Jump to content

Talk:HA Schult/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Tag claiming that the article relies largely upon a single source

One editor has claimed that the article relies largely or entirely upon a single source. I do not think so. Of course, one source is cited six times or so in the first part of the article. It is the 398-page publication, HA Schult der Macher (1978), an oeuvre catalog on the artist, edited by four independent authors, namely Eugen Thiemann and Christel Deneke (two German art historians), Dieter Treeck, a writer and art critic, and Hans Rudolf Hartung, a well-known German journalist and author. The source includes essays written by German art historians, reprints from newspaper articles dealing with the artist's happenings, and discussions of all works by Schult previous to the publication date. It is the standard publication on the early work of Schult. This is certainly a reliable source. Furthermore, several other sources are also cited in the article. So do we really need the tags that say that the article relies largely or entirely upon a single source and needs additional citations for verification? Wikiwiserick (talk) 22:13, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

As I was saying during our running dialog on my Talk page, the source in question is obscure, old (1978), out-of print, written in German, and not available online so it can't be readily verified -- it's not ideal to give it such undue weight. It would be much better to find secondary sources in English that quote the original source. If you refer to this as a "standard publication" about Schult, then I would assume that you are rerring to some objective "standard", but what that might be, you did not say. If he is a subject of academic interest and academic articles are citing this older obscure source, then we should be citing the secondary sources instead. It's best not to lean on a single source too heavily because the article needs to reflect a balanced WP:NPOV of the subject; not the POV of a single source, and in this case, the source in question is particularly problematic for verification. That holds true to some extent for all non-English publications, not just obscure ones like that in question. Bear in mind that this is English WP, not German WP and it is intended primarily for English speakers. The subject's notability to the English-speaking community would be reflected by the presence of a sufficient number of English-language sources on which to base the bulk of the article. I've already pointed out two such sources for you to use that are not currently cited.[1][2] Also, I noticed that you have grouped together multiple sources under single citations. That's inconsistent with WP:STYLE, so for now, would you mind breaking those up into separate citations. Thanks. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:47, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
However, this German publication is the best and most complete source on the early work of the artist, and therefore I do not understand your argument. There are many excellent publications on artists written in other languages and now out of print. They may be cited in an English Wikipedia article, as English sources are frequently cited in German, French or Italian Wikipedia articles. Furthermore, I have cited several other sources in the Schult article, among them publications in English. What is of more interest to me in order to improve the article, however, is to add some more illustrations, for instance this one, which I found on the Internet, or a similar one, as it shows the influence of Caspar David Friedrich and the German Romantic landscape painters on the artist. Perhaps you can help. Wikiwiserick (talk) 22:57, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Now it seems that you are refusing to get the point. Perhaps if you read my last reply you will understand. Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:24, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
The problem remains that there are more publications on this German artist written in German than in English, although his major happenings are also known in the English speaking world. Wikiwiserick (talk) 23:32, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Again, one of the most constructive things you can do right now is to separate the citations so that there are not multiple sources listed under a single citation. This makes it hard to follow the sources, and clarity is needed particularly in the midst of this discussion about sources. Thanks in advance. Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:43, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
I was not aware of the fact that this is really a big problem on Wikipedia, as single footnotes in scholarly essays often cite multiple sources. Perhaps you can help, as you may better know how to handle the footnotes according to Wikipedia's guidelines. Thanks. Wikiwiserick (talk) 23:54, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
WP is not a scholarly essay and as I've repeated several times now, it's not WP style. I'll be happy to help out but my time is rather limited so I'll simply keep the first of each of the entries and delete the others. Or if you'd rather, you can do more of a surgically precise procedure. Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:58, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

You have now removed, apart from some other details, these sections. I do not think that this was a good idea, as these sections show Schult's activities both as a museum and eco institute director. This is part of his life and work. Therefore, I have reincluded a single section dealing with these matters. Wikiwiserick (talk) 00:04, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Like I said in my edit summaries, WP bios should not read like resumes, so if you feel that these are important enough to mention, provide a few basic details about them and why they are worth mentioning. Just because something may be factual, doesn't mean it is noteworthy. Imagine an encyclopedia article instead of a resume. Also, in most cases, there is no need to include the notes with the citations in the footnotes (e.g., beginning the entry with "see also", etc.). You might want to have a look at WP:CITE and [style guidelines]
Thanks for your help. Now it seems to be a nice article. Wikiwiserick (talk) 00:40, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

We should unite our forces in order to write a good article, Rhode Island Red, instead of edit warring. Some questions:

