Talk:Gotthard Graubner

Copyedited

Richard asr (talk) 16:07, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Graubner and Caspar David Friedrich

Sometimes I like the watchdog attitudes of certain users here. Really. When I included a short remark on the influence of Caspar David Friedrich's Romantic painting on the work of Graubner, who is reckoned by experts to be among the most important German colorfield painters of our day (see Siegmar Holsten's article on Graubner in the AKL 61, p. 3), this reference was immediately removed. And indeed, my edit could be criticized, as I should have added that Graubner was inspired by J.M.W. Turner as well, as the German sources also say. But the distrustful American watchdog who, according to his own words, is unable to read German texts, could not find the word "inspired" in the source when he was using Google Translate. However, a German reader would have easily seen from the context that my edit was correct, as every expert on the subject would have known. So as the watchdog would like to have the word "inspired" in the source, here is good old Karl Ruhrberg on Graubner:

Gotthard Graubner, den man seiner angeblichen "Monochromie" wegen, die in Wirklichkeit eine "Polychromie", eine reichgestufte Vielfarbigkeit ist, eine Zeitlang in die Nachbarschaft von "Zero" gerückt hatte, verfolgt mit seiner von Caspar David Friedrich und William Turner inspirierten Malerei ganz andere Ziele. Sein Thema ist der farbige Raum. See Karl Ruhrberg, Kunst im 20. Jahrhundert: Das Museum Ludwig (Cologne, Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta, 1986), p. 37.

Just for your information: the late Karl Ruhrberg was an expert on modern German painting. Therefore, I have now included the following sentence in the article:

However, his paintings, which are only at first glance monochrome, but, at a closer look, in fact polychrome, are inspired both by the work of Caspar David Friedrich and J.M.W. Turner.

But is it really true that this source is correctly translated? Could it be that the German term "inspiriert" may have a different meaning than the English "inspired"? The second part of the word looks slightly different. I am sure the watchdog will put the term into Google Translate. Could it further be that Ruhrberg's remarks cited above were only fabricated by user Wikiwiserick and could not be found in the obscure German source? I would recommend that the watchdog may use Google books and type in some words from a significant part of the text (e.g. "Gotthard Graubner, den man seiner angeblichen" "verfolgt mit seiner von Caspar David Friedrich und William Turner inspirierten Malerei"). As Ruhrberg's book was a bestseller on the German art book market, the text may be available online. Wikiwiserick (talk) 10:31, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

My user name is Rhode Island Red, not "distrustful American watchdog"[11] and I'll caution you to stow your belligerent and insulting comments (see WP:NPA) as they impede the process of resolving editorial disputes. Do not make this mistake again.

I challenged the two sources you originally provided because they did not seem to back up the statement in question. You did not address this issue but merely added two new offline references that you allege back up the statement (although this is not readily verifiable). However, you have still left in the online sources that do not appear to back up the claim. I have reverted the latest edits until the issues are properly addressed here. Rhode Island Red (talk) 18:34, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

My comment above was just a lighthearted response to your attitude to question nearly every edit that is not based on sources written in English, even if it is well sourced. Do not take it too seriously. :) As for the sources, the Ruhrberg quote will indeed appear on the screen, if you use Google book search and type in "Gotthard Graubner, den man seiner angeblichen" and "verfolgt mit seiner von Caspar David Friedrich und William Turner inspirierten Malerei". You can be sure that what I have cited above is in the book of which I own a copy. As for the other two references you have challenged, here is the German text of the first source in question:

Gotthard Graubner selbst erklärt die Entstehung seiner Malerei als ein "Zwischen": nämlich zwischen Caspar David Friedrich und dem späten William Turner. Trotz einer realistischen Landschaftsauffassung war es dem Romantiker Friedrich immer darum gegangen, der Befindlichkeit der Seele im Bild Ausdruck zu verleihen - denken Sie an so berühmte Gemälde wie "Der Mönch am Meer" von 1808/1809, heute in der Alten Nationalgalerie Berlin, oder - nicht weit von hier - im Museum Kunstpalast finden Sie "Kreuz und Kathedrale im Gebirge" von 1812. Während Caspar David Friedrich die langen, stillen Momente der Einsamkeit vor der in gleißende Farben gegossenen Landschaft darstellt, hält William Turner die wenigen Minuten eines in der Luft zerberstenden Wasserdampfstrahles fest. Während der eine die Ausdruckskraft der Ewigkeit heraufbeschwört, feiert der andere die Schönheit einer einzigen Sekunde. Bewusst verweist Gotthard Graubner auf diese beiden Antipoden - der eine ein Vorläufer des deutschen Expressionismus, der andere ein Wegbereiter des französischen Impressionismus - und Gotthard Graubner ein später Nachfahre und Erbe beider künstlerischer Richtungen.

1930 in Erlbach, im Vogtland, geboren, studierte Gotthard Graubner wie Caspar David Friedrich auch an der Kunstakademie in Dresden.

It is clearly said that Graubner himself locates his painting between Caspar David Friedrich and the later William Turner and that he deliberately refers to the work of both artists, which is further explained in the text.

The German text of the other source deals with a commentary of the well-known German art historian and Friedrich expert, Werner Hofmann, on the connection of Graubner and Friedrich:

Im Nachwort zum Graubner-Katalog entwickelt Werner Hofmann, der Direktor der Hamburger Kunsthalle, stichwortartig eine Geschichte der Kunst als eine Geschichte der Ästhetik der Varietas, gegen die erst das 19. Jahrhundert, besonders auch der von Graubner zitierte Caspar David Friedrich, eine Ästhetik der Monotonie setzt. Diese These kann makelloser und verwirrender gar nicht belegt werden als durch die Ausstellungen von Gotthard Graubner in Hamburg und Gerhard Richter in Bremen: Was Hofmann als historischen Ablauf schildert, als Aktion und Reaktion, das scheint sich hier in der Gleichzeitigkeit kollidierend zu neutralisieren.

Here it is clearly mentioned that Graubner has cited Friedrich in his work, as Friedrich, in the nineteenth century, has also created an aesthetics of monotony as a counterpart to the aesthetics of variety in former times, as the history of art shows.

So both texts deal with the influence of Friedrich on Graubner. Karl Ruhrberg, in the additional source cited above, uses the term "inspired". Believe it that Graubner was deeply inspired by Friedrich. By the way, one of Graubner's works is even entitled, "Erster Nebelraum - Hommage à Caspar David Friedrich". Wikiwiserick (talk) 21:57, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

The attributions have been improved now that the statements were broken up and attributed separately, but the translations and grammar were a bit sketchy so I made a few modifications as described in the edit summaries.[12][13] I still would prefer more reliance on English source that are verifiable online. One part still needs a bit of work though: "However, his paintings, which are only at first glance monochrome, but, at a closer look, in fact polychrome." Just doesn't really make much sense so I'm wondering if something got lost in the translation. This should be clarified or perhaps the sentence deleted since it does not seem to add much. Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:37, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I found one of the best sources in English: Sabine Schütz, "Color-Space Bodies: The Art of Gotthard Graubner", Arts Magazine, Volume 65, April 1991, pp. 49 ff. I have cited Professor Max Imdahl, one of the best German experts on contemporary art, from this source. Wikiwiserick (talk) 01:46, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

The change you made here[14] was helpful. It makes sense now; essentially saying that at first glance the paintings look monochromatic but on closer inspection, the use of colors becomes noticeable -- subtle...interesting. It describes a very tangible characteristic. Art Magazine is a good source -- still not as good as sources that can be easily verified online -- but the quote again seems to have lost a little something in the translation; either that or it's just really esoteric: "color-space bodies have been described by Max Imdahl as "picture-objects" in which "color-space and body, intangible vision and tangible facticity cooperate in a special interrelationship." It's not a description that most readers would readily grasp so it really doesn't seem all that helpful to me. I wouldn't necessarily argue strongly for its removal, but it would be better IMO to use a quote that describes something more tangible about his work; a quote that's a bit more straightforward and simpler to understand. Have you checked at all to see what kind of English language sources are online? I would be surprised if there wasn't something that's been missed. Might be a better descriptive quote lurking out there somewhere. Rhode Island Red (talk) 02:24, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

