indicates. Therefore I have added, "early happenings". However, this edit has also been reverted by Rhode Island Red. I have now added two other sources. They refer to Schult's "actions" at that time (i.e. his early happenings of 1969). Wikiwiserick (talk) 02:41, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

As I pointed out already, the relevant text from Faz.net does not refer to "happenings"; secondly, the PDF source that was added doesn't support the revised text. The edit has therefore been reverted.[3] Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:32, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

The pdf source and Leiss's Kunst im Konflikt (1971) clearly support the revised text, as does Jürgen Schilling's study, Aktionskunst. Wikiwiserick (talk) 23:38, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

You are trading in dangerous waters by continuing to revert war in this manner. The text is not supported by the sources and WP:BLP supports removal of the material, while the onus is on you to prove a case for restoring it BEFORE you revert. Next time will warrant an admin report; kindly desist. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:41, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I would say that you are trading in dangerous waters, as you have removed an information that is supported by four independent sources, falsely claiming that it is not supported by the sources. Wikiwiserick (talk) 19:43, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Th text you keep adding is not supported by verifiable sources. Continuing to re-add this contentious informaqiton after it has been removed is a clear violation of WP:BLP and at this point, WP:3RR. You've now been duly warned. Reach consensus here and do not re-add the material again or risk being blocked. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:35, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

As your accusations are not grounded on any evidence and nobody else seems to be interested in this discussion, I have now removed the superfluous tags. Wikiwiserick (talk) 00:06, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

• I was asked about the sourcing on this article. An exhibition catalog from a noted museum is a RS for all purposes within its area, unless it has been contradicted by academic scholarship. (It's different for exhibition catalogs from commercial galleries,for which the reliability depends on the reputation of the gallery, and cannot usually be assumed without checking). Statements in even gallery catalogs about an artist's antecedents and style and similar issues are routinely used in WP article on artists, though it should be made explicit what the source is. If there are contradictory statements with similarly good sources they should be included also. An artist's own statements about his own intentions and methods and affiliations and the like do need to be qualified, to make it clear that this is what the artist says about themselves--it is not infrequent that academic critics will be of different opinions about the actual influences.

Printed books are perfectly good sources, though we try to use the best available online sources as well. German language sources are perfectly good sources. For German topics, especially in the humanities, they are usually better than English language sources, and the most sensible rule is to use the best sources in whatever language, and also the best available English sources. The way to deal with nuances in translation is to also quote the original.

The MEDRS standard does not apply in the humanities. I would try to approach it in many fields, but in humanities and especially the creative arts, it's simply irrelevant. Those fields don't work that way. They are much more reliant upon opinion and the concurrent reputable existence of incompatible divergent approaches is perfectly normal.

Though discussions of the work of a living person does fall under BLP, it does not fall under it as rigidly as discussions of their life. To apply it to their professional work in the same manner would make writing about most contemporary topics impossible. In any case, the rule on challenged sources as applied is reasonably challenged, because otherwise one persistent editor could in effect own an article.

I am deliberately not commenting in detail about the specific disputed sources, but my attitude to them should be clear from the general considerations. DGG ( talk ) 04:55, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

My main concern is with claims that are about other people, such as comparisons to Christo, etc., or comments implying a connection with other artists. Claims about third parties must be backed up with high quality sources and they must be properly attributed (i.e., “Mr X compared the artist to Christo” rather than “the artist has been compared to Christo”).

There has also been a problem in general with content being added that is unsourced or improperly source. The progression has been (a) editor adds material without sources, (b) content gets removed because its unsourced (c) the content gets re-added with sources that are not WP:RS or which do not support the re-added text (d) the content gets removed again (e) the content gets re-added with an obscure source in German that cannot be readily verified and which is not accompanied by a direct quote form the source. We have gone through this process before and it went to the admin noticeboards[4] where the editor was advised to focus on high quality sources in English first and foremost. The message never seemed to get through. Not necessarily an insurmountable problem as long as the editor engages in discussion on the Talk page. In the most recent case, however, that did not happen. The response was to revert without comment and then to violate WP:CANVASS. [5][6][7] Reverting edits without explanation is a violation of WP:BRD.

As for exhibition catalogs, they may or may not be acceptable sources. Quite often information about an artist in an exhibition catalog is boilerplate text submitted by the artist for their bio; it is not refereed in any way and such sources do not typically meet any editorial standards for fact checking, etc. Many of them don’t seems to be cited anywhere else in the world and cannot be found elsewhere on a Google search. Some, if available at all, are likely available only at one or two obscure locations in Germany, which makes them, for all intents and purposes, unverifiable. Such sources are dubious even for innocuous claims. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:08, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

This is only your personal opinion and and therefore your blind reverts cannot be accepted. Independent sources say that Schult has been compared to Christo. See citations. The catalog of the Diözesanmuseum Paderborn, edited by Prof. Christoph Stiegermann, who recently received the Order of Merit of the Federal Republic of Germany for his cultural activities, is certainly an excellent source, especially as the Paderborn museum has been called a first-class exhibition space both in national and international terms (",erst-klassiger‘ Ausstellungsstandort im nationalen und internationalen Vergleich") by Prof. Egon Wamers, Direktor of the Archäologisches Museum Frankfurt. All of my edits are supported by reliable sources. Wikiwiserick (talk) 16:31, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

You have provided no sources that would allow attribution of who it is that thinks that Schult is comparable with Christo and you have addressed none of the other points I raised. The two links in your reply mention nothing about Schult. Please do not resort to edit warring again. That's not the process here. See WP:BRD. Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:25, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Relevant points have clearly been addressed and several reliable sources have been provided. Therefore, I do not accept your recent reverts. Wikiwiserick (talk) 01:23, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Reply and General Reminder About Relevant WP Policies

Wikiwiserick, you are re-adding content to the article while it is under dispute and failing to achieve consensus for re-adding the contested material, in violation of WP:ONUS. Going forward, I have two suggestions: (1) if there is material that has been removed from the article and you do not understand why or disagree with the changes, discuss the issues with each edit point-by-point on the Talk page and do not re-add the material unless consensus for doing so has been achieved. Under no circumstances should you WP:EDITWAR over such contested material. (2) Please review the following summary of WP policies that apply to your edits in general. The basis for my objections are clearly outlined in WP policy, but if you are unclear on the meaning of any of the policies and guidleines, ask questions on the Talk page and you will receive a detailed explanation.