  • I do not understand why you have included the verification tags. The sources are correctly cited, as I am in the possession of the said book. I have given the exact page numbers and even quoted Jensen's original German text, so that the German reader can see what this professor of art history has written in his essay.
  • The text of HA Schult: Trees of Peace was written by Wulf Mämpel. The publication is on a performance by Schult, it was not written by Schult. As the German library catalog states: "Wulf Mämpel über HA Schult und den Friedenwald auf Zollverein".
  • You have again removed some information that was well sourced, for instance this one written by university people: Schult has been called "one of the most important performance artists of our day". Nico Schröter, Kai Giesler and Philipp Kohde, LOVE LETTERS BUILDING - Postfuhramt Berlin Mitte - ein Denkmal im Sog von Werbung und Marketing (Technische Universität Cottbus, 2002), p. 6. Could you please explain why this is not a reliable source?
  • This quote has also been removed, although it was published on a page by the OekoGlobe institute of the University of Duisburg-Essen: "Like a traditional artist uses brushes, colors and canvas", Alexander Borovsky says, "HA Schult relates to emotions, expectancy, fear and even superstition of his mass-audience. By making this all to material for his actions, he releases a certain displacement." University of Duisburg-Essen: OekoGlobe: Aktuelles.
  • Furthermore, you have removed the following statement, although it is fully supported by the sources given: Schult primarily uses trash as an artistic material, but also creates happenings at the cost of millions of dollars. (For the immense costs of the "Crash" happening, see Colin Naylor, Contemporary Artists (St. James Press, 1989), p. 850.) For instance, for the privilege to install 1000 "trash people" on the Great Wall of China, he had to pay 4 million marks. (Flash Art, 231, 2003, 73.) See also this academic source which states on p. 9 that "the exhibition of H. A. Schult’s artwork, for which he laid out the large sum of four million marks, employed the five-thousand-year-old Chinese symbol of the Great Wall."
  • In this case you have removed a direct quote from Lucie-Smith's book which supports the fact that the artist's happenings were widely noticed already in the 1970s: It was "shown live on a German television news programme, and was also reported by Walter Cronkite to 80 million American television viewers via CBS." Edward Lucie-Smith, Art in the Seventies (Cornell University Press, 1980), p. 88.
  • The article needs some further illustrations. Are there any images of works or performances by Schult in the public domain that can be used for the article? Perhaps you can help.
  • What is still missing are some critical remarks on the artist. I'll try my best to find more critical sources. Wikiwiserick (talk) 17:47, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
I appreciate you finally coming to the talk page. It's a much more constructive approach than edit warring and a step in the right direction. The verification tags were added in any circumstances where a broad claim of greatness (i.e., "Schult has been called 'one of the most important performance artists of our day'."), was included but not attributed to any particular speaker and based on a citation of a source that is obscure, out of print, in German, and which you claim to have translated yourself. Putting it mildly, I've observed quite a few examples on your part of exaggeration (c.f. WP:SELFPROMOTE, WP:PUFF, and WP:REDFLAG) and errors on key details, and there is no reason that your personal translations should be considered reliable (please refer to WP policy regarding this issue). Any statements regarding the artist's alleged greatness or alleging in general that he has had sweeping impact must reflect a fairly broad opinion in the art community and not just a cherry-picked random quote from a dubious source in German which you yourself have translated. In other words, exceptional claims require exceptional sources. All of these issues are addressed in WPs various policy and guideline documents, which I encourage you to familiarize yourself with. Rhode Island Red (talk) 18:27, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
It seems as if you are not willing to accept my well sourced contributions. That's a real pity. Did you realize that the statement that "Schult has been called 'one of the most important performance artists of our day'" is from people of the University of Cottbus and not from the oeuvre catalog of 1978? I don't think so. We should ask for a third opinion. Perhaps another Wikipedian not involved in our content dispute is able to read German texts. Wikiwiserick (talk) 18:40, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
It's not a pity at all. WP policy in this case also protects the subject and promotes a better encyclopedia. Imagine if I were to post a comment saying that "critics think Mr. Xs work is pitifully amateurish and derivative and that he is arguably one of the least significant artists to have ever dabbled with garbage art", and then I cited some obscure, old, out of print source in a foreign language that could not be readily verified, and I asked you to blindly trust that my source and translation are accurate. And even if the source existed and my translation was accurate, the opinion still may not be a significant viewpoint (see WP:FRINGE). Understand now? Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:04, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
As a side note, it would be best if you did not add large amounts of additional content to your talk page posts after I have already replied to them, (i.e., [3]) as it makes it look as though I ignored your comments, when in fact they had not been made until after my reply. Simply add the comment after the reply. Capiche? Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:08, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry that I still do not understand your argument. If you have a source that states that Schult's art is amateurish etc., it may be cited in the article. I have no problem with this. Here are some diffs that show that you seem to have problems with my well-sourced contributions to the article: [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]. Perhaps another editor can solve this content dispute. Wikiwiserick (talk) 19:14, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