It's the somewhat "esoteric language" art historians use in order to describe modern abstract art that no longer reproduces an illusion of visible reality, but only uses form, color and line to create a composition independent from visual references in the world. You'll find this "esoteric language" everywhere. I am sure that there are many more articles written in English, but it's not easy to find them on the Internet, as most of these articles have been published in art journals not available online. Wikiwiserick (talk) 11:31, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Classmates

I do not think that this removal was O.K., as all four artists studied painting under Professor Karl Otto Götz at the Düsseldorf Academy of Fine Arts. So it is self-evident that they were fellow students. Notwithstanding, I have added another source. See also KettererKunst: Karl Otto Götz. Wikiwiserick (talk) 17:55, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

You mean to say that removing it was not OK because you added a source after the fact? You have the process backwards. Is this new source WP:RS? Who is the site op? Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:39, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

CompArt is an academic database run by the University of Bremen. You could have easily found out that the site is reliable. Wikiwiserick (talk) 03:02, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

As far as I can gather, the site is merely a repository database and is not a refereed source (i.e. no evidence of editorial oversight), but nonetheless, bypassing the issue of reliability for now, the text there does not match up with what's in the WP article. The text you added says: "...while he was Karl Otto Götz's student at the Kunstakademie Düsseldorf, where he studied from 1954–59. Among his fellow students were Gerhard Richter, Sigmar Polke and HA Schult". This implies that they were classmates from 1954-59; however the site you cited says: "A large number of later famous artists came out of Götz’ class at the Kunstakademie Düsseldorf (1959-1979): among them Kuno Gonschior, Gotthard Graubner, Sigmar Polke, Gerhard Richter, Manfred Kuttner, Rissa (later his wife), HA Schult." This does not imply that they were classmates but rather that they merely attended the same institution during a 20-year span. If that's the case, then the point is trivial and not worth including. It's roughly akin to saying "In 1973, Bill Gates studied computer science at Harvard; other graduates of the Harvard computer science program in the 1970s and 1980s include....", which is something we wouldn't do. What you could do is simply wikilink Kunstakademie Düsseldorf, which lists Schult and other notable students who attended the academy. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:39, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

The site of the University of Bremen is run by Professor Frieder Nake, who has the editorial oversight, and his academic team together with 642 other people (artists, authors, curators etc.). Graubner, Schult, Richter and Polke studied under Götz at about the same time: Graubner from 1954–1959 (standing in close connection to the Düsseldorf Academy students until 1965, when he moved from Düsseldorf to Hamburg); Schult from 1958 to 1961; Richter from 1961 bis 1964; Polke from 1961 to 1967. They knew each other well, as Schult himself confirms in the interview. By the way, the three painters Richter, Polke and Graubner belonged to the "Gruppe 63", a group of young Düsseldorf artists founded in 1963. See Dietmar Elger, Gerhard Richter: A Life in Painting (University of Chicago Press, 2009), p. 55. Schult was not part of this group, as he had moved from painting to object and performance art. I have now added more precise information and an additional paragraph to the article. It is a mystery to me why you are frequently removing well-sourced information, especially in view of the fact that you are not well informed about German artists of the period. Is this a kind of game you are playing here with users who would like to improve certain articles dealing with German artists of the later twentieth century? Wikiwiserick (talk) 17:04, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I have found an additional English source which may be used for improving the Graubner article: Art and Design Festival at Marmara University. The author, BERKE INEL, says:

The unique aspect of Graubner's work is his original use of the color-light-space triad. The artist presents color to the audience as though it were a landscape. Despite his "monographic concept," Graubner pays attention to detail in image and concept. While he does not use specific shapes, he uses color shades and the warm-cold balances and contrasts very well. It can be said that these works of art, which have no specific topic and theory, represent a research into color and a "tone in tone" approach.

It is as though Graubner wants to draw attention to "two-dimensional" figures in his "Kissenbilder." Here the relation between object, color and shape enters a new stage. The artist seems to interrogate the colors he uses from an optical perspective. While modern painting is generally surface painting, Graubner's work gives a new dimension to the concept of space. For this reason, Graubner is very different to "minimalists" and other contemporaries.

What do you think? Wikiwiserick (talk) 19:46, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

As I said before, the site from Bremen seems to be an unrefereed database repository. There is no evidence that any of the material undergoes any type of editorial oversight (Nake is merely listed as a contact person, not an editor). I am yet to see any sources that describe these people as "claamates", but now you've gone a step further and described them as mutual friends (you also failed to cite any sources as to the dates when they attended the academy). I'll caution you to not make any further accusations about my expertise or lack thereof. I would argue that the crux of the problem here is your poor sourcing and the liberties you take with translations. Again,please focus on high quality verifiable sources in English. Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:21, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

CompArt is part of the University of Bremen. This page says that Professor Frieder Nake from the University of Bremen is the founder and chief investigator of compArt. I do not understand why you are still questioning this academic source. For an additional source concerning Graubner and Schult etc., see Talk:HA Schult. Wikiwiserick (talk) 00:20, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

You have removed the timeline, which was created by another user, without presenting an alternative to it. Furthermore, the sources clearly say that the "Gruppe 63" failed ("In the end, nothing much came of Lueg's proposal" "Luegs Vorschlag wird letztlich nicht in die Tat umgesetzt; eine Gruppe 63 nie gegründet") and that Schult and Gonschior were Graubner's classmates ("Seine ersten Schüler sind Gotthard Graubner, H. A. Schult und Kuno Gonschior"). Wikiwiserick (talk) 12:30, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

The reason for removal was stated in the edit summary. The material was also unreferenced. If there is some important chronological information that can be referenced to a WP:RS, then it should be included as prose, not a timeline box. I removed the word "failed" beucase the source in question doesn't say that they "failed". Rhode Island Red (talk) 14:58, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Did you realize that the chronological information has now been included as prose and that the word "failed" has been replaced by a direct quote from one of the sources? I don't think so, as the blind removal shows. Wikiwiserick (talk) 20:32, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

No I didn't notice. I only wanted to revert the re-insertion of the blurb about Schult, for the reasons stated above. I used an axe when I should have used a scalpel. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:23, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Schult is not relevant to this bio as far as I can tell. Official biographies of the artist do not mention Schult. Schult himself may like to play up some distant association with Graubner, but I see no evidence that this is anything more than a trivial detail from Graubner's perspective. As an example, Barack Obama went to Harvard with many lesser known people, and while those people might mention this detail as a bragging point in their bios, the detail wouldn't merit inclusion in Obama's bio. So if you have a reliable online source about Graubner that mentions Schult, please provide the link. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:31, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I am not in the possession of one of the major exhibition catalogs on Graubner. These may include some remarks on Schult. But I did some further internet research. There are several online sources referring to Graubner and Schult as students of Götz. Furthermore, both artists participated in the documenta 6 in Kassel and in exhibitions on artists who studied in Götz's master class. It is also very interesting that Graubner, Schult and Richter (who were influenced by Caspar David Friedrich) were commissioned to create abstract works for the German Bundestag:

• HA Schult, Deutsch-Land
• Gotthard Graubner, Kissenbild
• Gerhard Richter, Schwarz-Rot-Gold

So I would say that Schult, who is certainly as famous as Graubner, should be mentioned as Graubner's classmate in the Wikipedia article. Furthermore, you have removed a direct quote from Dietmar Elger's major study on Richter, and the "Gruppe 63" was only proposed by Konrad Lueg, not actually organized to the point of being a group of artists that exhibited together. Wikiwiserick (talk) 23:34, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