WP:ATT

• A questionable source is one with no editorial oversight or fact-checking policy
• A self-published source is material that has been published by the author…or other organization that provides little or no editorial oversight…no one stands between the author and publication; the material may not be subject to any form of fact-checking, legal scrutiny, or peer review.
• Questionable and self-published sources should not normally be used… Material from self-published or questionable sources may be used in articles about those sources, so long as: it is relevant to their notability; it is not unduly self-serving; it does not involve claims about third parties; it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it; the article is not based primarily on such sources.

‘’Re: WP:REDFLAG’’

• Exceptional claims require exceptional sources
• Certain red flags should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim: surprising or apparently important claims that are not widely known; surprising or apparently important reports of historical events not covered by mainstream news media or historiography…
• Exceptional claims should be supported by the best sources, and preferably multiple reliable sources, especially regarding scientific or medical topics, historical events, politically charged issues, and biographies of living people

Re: Language

• Because this is the English Wikipedia, for the convenience of our readers English-language sources should be used in preference to foreign-language sources, provided they are otherwise of equal suitability, so that readers can easily verify that the source material has been used correctly. Published translations are preferred to editors' translations; when editors use their own translations, the original-language material should be provided too, preferably in a footnote, so that readers can check the translation for themselves.

WP:PEACOCK (Puffery)

• ... legendary, great, acclaimed, visionary, outstanding, leading, celebrated, award-winning, landmark, cutting-edge, innovative, extraordinary, brilliant, hit, famous, renowned, remarkable, prestigious, world-class, respected, notable, virtuoso, honorable, awesome, unique ...
• Words such as these are often used without attribution to promote the subject of an article, while neither imparting nor plainly summarizing verifiable information. They are known as "peacock terms" by Wikipedia contributors. Instead of making unprovable proclamations about a subject's importance, use facts and attribution to demonstrate that importance
• Peacock example:

Bob Dylan is the defining figure of the 1960s counterculture and a brilliant songwriter.

Just the facts: Dylan was included in Time's 100: The Most Important People of the Century, where he was called "master poet, caustic social critic and intrepid, guiding spirit of the counterculture generation".[refs 1] By the mid-1970s, his songs had been covered by hundreds of other artists.[refs 2]

WP:NPOV

• No single position, no matter how well researched, is authoritative...when incorporating research into an article, it is important that editors provide context for this point of view, by indicating how prevalent the position is, and whether it is held by a majority or minority. The inclusion of a view that is held only by a tiny minority may constitute original research.
• If your viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, then—whether it's true or not, whether you can prove it or not—it doesn't belong in Wikipedia,

WP:SUBJECTIVE

• Wikipedia articles about art and other creative topics (e.g., musicians, actors, books, etc.) have a tendency to become effusive. This is out of place in an encyclopedia. Aesthetic opinions are diverse and subjective—we might not all agree about who the world's greatest soprano is.

WP:ONUS

• Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion
• While information must be verifiable in order to be included in an article, this does not mean that all verifiable information must be included in an article.
• Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article.
• The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.

Rhode Island Red (talk) 18:06, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Third Opinion

I think I was asked for an opinion about this as well. I consider the proper interpreetation of the various policies to be as follows:

As a general rule, it is standard WP practice that print sources are every bit as usable as online, and that the best sources should be used regardless of language. For matters covered equally by sources in English and another language, we prefer the English. In addition, when the best sources are in another language, it very much helps to add the best English language sources available; it has also become our usual practice that even when the best sources are in print, to try to also have readily available online sources,preferably open access.

Printed sources should be available in publicly accessible library collections. That they may be available only in a few such libraries is irrelevant.

Though we do not include every possible detail, we do include that which might be relevant to the general reader of an article, which is assumed to be an undergraduate with some knowledge of the subject. Recent practice has been to include more specialized or advanced material also, if the nature of the subject requires it. However, the key parts of the article should be as accessible as the nature of the subject permits.

In discussing the creative arts, the reception of art works by both specialists and the general public is relevant. Therefore, both scholarly and more popular sources should be used if available. ("Verifiable public and scholarly critiques provide useful context for works of art.")--WP:SUBJECTIVE.

In art history, museum catalogs are considered reliable sources, and may be used for even controversial BLP. The reliability of commercial catalogs depends on the individual source, but catalogs of major auction houses have also been considered reasonably reliable; catalogs of individual commercial exhibitions much less so.

In articles about living persons, the consensus about what to include should be respected. A 3rd opinion is one way of getting this. Weaim for the greatest feasible accuracy, but hypercritical remote possibilities are not taken into account.

With respect to specific points, I shall comment tomorrow, and add back the material I think justified, while asking some questions. DGG ( talk ) 03:48, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Specifically::

DGG ( talk ) 03:48, 25 October 2016 (UTC)