How can you still not understand? I have gone to great lengths to explain it to you in detail and to spoonfeed you the relevant WP policy documents. I can see that you comprehend English well enough to understand, so I am afraid that you are simply refusing to get the point. The fact that I have "problems" with some of your additions (which were not "well-sourced, as you allege -- that being the crux of the matter) is incredibly obvious by now, so simply posting a few diff edits and calling attention to that fact does nothing to advance the discussion. Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:27, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Now you are removing useful sources from the "Further reading" section as in this edit. I do not think that this behaviour corresponds with Wikipedia's editing policies. Wikiwiserick (talk) 21:06, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
They weren't useful. If you object to the clear reasons for removal stated in my edit summaries, then explain why. It helps to always be specific rather than just conveying "I don't like that" or "but that was useful". Also, kindly focus on the content and not what you believe to be behavioral infractions. If you believe that I have violated a policy regarding user conduct (and I am fairly confident I have not), then this is not the place to discuss it (c.f. WP:TPG). So rather than saying, I don't like your behavior, just say, basically, that there's a potential issue with the line that reads "XYZ" and here's why it is an issue according to policies XYZ. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:23, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
This book includes an interpretation of Schult's "trash people". This means that it discusses one of the major works by Schult and therefore it should be cited in the "Further reading" section. By the way, you have falsely claimed (in the edit summary) that there is nothing on Schult on pp. 19-20 in that book. All was accurately cited. Wikiwiserick (talk) 21:40, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
No, what I said was I "do not see that artists name mentioned on pages 19 or 20".[10] I really don't appreciate being misquoted and then having that misquote used to sway a debate. There's no point padding the reading list with fluff that doesn't provide quality information beyond what's already in the article. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:48, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
It is a fact that the artist's name is mentioned on these pages. Even if you are not able to read German texts, you could have easily seen Schult's name on pp. 19-20. Therefore, your claim was false. End of debate. Wikiwiserick (talk) 22:03, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
I was just re-reading the source before you posted and I realized that his name was in fact mentioned there. We could have resolved this a lot easier had you earlier given a gentle reminder that his name is in fact mentioned. Mistakes do happen. Since it describes the Great Wall happening, I'll move it to the appropriate section of the main article, assuming you have no objection. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:12, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Before you are going to remove further reliable sources such as this one, you should first consult the German Wikipedia page dealing with the serious Museumsplattform NRW. I hope that some other users can solve the problems here. Wikiwiserick (talk) 22:36, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Knowing that I don't speak German, why on earth would you say that I should have consulted German WP? Are you now saying that the link being contested is to the official website of the museum named above? If so, just say so. You don't have the make this process more difficult than it needs to be. I simply asked for evidence that the source meets with WP:RS because it was not readily apparent. Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:16, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, you are the person who has removed biographical information on Schult provided by one of the most important German museum's portals for contemporary art. You should have informed yourself about the "Museumsplattform NRW" before removing such a high-quality source from a Wikipedia page. Wikiwiserick (talk) 10:54, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Third Opinion: Hello! I'm responding to the third opinion request as an uninvolved third party. My role is to assist in resolving the dispute. The third opinion process is informal and nonbinding. From what I gather skimming through the discussion, this dispute revolves around WP:NONENG, Wikipedia's policy on the use of non-English sources. Generally, non-English sources are allowed, but English source are preferable when available. It's not always necessary to translate sources in other languages, but when the information is contested (like in this case), it is encouraged. To assist in the process, I invite that both editors summarize and elaborate on their positions below.--SGCM (talk) 23:07, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi and thanks for weighing in. The issue of verification of non-English sources is problematic but we've more or less moved past that as a broad area of contention and now the issues are focused more on a few specific edits dealing with problematic sources/statements, although it's not really clear at this point which ones Wikiwiserick still objects to or why. I've responded to questions and given edit summaries that clarify the basis for my edits. I've also encouraged the editor in question to be specific about any outstanding issues so maybe we'll get some more clarity soon. Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:22, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Which sources are currently contested?--SGCM (talk) 00:17, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Here are some sources removed by Rhode Island Red (see these diffs: [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17]):

A further problem is that Rhode Island Red has questioned the importance and notability both of "this barely notable German garbage artist" (his words) and of an "obscure, old (1978), out-of print" (his words) oeuvre catalog on Schult's early work. It is a mystery to me how anybody who knows that Schult created internationally recognized happenings at the cost of millions of dollars, such as his 1977 documenta happening called "Crash" (which was shown both on TV in Europe and live on CBS to 80 million American television viewers) or his 1000 sculptures made of garbage that have travelled to sites such as the Piazza del Popolo, Rome, the Plaza Real, Barcelona, Cologne Cathedral, Moscow's Red Square, the Great Wall of China, the Matterhorn, the Pyramids of Giza, the island of Spitsbergen etc., would question that HA Schult is "one of the most important performance artists of our day", as people from the Technical University of Cottbus have written (one of the well-sourced quotes Rhode Island Red has removed from the article). More than twenty years ago, when I was a young student, I have written a paper on Schult. That's why I am in the possession of two catalogs on this important German artist. Wikiwiserick (talk) 10:57, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