So in other words, you know of no reliable online source about Graubner that mentions Schult. Good. Having established that, let's move on to your second point about the Gruppe 63 quote. The quote in question ("However, in the end, nothing much came of Lueg's proposal.") was removed because, as I said it is vague (ie. what does "nothing much mean"?) and non-encyclopedic -- useless essentially. Just because somebody said it, doesn't mean it's worth including verbatim. The text in the source you cited is a bit unclear about what became of Gruppe 63. The same group of artists did in fact jointly organize an exhibition in 1963, according to your source. If you believe strongly that nothing much came of Gruppe 63, then why bother adding it[15] in the first place? An appropriate way to handle this would be something along the lines of "In 1963, Richter, Polke and Graubner were part of the "Gruppe 63", a Düsseldorf artist group organized by Konrad Lueg. In May 1963, the group staged its one and only exhibition as a collective." Rhode Island Red (talk) 01:06, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Interestingly, both Graubner and Schult were not only classmates under Götz, but also under Georg Meistermann. I didn't know before. From 1955 to 1959, Meistermann was a professor of painting at the Düsseldorf Academy of Fine Arts. See Meistermann Museum Wittlich: Professor Meistermann, Georg Meistermann zum 100. Geburtstag. According to Siegmar Holsten's article on Graubner in the AKL, 61 (Munich and Leipzig: K.G. Saur, 2009), p. 3, and an article in the Kultur Chronik, Volume 18 (Inter Nationes, 2000), p. 4, Graubner studied art in Düsseldorf from 1954 to 1959, where he became a master pupil of both Georg Meistermann and Karl Otto Götz. See also Siegfried Gohr and Vanessa Sondermann, Staatliche Kunstakademie Düsseldorf: Akademie-Galerie: die neue Sammlung: 2005-2009 (Düsseldorf, 2009). From 1958 (when Schult entered the Academy) to 1959, both Graubner and Schult were classmates under Meistermann! As Meistermann left the Düsseldorf Academy in 1959, both Graubner and Schult moved into Götz's class, where they were the latter's first students. So it makes sense to mention that Schult and Graubner were classmates under Meistermann and Götz. Wikiwiserick (talk) 19:28, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Find an online source, then we'll talk. Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:48, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Some online sources:

• Graubner was Meistermann's student: Kunstmarkt: Gotthard Graubner; Munzinger Biographie: Gotthard Graubner.
• Schult was Meistermanns's student: Munzinger Biographie: HA Schult: deutscher Aktionskünstler; Christiane Hoffmans, H.A. Schult, der Musen-Sohn, Die Welt, 30 April 2006.

Believe it, both Graubner and Schult studied under Meistermann. Wikiwiserick (talk) 20:04, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

That's not an online source that describes the two as classmates. You are taking one source that makes a point Schult, and another source that make a point about Graubner and then synthesizing them to back up a point that you alone think is notable. That's not the way it's done here. I'm getting tired of explaining essentially the same thing to you every day, so consider taking a breather and working on something else for a while. Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:14, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, from all sources given (including the sources on Götz) it is self-evident that they were classmates both under Meistermann and Götz. We don't need the term "classmates", if we say that they were fellow students who both studied under Meistermann and Götz. Wikiwiserick (talk) 20:29, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with the term "classmates"; the issue is WP:SYNTH. Take a break please. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:20, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I do not accept your removals, as everything is now well sourced. We need a third opinion here. Wikiwiserick (talk) 22:55, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Well that's truly a shame because the process here is described in WP:BRD. You are now subverting an active discussion and choosing to WP:EDITWAR instead. Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:03, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

From the BRD page:

• Being bold is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia. No editor is more welcome to make a positive contribution than you are. When in doubt, edit!
• BE BOLD, and make what you currently believe to be the optimal change. Any change will do, but it is easier and wiser to proceed based on your best effort. Your change might involve adding, removing, rearranging, re-writing information.

You are the person who frequently removes well-sourced information simply because it is your personal opinion that Schult and Gonschior are not worth mentioning. I am of a different opinion, as art critics frequently make mention of fellow students of artists because they inspire each other. In the case of Graubner and Schult, both studied under Meistermann and Götz, and both were inspired by Caspar David Friedrich, which is certainly no coincidence. Therefore, we need a third opinion here. Wikiwiserick (talk) 23:14, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Well that's great that you took the time to read what the "B" in WP:BRD stands for -- now how about read the rest? R = revert, D = discuss. You were reverted, then we we were discussing it, and then you ignored the discussion and just did whatever you felt like doing. "Be bold" isn't a an exhortation to bypass WP procedures or be a dick. If you want a third opinion, that's fine. Let me know how you'd like to proceed because I will make sure that all the details are brought forth, including the fact that you have been inserting Schult's name in as many articles as you possibly can, ignoring the outcome of DR, and that you have a pattern of WP:COI, as well as disruptive and tendentious editing. That won't play in favor, just so you know. Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:30, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

As far as I can see, I am the only user here who did much research in order to improve the articles concerning twentieth-century German art, as I am an expert on the subject, and you are the person who frequently removes what I have written, simply because you are not willing to accept my German sources. What is more, you are unable to read German texts and have no knowledge of art historical matters. That's why we need a third opinion here. Wikiwiserick (talk) 23:51, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Bombastic comments and argument from authority are not constructive and do nothing to advance your position. Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:19, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

The first part of the section concerning the early Düsseldorf years should read:

• From 1954 to 1959, Graubner studied painting at the Kunstakademie Düsseldorf, where he became a master pupil of Georg Meistermann. In 1959, when Meistermann left the Academy, Graubner became one of Karl Otto Götz's first students, his fellow students being HA Schult, who also studied under Meistermann, and Kuno Gonschior. Among Graubner's fellow artists from the Düsseldorf Academy were Gerhard Richter and Sigmar Polke, who also studied under Götz in the early 1960s.

Everthing is well sourced. Wikiwiserick (talk) 23:26, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

How many more times do I have to explain it to you? None of the sources connect Graubner and Schult together. You are taking one fact about Graubner, another fact about Schult, and then synthesizing them together to make a new observation that did not appear in any of the cited sources. None of the sources on Graubner refer to Schult as being a notable figure in his life (unlike Polke, Richter, and Leug), so it doesn't belong in this biography on Graubner. It is you and you alone that is drawing this association. I keep explaining this to you and you keep ignoring it like it doesn't exist. It's the elephant in the room and ignoring it won't make it go away. So please stop trying to jam Schult's name in to all of these articles where it doesn't belong. It belies an agenda of WP:ADVOCACY. Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:39, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

None of the sources connect Graubner and Schult together? You must be joking. Sources dealing with Götz's Düsseldorf professorship clearly say that, in 1959, Graubner, Schult and Gonschior moved into Götz's class, where they were the latter's first students. This is a fact that should be mentioned in the Graubner article, as both Schult and Gonschior are well-known German artists. Graubner, Schult and Gonschior participated in the documenta 6 and other German exhibitions. We are talking here about one additional sentence concerning Graubner's years in Düsseldorf. Wikiwiserick (talk) 00:03, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

For your benefit, I'm going to post a few relevant points from WP:ADVOCACY (since you don't seem to be actually following any of the policy links I've been providing):

What I am writing is true Wikipedia does not indiscriminately collect "true" information, but aims to synthesize such information into an accurate, proportionate representation of the state of human knowledge. Our responsibility is not just to verify material, but to contextualize and weight it appropriately. Insisting on undue prominence for a true but minor or tangential viewpoint is a canonical violation of the neutral point of view.

Dealing with advocates: Polite advocacy can often be controlled by informing the editor of Wikipedia's mission and asking them to refrain from editing topics that they cannot cover neutrally. Disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point and disruptive editing can provide the basis for blocking an editor. For long-term, low-level disruption, those engaging in advocacy may be topic banned by the Wikipedia Community or the Arbitration Committee.

Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:52, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

It seems as if you are not aware that you are the person who acts disruptive, as you frequently remove my well-sourced contributions. It is certainly not a minor or tangential viewpoint that well-known German artists such as Graubner, Schult and Gonschior were classmates who inspired each other and participated in the same exhibitions. Wikiwiserick (talk) 00:19, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

If a reliable source had said that "Graubner, Schult and Gonschior were classmates who inspired each other", we wouldn't be having this discussion. Since you're still refusing to get the point, I'll repeat those key portions from WP:ADVOCACY again: '"Insisting on undue prominence for a true but minor or tangential viewpoint is a canonical violation of the neutral point of view...For long-term, low-level disruption, those engaging in advocacy may be topic banned by the Wikipedia Community or the Arbitration Committee."' If you can't acknowledge the issues of WP:SYNTH and WP:ADVOCACY, then there's really nothing else to talk about. ArbCom might be the next step. Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:31, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

So would you please explain what is wrong with the following sentence:

• From 1954 to 1959, Graubner studied painting at the Kunstakademie Düsseldorf, where he became a master pupil of Georg Meistermann. In 1959, when Meistermann left the Academy, Graubner became one of Karl Otto Götz's first students, his fellow students being HA Schult, who also studied under Meistermann, and Kuno Gonschior.

These are all facts, and the sources are given. Wikiwiserick (talk) 00:43, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

No, I won't explain the same thing to you over and over again. Just go back and read my other posts where I already addressed the issue multiple times and stop beating the dead horse already. Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:48, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

HA Schult's name is getting re-inserted into Graubner's bio again even though issues raised previously were never resolved. Time simply passing is not alone a sufficient reason to re-add it. Please see my previous comments as to why such information appears to be superfluous to this artist’s bio.[16] [17][18][19] In short, an arguably trivial detail from a bio about Kuno Gonschior (from a non-refereed source) does not merit inclusion in this bio about Graubner. If there was a good source with a concise bio about Graubner that mentions Schult, that would establish some precedent for including this, but otherwise there really is not, at least not without resorting to WP:SYNTH. It would becomes an important detail if they worked together or influenced each others styles but that doesn't seem to be the case. Otherwise, it's trivia.

WP:ADVOCACY states: "Wikipedia does not indiscriminately collect "true" information, but aims to synthesize such information into an accurate, proportionate representation of the state of human knowledge. Our responsibility is not just to verify material, but to contextualize and weight it appropriately. Insisting on undue prominence for a true but minor or tangential viewpoint is a canonical violation of the neutral point of view.

A person’s bio shouldn’t feature the names of classmates who weren't a significant part of the narrative of the bio subject's life. Merely attending the same school is not noteworthy. There is also ample precedent across a range of WP bios that supports not including the detail in question.

If necessary we can seek a third opinion via proper channels. Until then, please don't reinsert the contested text. It's a simple editorial disagreement; so again, it’s best not to edit war over it. Rhode Island Red (talk) 01:50, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

And a general reminder on sources – exhibition catalogs and gallery bios are not ideal sources in the sense that they are not refereed and basically just republish the artists self-published bio details -- they aren't likely to do any research on the subject or fact-checking. The best sources are those that are independent, third-party sources WP:RS with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy, and ideally, are readily verifiable. The more obscure the source, the less likely the information is to be noteworthy. Remember, WP:BLP states: “When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources.” Rhode Island Red (talk) 01:50, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Here's a good example of what I'm talking about.[20] Ignoring for the moment whether the source is a particularly reliable one, this bio about Graubner states "Graubner studied under Karl Otto Götz, who also taught Gerhard Richter and Sigmar Polke." Notice that there is no mention of Schult -- only Richter and Polke -- and that's because Graubner worked closely with the latter two artists. Rhode Island Red (talk) 02:00, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

As I have provided an additional source that clearly states that Graubner, Schult and Kuno Gonschior were classmates at the Düsseldorf academy (see Museumsplattform NRW: Kuno Gonschior), the above dispute has now been resolved. Wikiwiserick (talk) 03:09, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

It's like you completely ignored everything I wrote above. The source you provided addresses precisely none of the issues I raised above. As a general reminder, please do not continue to edit war while content in a BLP is under discussion. That is not how the process works. Do not re-add the material (i.e., WP:EDITWAR until the issues have been resolved. Failure to respect WP policy may result in your being blocked. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:08, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

As dozens of sources prove that the said artists studied with Graubner in Götz's class, this fact is certainly of some importance, because the other artists became well-known in Germany and are internationally recognized. So your blind revert cannot be accepted, especially in view of the fact that you did not contribute relevant material to the article. All I can see is that you are just removing what I have written, thereby also deleting references to reliable sources. Wikiwiserick (talk) 17:10, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Again, you are not reading what I wrote. Rather than explaining the same details to you over and over again, I'll simply refer you back to my previous explanation in this thread, which you ignored. If there are any parts you don't understand, let me know and I will try to explain them to you so that you finally come to an understanding of the issues. WP:ONUS dictates that you bear the responsibility of achieving consensus before re-adding disputed material. Please follow the rules. Thank you. Rhode Island Red (talk) 18:24, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I was asked to comment. The question of which artists studied where and whom they were fellow students with is generally considered of importance in both academic biographies and popular biographies of artists, because of the influence of their personal interactions on their later work. (This is different from bios of scientists and the like, where I normally remove the material as essentially name dropping unless thee is strong evidence on its importance). If we have one source saying A studied with X, and a source saying B studied with X in the same period, saying A & B were fellow students of X is essentially 1+1=2, not OR.

When faced with a quarrel involving a dispute of this intensity between two editors, I normally wonder whether this may not be a spillover from disputes on other articles. I notice an unusual amount of personal comment between the two editors involved, and I am asking you both to stop it: refer only to the edits, not to each other. DGG ( talk ) 19:15, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree with part of what you said, and said much the same thing -- where there is a connection between styles/influences it bears mentioning who classmates are. That's why the article currently mentions classmates Gerhard Richter and Sigmar Polke, because they later formed an artistic collaboration with Graubner (Gruppe 63), and thus they are relevant to Graubner's life story. I've seen a couple of online bios on Graubner and they mention Richter and Polke but not Schult, because Schult is not instrumental to the Graubner narrative.[21] There is no similarity in artistic styles or even genres, or any evidence of stylistic cross-pollination (Graubner is a fine art painter, Schult is a garbage sculptor who stages "happenings") Furthermore, in the absence of such a connection, there is no reason why someone's bio should be saddled with the names of classmates that have no real relevance to the bio subject beyond being classmates. Lastly, just because something is verifiable, doesn't mean that it merits inclusion (see WP:ADVOCACY and WP:ONUS). I have suggested that the bar should be set as follows: if there is a bio of Graubner in any reliable source that mentions Schult as his classmate, that would be sufficient basis for inclusion, otherwise, it's trivia and not worthy of inclusion. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:22, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I should also add that editors engaged in disputes should follow proper procedures in soliciting outside opinions. In this case WP:CANVASS was violated. Don't get me wrong -- I do think you are a perfectly reasonable editor who is more than qualified to comment on a dispute such as this, and I welcome your participation, but the method of contact was a breach of the rules, and I have warned the editor about this in the past. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:29, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

It is a historical fact that in 1959 Schult, Gonschior and Graubner were the first and only students in Götz's class ("Seine ersten Schüler sind Gotthard Graubner, HA Schult und Kuno Gonschior"). It is therefore self-evident that they knew each other well. As all three students later became well-known German artists of some reputation, they are certainly worth mentioning as classmates in the article on Graubner and elsewhere. Furthermore, in 1958, before moving into Götz's class, both Schult and Graubner had studied under Meistermann. So why has Schult's name been removed from the article? Graubner had left Götz's class in 1959 before Richter and Polke began studying in Düsseldorf in 1961. This means that Graubner was not a classmate of Richter and Polke, though they tried, together with Konrad Lueg, to form an artistic collaboration (the Gruppe 63), but "in the end, nothing much came of Lueg's proposal". So they didn't form an artistic colloboration. ("Luegs Vorschlag wird letztlich nicht in die Tat umgesetzt; eine Gruppe 63 nie gegründet"). Some critics only mention Graubner, Richter and Polke because they are the most famous painters who studied in Götz's class. Their painting style differs. Graubner's style is much closer to Gonschior's than to Richter's or Polke's. Even Schult's style in some of his early works (see [22] and [23]) is relatively close to Graubner's (see [24] and [25]). These are the facts. So would you please explain what is wrong with the following sentence:

• From 1954 to 1959, Graubner studied painting at the Kunstakademie Düsseldorf, where he became a master pupil of Georg Meistermann. In 1959, when Meistermann left the Academy, Graubner became one of Karl Otto Götz's first students, his fellow students being HA Schult, who also studied under Meistermann, and Kuno Gonschior.