In what way is it a "further problem" that I once questioned the importance and notability of the author and one of the sources cited? Without skipping a beat, I acknowledged 3 days ago that the artist was notable enough to warrant inclusion of his WP bio,[18] and I raised valid reasons why the source is problematic,[19] so what is the "problem" as you see it?Do you feel that I have in some way violated a policy or perhaps the spirit of WP, or is it just a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT? It's important to be clear about the details and not just make mountains out of molehills. Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:25, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
I really don't like your attitude to question the validity and correctness of my contributions, especially when I have accurately cited reliable sources not written in English. If another editor cites a Chinese source on a Chinese artist in an English Wikipedia article, I would first expect good faith and not place tags with "verification needed" or tags claiming that the article relies entirely upon a single source etc. on the Wikipedia page, as you did from the beginning. I simply would have thought that this user may be an expert on the subject. Be that as it may, you should perhaps visit an American university or art library in order to have a look for yourself at the "problematic" source. Here are some suggestions: Library of Congress, Washington, DC; Harvard University, Fine Arts Library, Cambridge, MA; Yale University, Sterling Memorial Library, New Haven, CT; University of Iowa Libraries, Iowa City, IA; Metropolitan Museum of Art, Watson Library, New York, NY; Museum of Modern Art, New York, NY; New York University, Elmer Holmes Bobst Library, New York, NY; Princeton University Library, Princeton, NJ; Suny at Buffalo, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY; Johns Hopkins University, Sheridan Libraries and the Milton S. Eisenhower Library, Baltimore, MD; Smithsonian Institution Libraries, Smithsonian Libraries, Washington, DC; Kenyon College Library, Library and Information Services, Gambier, OH; Walker Art Center Library, Minneapolis, MN; University of Florida, Gainesville, FL; University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ; Getty Research Institute, Research Library, Los Angeles, CA; University of Toronto, Robarts Library, Toronto, ON. All of these American libraries own a copy of this obscure book entitled, HA Schult: Der Macher. Wikiwiserick (talk) 01:46, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
By your response, I take it that the answer to my question is WP:IDONTLIKEIT then. I would apologize for not immediately assuming that you are an expert, and being satisfied by that alone, were it not for the fact that the only expertise you have alluded to is that you had written a paper about the subject in school 20+ years ago[20] (not what I would typically equate with being an "expert"), nor am I moved by anonymous arguments from authority. Had you said that you were Schult himself or acting on his behalf, that I would have taken at face value. Rhode Island Red (talk) 02:07, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Oh dear! I am not Schult himself and I am not acting on his behalf. And I didn't say that I am an expert on Schult, as I have not written an MA or PhD thesis on the subject. However, I have some knowledge about this guy, who is well known in Germany, as I own two out-of-print catalogs and some xerocopies of pages from other publications on the artist that I have used for a student's paper at a German university seminar (not at school). You might also say that modern art is my favorite subject. That's all. What I am criticizing is your attitude to expect bad faith from editors using sources not written in English. I have wasted a lot of time here in order to search the Internet for further English sources on Schult, and also for critical remarks on his art. Now I have found one more critical source, however written in German. I was happy to be here to add some information on German twentieth-century artists, but if another user frequently removes what I have collected from various sources, it is certainly not a nice experience for me to be here. Then it is really a waste of time. Wikiwiserick (talk) 02:41, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
So the problem as you see it is failing to assume good faith? Glad we could make some headway in clarifying the problem. While I understand that it may be frustrating to not have autonomous editorial control over the article you created, one of the Five Pillars of Wikipedia -- the fundamental core principles -- states "no editor owns any article; all of your contributions can and will be mercilessly edited". It's a constraint we all have to live by. Bear in mind that I too consider my time to be precious and that needless friction isn't a "nice experience" for me either. Rhode Island Red (talk) 04:03, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Let's calm down folks. Don't escalate a content dispute into a behavioral dispute. Wikiwiserick has demonstrate a willingness to improve the article, and I commend him for it, so let's leave it at that and move on.--SGCM (talk) 04:41, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
You are right, but, to my mind, Rhode Island Red is just a trifle overdoing his watchdog attitude here. I admit that he has found one or two additional sources and corrected the grammar of the article, but his major activity on Wikipedia seems to be the removal of content written by other editors. I would have expected that the primary intention of every user here should be to add further content to an article and not to remove well-sourced contributions, but this seems not to be the case. And I simply do not understand such an attitude, as it frustrates users who are here in order to write informative articles on a subject of which they have more knowledge than others. It even may drive them off the page and maybe out of Wikipedia altogether, which would be a great loss to the whole project. As Rhode Island Red seems to be well informed about Wikipedia's policies, would it not be better to help to find additional, perhaps more critical, content written in English (for instance, concerning Schult's somewhat clownish behaviour and showmanship in the media) and to find some additional illustrations for inclusion in the article? It's just a suggestion. Let's move on now. Wikiwiserick (talk) 12:54, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Your accusation that my "major activity on Wikipedia seems to be the removal of content written by other editors" is an unwarranted personal attack. You might want to consider retracting that statement. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:22, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Some further sources

We should first discuss the reliability of the following sources before including them in the article:

  • Carly Schmitt, "Headwinds: Sustainability as a Theme in Contemporary Public Art", The Environmentalist, Volume 32, Number 3 (2012), 332-338. - This source deals with artists' projects that "express a concern about the current state of the environment and propose projects that try to raise an awareness about this subject and offer up solutions. A very basic example of this work can be seen in a piece entitled Garbage People by HA Schult (2001)."
  • Mélanie van der Hoorn, "8:01 am, 20,000 people, and 450 kilograms of explosives: elimination of the Kaiserbau as a secular sacrifice", Focaal, Volume 2005, Number 46, Winter 2005, pp. 109-127. - This source states: "When, in 1999, artist HA Schult realized his project Hotel Europa and hung over a hundred portraits of famous people in front of each room on one side of the ex-would-be hotel, one of the walls was painted in yellow with a big black post horn: the logo of the German post office."
  • Hilmar Frank, "Raum/Zeit-Schichtungen: Bemerkungen zu einem Chronotopos", in Tatjana Böhme, Klaus Mehner and Tatjana Böhme-Mehner, eds., Zeit und Raum in Musik und Bildender Kunst (Cologne: Böhlau Verlag, 2000), pp. 99-100. - This scholarly essay discusses Schult's object, "Deutsch-Land" (1986, Berlin, Bundestag), which was commissioned by the politicians of the German Bundestag. The author also mentions that Schult has been called the "Caspar David Friedrich of the consumption age".
  • Esperanza Galindo Ocaña, "Arte y ecología. El diálogo de ciencia, pensamiento y arte", Arte by suite101, 11 March 2011. - This source contextualizes Schult's Beach Garbage Hotel, but I am not sure if it is reliable enough.
  • Jorge Verstrynge, "Inmigración: Cuando las barbas de tu vecino...", El Viejo topo, No. 245, 2008, pp. 62-67. This source proves that Schult's work is recognized in the Spanish-speaking world. It may be listed in the "Further reading" section.

Could these sources be used for improving the Wikipedia article? Any suggestions? Wikiwiserick (talk) 19:34, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

In theory maybe yes, maybe no, but before getting to that question it would be ideal if you proposed specific text to be included in the article, as it's difficult to comment on the reliability of a source without proper context (i.e., a source may be reliable in one context but not another). You also seem to be missing the point about not relying so much on foreign language sources; again, this is English Wikipedia, not German Wikipedia. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:39, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Regardless of context, I'd say no to including the last 2 sources. The penultimate one seems to be from a non-RS, and the last one only mentions Schult's name once in the figure caption -- quite a stretch to say that this source shows "that Schult's work is recognized in the Spanish-speaking" except in the most very basic sense of "recognized". Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:44, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

This discussion is being divided between Talk:HA Schult and Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Talk:HA Schult. Ideally, the discussion should be concentrated in only one location, because some of the editors participating in the discussion on the noticeboard may not be watching this page.--SGCM (talk) 23:17, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Shall we stick to the DR board for now then? Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:09, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Sure.--SGCM (talk) 00:13, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

A volunteer at DRN has closed the case saying that "it looks like the discussion here has moved on to a stage where it would be appropriate to continue discussing it on the article talk page." I also think that we can work out the remaining disagreements here, as we did on Talk:Gotthard Graubner. As I have only limited time this week, here are the main parts of the discussion at DRN:

Talk:HA Schult discussion

Hi, I'm a DRN volunteer and I'll be assisting this quest. While both opening comments aren't present, I'm going to address the sources THEMSELVES. As some are so-so and others are a no-no and are a core matter of this dispute.