All this can be supported by reliable sources. Wikiwiserick (talk) 23:12, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I stopped editing the article, as it is necessary to discuss the edits. My version of the disputed passage in the article on Graubner is the following:

From 1954 to 1959, Graubner studied painting at the Kunstakademie Düsseldorf, where he became a master pupil of Georg Meistermann. In 1959, when Meistermann left the Academy, Graubner became one of Karl Otto Götz's first students, his fellow students being HA Schult, who also studied under Meistermann, and Kuno Gonschior.

This includes only the facts without speculating whether these artists knew each other well. So I do not understand why this has been changed to the following version:

From 1954 to 1959, Graubner studied painting at the Kunstakademie Düsseldorf, where he became a master pupil of Georg Meistermann. In 1959, when Meistermann left the Academy, Graubner became one of Karl Otto Götz's first students.

This current version does not include the full information. The fact that Schult and Gonschior were Graubner's classmates in missing here. However, this information is of importance to art historians who frequently draw comparisons between artists. For instance, in this case it is interesting that Schult, as his early work shows, originally wanted to be a painter (otherwise he would not have moved with Graubner into the painting class of Götz), but later decided to be a performance artist, whereas Graubner und Gonschior remained abstract painters at heart. Furthermore, all three artists later exhibited at the documenta in Kassel and also participated in other group exhibitions. Interestingly, both Graubner's and Schult's art is influenced by the work of Caspar David Friedrich, one of the favorite painters of their professor Götz. So it makes much sense to mention in the Graubner article that Graubner, Schult and Gonschior were classmates in Götz's painting class. Just one sentence presenting all facts without interpretation. Wikiwiserick (talk) 14:05, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Let’s begin by recognizing the most important policy foundation relevant to this editorial issue; i.e., the standard set by 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… The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.”

So we must agree that while it may be verifiable that Graubner and Schult went to the same art school, or had a common teacher, there is no obligation to include the information in Graubner’s bio. In fact, the onus all along has been on the editor to make a compelling case and achieve consensus for inclusion of the disputed content. No consensus has been reached to date and there is no policy insisting that material like this would have to be included, so ultimately the decision as to whether or not it should be is subjective. IMO the subjective argument for inclusion to date is not compelling; on the other hand, there are less subjective arguments as to why it shouldn’t be that are much more compelling.

The text in the article currently says:

“Among Graubner's fellow artists from the Düsseldorf Academy were Gerhard Richter and Sigmar Polke, who also studied under Götz in the early 1960s.[17][18] In 1963, Richter, Polke and Graubner were part of the "Gruppe 63", a Düsseldorf artist group organized by Konrad Lueg. In May of that year, the group staged its one and only exhibition as a collective.”

The current dispute involves the inclusion of HA Schult’s name, as follows:

“Among Graubner's fellow artists from the Düsseldorf Academy were Gerhard Richter, Sigmar Polke, and HA Schult who also studied under Götz in the early 1960s...”

Inclusion of the names of a bio subject’s classmates would be considered trivia in virtually all cases unless there was a significant association between the two individuals; if they were close friends or noted competitors; of if they were describe as having significantly influenced each other’s works. Polke and Richter are mentioned in Graubner’s WP bio not merely because they were his classmates but because they had a significant collaborative association with Graubner vis a vis Gruppe 36. Schult did not, nor did he have any other type of significant association or role in Graubner’s life. He has no place in the narrative of Graubner’s life aside from the trivial fact that they had a common school/teacher.

If any of the best sources on Graubner made any mention of Schult, I would be strongly in favor of including Schult’s name in Graubner’s WP bio but they do not. In fact one of the best online bio sources on Graubner, [26] which was the source for current version of the text quoted above, mentioned Richter and Polke and Gruppe 73, but made no mention of Schult. This sets a compelling precedent for exclusion IMO. If other bio sources about Graubner do not mention Schult, why should this bio stray from that precedent and weave Schult’s name into Graubner’s life story?

Absent a good source on Graubner that mentions Schult, I could still be persuaded to support mentioning Schult as a classmate in Graubner’s WP bio if sources had described a significant stylistic relationship between their works as a result of their common roots, but that is not the case either. Their media, styles, statements, etc, are completely dissimilar and no sources have drawn any stylistic comparisons between them. This directly contradicts the primary argument for inclusion that Wikiwiserick made above; which was as follows:

“This information is of importance to art historians who frequently draw comparisons between artists.”

In fact, there is no WP:RS that provides the basis for drawing such an association. The rest of Wikiwiserick’s core argument for inclusion was as follows:

“In this case it is interesting that Schult, as his early work shows, originally wanted to be a painter (otherwise he would not have moved with Graubner into the painting class of Götz), but later decided to be a performance artist, whereas Graubner und Gonschior remained abstract painters at heart. Furthermore, all three artists later exhibited at the documenta in Kassel and also participated in other group exhibitions. Interestingly, both Graubner's and Schult's art is influenced by the work of Caspar David Friedrich, one of the favorite painters of their professor Götz. So it makes much sense to mention in the Graubner article that Graubner, Schult and Gonschior were classmates in Götz's painting class.”

This bypasses the onus of actually proving that there was a significant stylistic association between the two artists and simply presupposes that there is one based solely on WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. It is a completely invalid argument. If any reliable source had said the things above and drew such a stylistic association between Graubner and Schult, we wouldn’t be having this debate. I would wholeheartedly support inclusion.

The only other faint argument that could be made for including Schult’s name in the bio might be that not including it would deprive readers of the small kernel of knowledge, however trivial, that they had studied at the same academy/teacher, but even that argument doesn’t hold water because the information is contained on the pages for their teacher Karl Otto Gotz and for the Kunstakademie_Düsseldorf#Notable_professors_and_students where he is mentioned as a student, and these are wikilinked in the relevant section of the article on Graubner. Anyone who is curious about other students of Gotz and the Academy need only click the wikilinks. That’s very much in keeping with the fundamental way WP articles are supposed to be designed, not coat-racking superfluous information everywhere.

I also think there’s an important issue of respect for a bio subject to consider as well. I could see a situation where it might be to Artist A’s benefit to have their name mentioned in articles about loosely associated artists (e.g., former classmates) but it might be a disservice to Artist Y, whose bio gets saddled with the name of someone who, having had no significant or noteworthy role, does not belong. Seems disrespectful when there’s no compelling reason to include it. It cannot be argued that harm could be caused by omitting it, but there is a potential argument to the contrary. Better to err on the side of caution. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:46, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

So your version of the disputed passage is

• From 1954 to 1959, Graubner studied painting at the Kunstakademie Düsseldorf, where he became a master pupil of Georg Meistermann. In 1959, when Meistermann left the Academy, Graubner became one of Karl Otto Götz's first students, Among Graubner's fellow artists from the Düsseldorf Academy were Gerhard Richter and Sigmar Polke, who also studied under Götz in the early 1960s. In 1963, Richter, Polke and Graubner were part of the "Gruppe 63", a Düsseldorf artist group organized by Konrad Lueg. In May of that year, the group staged its one and only exhibition as a collective. However, in the end, "nothing much came of Lueg's proposal."

I did some further research in order to reveal the full story of the so-called Gruppe 63. Concerning Konrad Lueg, the man who proposed to found this group in 1963, Brigitte Kölle writes:

• On the back of the concept paper, he [Lueg] put a hand-written list of potential members of the Gruppe 63, an abbreviation for their activities ("M" for painters, "G" for graphic artists, etc.) and their respective age. The list consists of 30 artists, critics and composers aged 22 to 32, including Lueg himself, his friends Richter, Kuttner and Polke as well as Gonschior, Graubner, Isenrath, Kriwet, Ruthenbeck, Becher, Strelow, Pellicioni and Böhmer, Helmets and others. In a handwritten draft letter written by Gerhard Richter, with which Lueg, Richter, Polke, and Kuttner in March 1963 contacted the Duesseldorf city administration, the term Gruppe 63 reappears. This passage has, however, been struck through. Finally, Lueg's proposal was not put into practice, a Gruppe 63 never established. (Auf der Rückseite des Konzeptpapiers setzt er eine handschriftliche Namensliste potentieller Mitglieder der Gruppe 63, ein Kürzel für ihre Tätigkeit ("M" für Maler, "G" für Grafiker usw.) und ihr jeweiliges Alter. Die Liste besteht aus an die 30 bildenden Künstlern, Kritikern und Komponisten im Alter von 22 bis 32 Jahren, darunter Lueg selbst, seine Freunde Richter, Kuttner und Polke sowie Gonschior, Graubner, Isenrath, Kriwet, Ruthenbeck, Becher, Strelow, Pellicioni, Böhmer, Helms und andere. In einem von Gerhard Richter handschriftlich verfassten Briefentwurf, mit dem sich im März 1963 Lueg, Richter, Polke und Kuttner an die Düsseldorfer Stadtverwaltung wenden, taucht die Bezeichnung Gruppe 63 wieder auf. Diese Passage ist jedoch wieder gestrichen worden. Luegs Vorschlag wird letztlich nicht in die Tat umgesetzt; eine Gruppe 63 nie gegründet.)

See Brigitte Kölle, Die Kunst des Ausstellens: Untersuchungen zum Werk des Künstlers und Kunstvermittlers Konrad Lueg / Fischer (1939­1996), PhD thesis, Universität Hildesheim, 2005, pp. 25-26. This means that the Gruppe 63 was only a list of names of artists whom Lueg thought to be part of a proposed artists group, nothing else. So Graubner, Richter and Polke never participated in such a group, as it did not exist. Furthermore, as Graubner had left Götz’s class in 1959, and Richter and Polke entered the academy only in 1961, they could not have been classmates there. This means that the disputed passage should simply read:

• From 1954 to 1959, Graubner studied painting at the Kunstakademie Düsseldorf, where he became a master pupil of Georg Meistermann. In 1959, when Meistermann left the Academy, Graubner became one of Karl Otto Götz's first students, his classmates being HA Schult, who also studied under Meistermann, and Kuno Gonschior. In 1959, he left the academy and worked as an art teacher at the Lessing Gymnasium, Düsseldorf.

These are the facts that can be backed up by several independent sources. Only Richter and Polke were fellow artists at the Düsseldorf academy, not Graubner, and a Gruppe 63 did not exist. Works by Graubner were not part of Lueg’s exhibition, as only works by Lueg, Kuttner, Richter and Polke were exhibited there, as the sources say. See also Dietmar Elger, Gerhard Richter: A Life in Painting (University of Chicago Press, 2009), p. 55. On the other hand, there can be no doubt that Graubner and Schult were classmates in Meistermann’s class and both moved into Götz’s class in 1959, where Gonschior was their first and only classmate. Richter and Polke entered Götz’s class only in 1961, where they were Schult’s classmates. Graubner had left the academy in 1959.

In order to support your view that Schult is not worth mentioning in the article on Gotthard Graubner, you only refer to this commercial auction page arguing that this short

bio about Graubner states "Graubner studied under Karl Otto Götz, who also taught Gerhard Richter and Sigmar Polke." Notice that there is no mention of Schult -- only Richter and Polke -- and that's because Graubner worked closely with the latter two artists.

You didn’t realise that, according to your own high standards, a commercial auction page is a questionable source, as such pages tend to promote their commercially successful artists, in this case Graubner, Polke and Richter. Interestingly, not even this site says that Graubner, Polke and Richter were classmates or worked closely with each other in the non-existent Gruppe 63, as you have falsely claimed. The site even emphasizes that "Graubner’s work was never swayed by trends in the art world, and his closest contemporary influence was Mark Rothko—with whom he shared a sense of pictorial, floating space created through close tonal values and stains of varied color temperatures." This is however questionable, as Graubner had some connections with the Zero group founded by Mack and Piene. Significantly, the "Related Artists" section of the auction page lists Kuno Gonschior, Karl Otto Götz (Graubner’s, Schult’s and Gonschior’s professor) and Georg Meistermann (Graubner’s and Schult’s professor) in the first place. Schult is simply not mentioned here, because there are no current paintings by Schult to be offered by auction, as he is now a performance artist. His early painting, which is remarkably close to Graubner’s style, is to be found in his large picture boxes (see [27] and [28]), which are no longer on the art market because they are all in museums now.

As Graubner, Schult and Gonschior were classmates at the famous Düsseldorf academy, later became well-known artists and also participated in several exhibitions, among them the documenta 6, it must certainly be mentoned in the Graubner article that Graubner studied with Schult and Gonschior, especially in view of the fact that they were the only students in Götz's class at that time. Just the pure facts, nothing else. Of course, it is also necessary to entirely remove the following passage from the article, as it includes wrong information:

• Among Graubner's fellow artists from the Düsseldorf Academy were Gerhard Richter and Sigmar Polke, who also studied under Götz in the early 1960s. In 1963, Richter, Polke and Graubner were part of the "Gruppe 63", a Düsseldorf artist group organized by Konrad Lueg. In May of that year, the group staged its one and only exhibition as a collective. However, in the end, "nothing much came of Lueg's proposal."

It should also be mentioned in the Wikipedia article that from 1958 Graubner had some connections with artists from the Düsseldorf Zero group. See this source, which states, "Gotthard Graubner studierte in Berlin, Dresden und zuletzt in Düsseldorf. Hier kam er in Kontakt mit Piene, Mack und Uecker, den Gründern der Gruppe Zero." ("Gotthard Graubner studied in Berlin, Dresden and finally in Düsseldorf. Here he came into contact with Piene, Mack and Uecker, the founders of the Zero group.") See also this statement from a Sotheby’s page: "The Zero phenomenon enveloped some of the most important names from across Europe and beyond. From Otto Piene, Heinz Mack, Günther Uecker, Gotthard Graubner, … to Yves Klein, Arman … etc. etc." (see [29]). What about this version of the disputed paragraph:

• From 1954 to 1959, Graubner studied painting at the Kunstakademie Düsseldorf, where he became a master pupil of Georg Meistermann. In 1959, when Meistermann left the Academy, Graubner became one of Karl Otto Götz's first students, his classmates being HA Schult, who also studied under Meistermann, and Kuno Gonschior. In 1959, Graubner left the academy and worked as an art teacher at the Lessing Gymnasium, Düsseldorf. It should further be noted that, shortly before leaving the academy, he had some connections with artists from the Düsseldorf Zero group.