This is a publication by university people entirely dealing with one of Schult's projects. It also includes general information on the artist. The page number is only given because of the quote: "HA Schult zählt zu den bedeutendsten Aktionskünstlern der Gegenwart" ("HA Schult is one of the most important performance artists of our time"). Wikiwiserick (talk) 14:36, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
This is the kind of lofty poorly sourced statement that I have a problem with. The proposed text does not attribute the statement to any recognized art experts (or anyone at all for that matter), and there is an issue with respect to WP:REDFLAG and WP:FRINGE. I have already pointed out these issues but it seems they are being ignored.Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:29, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
This publication, which analyses, from an academic point of view, one of Schult's projects in detail, has been written by Nico Schröter, Kai Giesler and Philipp Kohde from the Technical University of Cottbus. These three authors have cooperated in writing the text. It is a mystery to me how anybody who knows that Schult created internationally recognized happenings at the cost of millions of dollars, such as his 1977 documenta happening called "Crash" or his 1000 sculptures made of garbage that have travelled to sites such as the Piazza del Popolo, Rome, the Plaza Real, Barcelona, Cologne Cathedral, Moscow's Red Square, the Great Wall of China, the Matterhorn, the Pyramids of Giza, the island of Spitsbergen etc., would question that HA Schult is "one of the most important performance artists of our time", as the source says. It is the same thing as if Rhode Island Red would question the notability of artists such as Christo or Beuys. Wikiwiserick (talk) 18:20, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
This is a scholarly platform created by more than a dozen German museums of contemporary art providing biographical information on Schult and many other German artists. I would say that this is a reliable source. Wikiwiserick (talk) 14:48, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Based on what exactly? Where is there information about the website so that it's reliability can be assessed? My previous request for this information went unanswered.[21] Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:35, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
It didn't go unanswered, as I have provided a link to the German Wikipedia article dealing with the prestigious Museumsplattform NRW. There you can find a list including all museums that are part of this serious platform for contemporary art. See also this English commentary. Wikiwiserick (talk) 17:54, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

When I search for images, I get a load of them, when I search for source, a lot more. Here are some ones that are in English and make mentions that essentially prove his roving trash people tour in a nice summary. [After debuting in Xanten, Germany, in 1996 the entire armada of "Trash People has tweaked the public's sensibilities in settings as varied as the Great Wall of China, Egypt's Pyramids at Giza, Moscow's Red Square and the Matterhorn in the Swiss Alps. Later this year the immobile but moving display will spread its humorous and reflective reduce, reuse and recycle message in New York City and Antarctica." [22] "The "Trash People," by German artist HA Schult, get around. The six-foot-tall figures made out of old computers, soda cans, license plates and other refuse have stood at the Pyramids at Giza, in Moscow's Red Square and on the Great Wall of China. Now, 50 of them are lined up in the courtyard at National Geographic." From Throwaway Art: Don't Trash It." The Washington Post. Washingtonpost Newsweek Interactive. 2008. Retrieved August 15, 2012 from HighBeam Research: [23]

Some do exist. And these sources are interesting, but I bet better ones could be found. Since this is involved in a dispute, the strongest sources are the best. Ones like the Washington Post are good. As well as most books. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:03, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Although your comment came through before I had a chance to reply, it looks like we're pretty much on the same page here Chris. My goal was to improve the article so that it relied more on verifiable high-quality sources in English. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:33, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Per Rhode Island Red's comments above, it seems that this dispute developed from a WP:NONENG and WP:RS to a WP:NPOV one. His concern, based from I can gather reading this page and the talk, is that the article's tone is too promotional, and argues that it exaggerates the claims of the sources, which are difficult to verify. So it's not just a dispute over verification, but also a dispute over neutrality. I think the following can be done to improve the article, and resolve the dipsute with Wikiwiserick:

  • Tone down the praise for the artist.
  • Balance the praise with criticism, as per WP:BALANCE. Currently, the article gives too much weight to the praise.
  • Replace contested sources with stronger sources when possible.

As ChrisGualtieri has indicated, there are plenty of sources on the subject, and the subject is clearly notable, so the task shouldn't be difficult.--SGCM (talk) 17:39, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Here are some further sources:

  • Carly Schmitt, "Headwinds: Sustainability as a Theme in Contemporary Public Art", The Environmentalist, Volume 32, Number 3 (2012), 332-338. - This source deals with artists' projects that "express a concern about the current state of the environment and propose projects that try to raise an awareness about this subject and offer up solutions. A very basic example of this work can be seen in a piece entitled Garbage People by HA Schult (2001)."
  • Mélanie van der Hoorn, "8:01 am, 20,000 people, and 450 kilograms of explosives: elimination of the Kaiserbau as a secular sacrifice", Focaal, Volume 2005, Number 46, Winter 2005, pp. 109-127. - This source states: "When, in 1999, artist HA Schult realized his project Hotel Europa and hung over a hundred portraits of famous people in front of each room on one side of the ex-would-be hotel, one of the walls was painted in yellow with a big black post horn: the logo of the German post office."
  • Hilmar Frank, "Raum/Zeit-Schichtungen: Bemerkungen zu einem Chronotopos", in Tatjana Böhme, Klaus Mehner and Tatjana Böhme-Mehner, eds., Zeit und Raum in Musik und Bildender Kunst (Cologne: Böhlau Verlag, 2000), pp. 99-100. - This scholarly essay discusses Schult's object, "Deutsch-Land" (1986, Berlin, Bundestag), which was commissioned by the politicians of the German Bundestag. The author also mentions that Schult has been called the "Caspar David Friedrich of the consumption age".
  • Esperanza Galindo Ocaña, "Arte y ecología. El diálogo de ciencia, pensamiento y arte", Arte by suite101, 11 March 2011. - This source contextualizes Schult's Beach Garbage Hotel, but I am not sure if it is reliable enough.
  • Jorge Verstrynge, "Inmigración: Cuando las barbas de tu vecino...", El Viejo topo, No. 245, 2008, pp. 62-67. This source proves that Schult's work is recognized in the Spanish-speaking world. It may be listed in the "Further reading" section.

Could these sources be used for improving the Wikipedia article? Any suggestions? Wikiwiserick (talk) 19:42, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Suite101 is definitely not reliable. It's a content farm, similar to eHow and about.com, with little editorial oversight. The other sources, the journals and books, look more reliable, although English sources are preferred.--SGCM (talk) 22:15, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

As the other Spanish source does not primarily deal with Schult's "trash people", I would agree with Rhode Island Red not to list it in the "Further reading" section. In the meantime, I did some further research on the Internet and have now found a source including some critical remarks on Schult. However, it is not written in English. Therefore, I have written an English summary for the Wikipedia page:

In his article in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung on the occasion of the artist’s 70th birthday, Philip Krohn has mentioned that there are critics who have claimed that Schult's art is too commercial or too shallow and that he has had no new ideas for too long a period of time. Others have argued that his works are too bizarre to play a role on the commercial art market. The artist himself admits that he had problems to establish his reputation as an artist in the USA, because his art would criticize America's consumption-driven mentality. (Philip Krohn, "HA Schult, Der Müllkünstler", Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 3 August 2009.)

Would you agree to include this passage, perhaps in a modified form, in the Wikipedia article on Schult? Furthermore, I would like to reinclude the following paragraph, as I have now found the original source, which contains both German and English texts:

Indeed, the artist "develops his ideas full of comment on contemporary issues, promotes them in a process and tries to initiate criticism of our present situation with naively disguised intellect." However, sometimes "he overdoes things with verbal energy - and in this respect he resembles Joseph Beuys – as a person himself, a solist playing himself, marked as a work of art." (art Report: HA Schult, cited after HA Schult, Ernst Wasmuth and Elke Grapenthin, Kunst ist Aktion: Aktionen sind gelebte Bilder (Tübingen: Wasmuth, 2001), unnumbered page. For a comparison of Schult and Beuys, see also Jürgen Schilling, Aktionskunst. Identität von Kunst und Leben? Eine Dokumentation (Luzern and Frankfurt am Main: Verlag C.J. Bucher, 1978), pp. 168-69.)

Any comments or suggestions? Wikiwiserick (talk) 00:11, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Progress is a good thing, glad to see the content matter is being addressed without hammering it in. Anyways... I like that, but when quoting make a direct comment on who said it and make an inline citation. I've had to search for origins of quotes before... not fun, even having who said it (rather than the source afterwards) helps if it ever 404s to properly attribute it. Attribution of quotes is important. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:15, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I would like to reinclude a reference to the following source, perhaps in a "Bibliography" section:

Furthermore, a reference to this academic source may be included in the article. It states on p. 9 that Schult laid out the large sum of four million marks for the exhibition of his "trash people" on the "five-thousand-year-old Chinese symbol of the Great Wall." Wikiwiserick (talk) 13:18, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