All of these facts are supported by many independent sources. Any further questions? Wikiwiserick (talk) 01:14, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Couldn’t help but noticing that you addressed pretty much none of the points I raised in my objection above. It’s counterproductive to talk past each other. You still haven’t offered an explanation as to why this detail would rise beyond trivia;, why it should be included when other bio sources on Graubner don’t mention it; the WP:SYNTH issue; why wikilinks to the teacher and institution in question are not sufficient; etc. I don’t really understand the point you were trying to make amidst that very long reply, but I feel compelled to address a few of your top-line claims:

“So your version of the disputed passage is…”

I am not disputing the passage per se. The dispute to date does not concern the rest of the text; merely the insertion of Schult’s name into the narrative.

“You didn’t realise that, according to your own high standards, a commercial auction page is a questionable source, as such pages tend to promote their commercially successful artists, in this case Graubner, Polke and Richter. Interestingly, not even this site says that Graubner, Polke and Richter were classmates or worked closely with each other in the non-existent Gruppe 63, as you have falsely claimed.”

I didn’t add the link to the so-called auction page (i.e., the Art.net bio on Graubner).[30] You did. Same with the text in the article about Graubner and Gruppe 63. It was you who added it; not me.[31] You yourself have cited the Artnet bio several times, going as far back as 2012; you even categorized it as “well sourced”[32] and cited it as a “reliable source” as recently as last week.[33] It's highly disingenuous for you to now argue that it is unreliable. If you believe that the text and sources that you add to the article are unreliable and inaccurate, you shouldn’t add them to the article in the first place; you shouldn’t argue against them after the fact; and most importantly, you shouldn’t try to blame me for them.

“In order to support your view that Schult is not worth mentioning in the article on Gotthard Graubner, you only refer to this commercial auction page”

No, what I said is that there are no good sources on Graubner that mention Schult’s name as a classmate or otherwise, which supports the conclusion that his name doesn’t belong in the narrative of Graubner’s life. It pretty much requires WP:SYNTH to make a case otherwise. I gave you the benefit of the doubt about Artnet being a WP:RS. But regardless, the same holds true of the other Graubner bio links in the article: they mention nothing about Schult either.[34][35]

“What about this version of the disputed paragraph…”

For the time being, I think it’s counterproductive to broaden the discussion to include other content in the article. The only issue at hand for now is whether Schult’s name belongs in the article or not. We can move onto other issues after that’s resolved. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:44, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

As a reminder, please refer back to WP:ADVOCACY which states the following:

“What I am writing is true. Wikipedia does not indiscriminately collect "true" information, but aims to synthesize such information into an accurate, proportionate representation of the state of human knowledge. Our responsibility is not just to verify material, but to contextualize and weight it appropriately. Insisting on undue prominence for a true but minor or tangential viewpoint is a canonical violation of the neutral point of view.”

I strongly believe that what we are dealing with here is exactly what the policy above describes as a “canonical violation of NPOV”; i.e., “insisting on undue prominence for a true but minor viewpoint”. Inserting Schult;s name into the bio would not be a “proportionate representation” of the bibliographical sources on Graubner’s life, nor would it be duly weighted. Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:00, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I didn’t remember, but you are right that I added the reference to the questionable auction page. However, I only added it because you frequently asked me for English sources, and it included the dates of Graubner’s academy years in Düsseldorf. However, later this source was only used by you to support your personal view that Graubner was more connected with Richter and Polke than Schult, which was not the case. I think this reference can now be removed, as there are better sources having the dates of Graubner’s academy years. For instance, according to Siegmar Holsten's article on Graubner in the AKL, 61 (Munich and Leipzig: K.G. Saur, 2009), p. 3, and an article in the Kultur Chronik, Volume 18 (Inter Nationes, 2000), p. 4, Graubner studied art in Düsseldorf from 1954 to 1959, where he became a master pupil of both Georg Meistermann and Karl Otto Götz. See also Siegfried Gohr and Vanessa Sondermann, Staatliche Kunstakademie Düsseldorf: Akademie-Galerie: die neue Sammlung: 2005-2009 (Düsseldorf, 2009).

Concerning the material on Richter and Polke, I did some further research and must now say that we were wrong to add the passage concerning these artists and the Gruppe 63 to the article on Graubner. By the way, some parts of this passage have been included by you. See [36]. Furthermore, it was you who suggested using the following passage: "In 1963, Richter, Polke and Graubner were part of the "Gruppe 63", a Düsseldorf artist group organized by Konrad Lueg. In May 1963, the group staged its one and only exhibition as a collective." See [37]. This error must be corrected.

Furthermore, I still do not understand why you would like to remove the very short references to Schult and Gonschior. There are several independent sources (among them publications on Götz, Schult and Gonschior) saying that Schult and Gonschior were Graubner’s classmates. See, for instance, Museumsplattform NRW: Kuno Gonschior. Schult is frequently listed among the students from Götz’s class who later became famous artists. See [38]. There can be no doubt that both Graubner and Schult were also classmates under Meistermann. When Meistermann left the Düsseldorf Academy, both Graubner and Schult moved into Götz's class, where they were the latter's first students. These are historical facts. So it makes much sense to mention in the Wikipedia article that Schult and Graubner were classmates at the academy, where both preferred to study under the same professors, which alone is very significant, especially as fellow students are of equal importance to art students as their professors. Why should the same facts only be mentioned in the article on Götz? Wikipedia even recommends its contributors to include wikilinks of this kind. In this case the reference is also of some importance as both Graubner and Schult were inspired by the art of Caspar David Friedrich (one of the favorite painters of their professor Götz) and later became well-known German artists, who participated in several exhibitions. It is not even necessary to make mention of the fact that they may have artistically inspired each other, as both are equally famous and participated on many occasions (study years, exhibitions).

Of course, additional material that may be used to replace the superfluous passage on Richter, Polke and the Gruppe 63 must also be discussed on this talk page. However, as these endless discussions do not help improving anything we should now wait for a third opinion. Wikiwiserick (talk) 21:45, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Please note that Talk page discussions are organized into distinct threads. This thread, titled “Classmates” is narrowly devoted to discussing the issue of whether or not the detail about Schult being a classmate is relevant enough to warrant inclusion. Even with that very limited scope it’s expanded into a tome (and you still haven’t addressed any of the arguments I have raised against inclusion of this trivial detail), so please focus on the currently disputed material and once that's finished, you can start a new thread for discussing any other editorial issues or text proposals. Without delving to deep into off-topic issues, the following comment warrants a brief response:

“I didn’t remember, but you are right that I added the reference to the questionable auction page…Concerning the material on Richter and Polke, I did some further research and must now say that we were wrong to add the passage concerning these artists and the Gruppe 63 to the article on Graubner.”

Just to be clear once again, you not only added the Artnet (i.e, your now "questionable auction page") reference, which you somehow managed to forget, you described it as “well sourced” in 2013, [39] and categorized it as “reliable” just last week;[40] and it was you, not “we”, who added the mention of Gruppe 63[[41]] as well as the detail about Richter and Polke.[42] Not only that, but when I tried to delete the latter material, explaining clearly that it was trivial and poorly sourced,[43]] you actually reverted my edit and restored the material to the article.[44]

It’s remarkable that, suddenly, you don’t like the sources you used or the material you added to the article and edit warred over. A more judicious approach is expected for bio subjects. Nonetheless, this thread isn’t about Gruppe 63 and there is no current dispute about that text other than the one you are now having with yourself. The pattern here is textbook tendentious editing.

Lastly, please thread your replies using colons. Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:44, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for providing these diffs showing that the wording of the disputed paragraph frequently changed because you tried to remove all references to Schult. I never stated that the Artnet page is a good source, I only stated that the facts as a whole are backed up by several reliable and independent sources. This is true, with one exception. As I have now provided better sources, the reference to the commercial Artnet page can be removed. However, I regret that some edits were based on a misinterpretation of some of the reliable sources. Even you, who first thought that parts of this material might be trivial, finally accepted it and suggested a specific wording for the entry. As I am the only editor who seems to be interested in finding new sources, I have now seen that it was an error to include the material on Richter, Polke and the Gruppe 63, as a special source says that this group never existed and Graubner's name only appeared on an unimportant list of artists. This can happen. So what? This error can easily be corrected. And I still like my reliable sources, as they support my edits. Let's now wait for a third opinion. Wikiwiserick (talk) 01:04, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

"Thanks for providing these diffs showing that the wording of the disputed paragraph frequently changed because you tried to remove all references to Schult."

I think you missed the point of those diff edits. They were to prove that the details in the article that you are now arguing against and saying that I added to the article, were in fact added and defended by you. That's a rather egregious faux pas. It would be nice to acknowledge it rather than trying to find a new way to blame me.

However, once again, the focus of this thread and the primary question at hand in the dispute is whether Schult's name should be included; not whether mention of Richter, Polke and Gruppe 63 should be deleted (as an aside, the sourcing supporting inclusion of the latter artists/group seems stronger than in it is for inclusion of Schult's name). I said before, I don't have a problem with citing Artnet as if it's not being used as a standalone source for any extraordinary claims.

“I regret that some edits were based on a misinterpretation of some of the reliable sources... it was an error to include the material on Richter, Polke and the Gruppe 63.”

That's not a simple mistake that can be easily dismissed. You added the material and you fought to re-include it after it was deleted; you went so far as to say, incorrectly, that I had added it. Similarly, you added the Artnet reference and had no problem with it until now, 3 years later in the midst of a dispute where it weighs against your position, when out of nowhere you suddenly started arguing that it's not WP:RS. WP:TE aside, misinterpreting sources and their reliability poses a serious concern given that you have supported many key details in the article using obscure sources in German that are not available online or in US libraries, and therefore cannot be readily verified. Rhode Island Red (talk) 03:23, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Third Opinion

I was asked for an opinion.

I hoped that I had already made it clear that contacts between artists are a key part of their biography, and not minor details. As for how to say it, I think the paragraph just below could be a little fuller, based upon the sources presented, to include the additional should include the English version of the sentence sentence quoted in ref 18. But it has to be worded to show just which document it came from. (And it is not clearto refer in one footnote reference to another footnote reference. Write out each reference in full. If they need to be merged, I'll show how to do it.

I am refraining from giving my opinion about the nature of the conflict. I hope very much the two editors will avoid each other in the future., but probably it will be better for some other administrator to enforce this.

And as advice, I also very strongly urge both editors to learn how to write more concise statements of problems and disagreements. People at WP do not have the patience to deal with comments as long as some of those above.

Is there any thing else I need look at? Single sentence answers to this, please. DGG ( talk ) 03:15, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion. I have now included a revised version of the said paragraph based on your line of argument. Wikiwiserick (talk) 05:07, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I adjusted it slightly. I hope to now go on to other matters. DGG ( talk ) 01:16, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I have now made some changes and added some material. I hope this is OK. Wikiwiserick (talk) 23:42, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Suggestion for a revised version of the disputed paragraph

Here is my suggestion for a revised version of the paragraph that was partly reverted:

• From 1954 to 1959, Graubner studied painting at the Kunstakademie Düsseldorf, where he was first a student of Otto Pankok and later became a master pupil of Georg Meistermann. In 1959, when Meistermann left the Academy, Graubner became one of Karl Otto Götz's first students, his classmates being HA Schult, who also studied under Meistermann, and Kuno Gonschior. In 1959, Graubner left the academy and worked as an art teacher at the Lessing Gymnasium, Düsseldorf. It should further be noted that, shortly before leaving the academy, he had some connections with artists from the Düsseldorf Zero group.

The references to Richter, Polke and the Gruppe 63 have now been removed, and some other material has been added. To my mind, all this is well sourced. Any further suggestions? Wikiwiserick (talk) 01:18, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

The following revised version of the said paragraph, which is based on DGG's suggestions, has now been added to the article:

• From 1954 to 1959, Graubner studied painting at the Kunstakademie Düsseldorf, where he was first a student of Otto Pankok and later became a master pupil of Georg Meistermann. In 1959, when Meistermann left the Academy, Graubner became one of Karl Otto Götz's first students, his classmates being HA Schult, who also studied under Meistermann, and Kuno Gonschior. The importance of such classmates is emphasized by the compart article on Götz, which states that a "large number of later famous artists came out of Götz’ class at the Kunstakademie Düsseldorf (1959-1979): among them Kuno Gonschior, Gotthard Graubner, Sigmar Polke, Gerhard Richter, Manfred Kuttner, Rissa (later his wife), HA Schult." In 1959, Graubner left the academy and worked as an art teacher at the Lessing Gymnasium, Düsseldorf. It should further be noted that, shortly before leaving the academy, "he came into contact with Piene, Mack and Uecker, the founders of the Zero group",, a fact that is often overlooked.

I hope this is OK. Wikiwiserick (talk) 05:10, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Editorial Dispute March 2013

I took a break from Wikipedia for several months because of your behavior, as you frequently acted disruptively and reverted my contributions, although I provided (and still provide) material from many reliable sources (art books, catalogues, art magazines, art-related webpages) and you admitted that you are unable to read German texts and have no specific knowledge of current German art. Now I see that nothing has changed. Moreover, you are showing the same kind of aggressive behavior on other Wikipedia pages as well (see, for instance, Frank L. VanderSloot, where you are deeply engaged in edit wars with several other users). Blind reverting to older article versions of inferior quality is an offense against Wikipedia policy. Therefore, I am reincluding the well-sourced additional information. Wikiwiserick (talk) 16:58, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Nothing has changed since the last time we this content was discussed back in September. It seems pretty obvious that you have a WP:COI with respect to Schult and you don't get to make tendentious edits and edit war just because you decided to try and wait the situation out until no one was looking. If you persist in editing tendentiously and pushing the envelope on WP:COI this will have to go to the admins with a block request. Is that the direction you really want to go? Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:35, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

You have provided no content-related arguments for the removal of my well-sourced contributions. Therefore, I am reincluding the information. Wikiwiserick (talk) 13:22, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

You know full well that we discussed this exhaustively right through until September of 2012. The discussion is right on this Talk page on the HA Schult talk page.[45] You were inappropriately trying to draw an association between Schult and other students at the Academy and you inappropriately inserted this material into several artist biographies. Now you are simply ignoring the past discussion and repeating the same tendentious edits as though the discussion never took place and that you could wait long enough and the editorial issues would simply vanish. It doesn't work that way. Nothing has changed; the modifications are still inappropriate; and it still looks like you are ignoring WP:COI as well as the convention of using the talk page to flesh out editorial issues rather than edit warring. If you keep up with this tendentious conduct, a block will likely ensue. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:11, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I do not accept your blind reverts, as my contributions are well sourced and not tendentious as you falsely claim. As you are the only person who questions my edits in a biased attitude, we need a third opinion here. Wikiwiserick (talk) 13:18, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

It's not a blind revert. We had a protracted discussion on this very Talk page about why it wasn't appropriate to jam Schult's name into this article. You are simply ignoring it as though it never happened. That's why your edit warring over it now is tendentious/disruptive, and if you keep it up, demanding of a block. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:45, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

As you are still removing my well-sourced contributions, you are being disruptive, Rhode Island Red. As I said above, I do not accept your blind reverts. Wikiwiserick (talk) 17:06, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Nothing has changed since the disucssion in 2012. You have provided no explanation or justification for your continued edit warring. This is the final warning. Your next revert will result in a 3 RR complaint and notice of a potential WP:COI violation. It's your choice as to how this proceeds. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:47, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I am not being disruptive, you are, as any unbiased user who is able to read German can see. Therefore, I have reincluded the information you have removed and added some further information. Wikiwiserick (talk) 19:17, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Instead of frequently removing the well-sourced material I am including in the article, you should wait for a third opinion. As far as I can see, you are the person who is only edit-warring here and not adding further material to the article. Wikiwiserick (talk) 17:21, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

references

References