The book by Gray appears to contain no content about Schult other than including his name in a few entries in the reference list, so it's unclear why this would warrant inclusion anywhere in the article. If a statement is to be made about the cost of Schult's work, then it should be properly attributed. I would assume that no one has independently verified the cost of his work and are only relaying what Schult himself claimed. The attribution would likely readsomehting along the lines of "According to Schult..." Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:07, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
I must confess that I really do not understand Rhode Island Red's objections as regards the usefulness of including references to these two sources in the Wikipedia article. The first is an academic publication on performance artists including two pages of bibliographical references to publications on Schult not to be found elsewhere. The second is a PhD thesis on contemporary art in China. It clearly states that Schult had to pay four million marks for exhibiting his 1000 sculptures on the Great Wall of China. A similar statement can be found in an article that appeared in 2003 in the prestigious art magazine, Flash Art. There you can read that "German action artist HA Schult installed 1000 'trash people' on the Great Wall, paying 4 million marks for the privilege." Wikiwiserick (talk) 18:28, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
In the first source, there is no commentary on Schult, just a few references in the reference list. If the references on that list are truly important, then it would make more sense to propose including those instead. But there is also such a thing as overkill, so I would only refer readers to the most important sources rather than including a laundry list of every last source that bears the artist's name. With regard to the second source and the issue of attribution, the key question is who was it that concluded that the works were worth DM4 million? There has to be some basis for estimating the value and someone had to have made the estimation. Presumably, it was Schult, and so it should be attributed accordingly. Rhode Island Red (talk) 18:51, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
The first source includes useful bibliographical references. That's why we may include it in a special section entitled, "Bibliography", not in the text. The second source is an academic publication on art in China and on the happenings that took place on the Great Wall. Don't you think that the author must be well informed about the high costs of Schult's performance? By the way, 1000 sculptures had to be transported to China and installed on the Great Wall. Why are you questioning the reliability of this academic source? Wikiwiserick (talk) 21:58, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be more helpful, Rhode Island Red, if you would search the Internet for further sources that could be used for improving the article, instead of constantly questioning the importance of Schult on other Wikipedia pages. See [24] [25] [26]. You have caused bias to the judgement of other Wikipedians, as this thread shows. Today, you have even removed my contributions from other Wikipedia pages. See [27] [28]. This behavior is unacceptable to me. I did a lot of research. To my mind, Rhode Island Red is not willing to cooperate here. Perhaps somebody else can find additional sources that may be cited in the Schult article. Wikiwiserick (talk) 20:50, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

You completely ignored the issues I raised in my previous comment. It would be more productive if you stayed on topic, as the point here is to resolve any disputes about HA Schult. Contrary to your allegation, I have not biased anyone. Other members of the WP community are justifiably looking at your contributions with greater scrutiny and independently reaching the same conclusions that I have, e.g., reverting your WP:ADVOCACY on Caspar David Friedrich.[29][30]. Perhaps you should listen to what other editors are saying[31] and take a breather to reevaluate your approach. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:17, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
So where are your new sources on Schult you have found on the Internet that may be used to improve the article? Wikiwiserick (talk) 21:32, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
If that's all you have left to add, then this thread has probably outlived its usefulness. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:39, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Does this mean that you are not looking for additional sources? Then I would say that you are not willing to cooperate. Wikiwiserick (talk) 22:03, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Maybe you can post your concerns on the Not-Willing-to-Cooperate Noticeboard. I'd add a Wikilink to that, but I'm not quite sure where to find it. Again, please stay on topic and be constructive. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:31, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

@Wikiwiserick - Some of the sources above are marginal: PhD theses, web sites, etc. Marginal sources can sometimes be used if the subject is minor, and there are no alternatives; but the art community is generally very well documented. I realize that this artist is not famous, so finding traditional hardbound book sources is unlikely. But it would help if you could provide sources such as mainstream newspapers, or mainstream journals. For example: can you provide some quotes about the artist from articles in major German newspapers or journals? --Noleander (talk) 22:43, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

In Germany, Schult is well known, and his major happenings are internationally recognized. People from the Technical University of Cottbus reckon him among "the most important performance artists of our time." So I do not think that he "is not famous." He has been compared to Christo and Beuys. Furthermore, there are lots of books on the artist published in German, some in English, as a WorldCat search for books can prove. One of the best English books is this one. It is available in many American university libraries. However, Rhode Island Red seems to have problems with most of these sources, especially if they are written in German. Are you able to read German texts? The best short biography written by German art historians and available on the Internet is to be found on the Museumsplattform NRW. Here is an interesting paragraph from this biography:
Mit seinen Trash-Objekten stellt HA Schult sich in die Tradition der Pop Art und ihren Angriffen auf mediale Vermittlungsstrategien, Werbung, auf manipulative Vermittlungsstrategien und Gleichschaltungsprozesse. Bei HA Schult geschieht dies meist mit selbstinszenatorischen Impetus und lässt ihn in der Kunstkritik bisweilen in die Nähe von Christo oder Jeff Koons rücken. Fasziniert von der öffentlichen Demonstration und der Idee der Anteilnahme des Publikums an Prozess der Werkentstehung, richtet Schult seine spektakulären Aktionen und Installationen im öffentlichen Raum aus und lässt sie von filmischer und fotografischer Dokumentation (ab 1983 u.a. durch Thomas Hoepker), Live-Übertragungen, Buchpublikation und Auflagengrafik begleiten.
There it is stated that he works in the tradition of Pop Art and that art critics have compared him with Christo and Jeff Koons. Wikiwiserick (talk) 23:13, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
PS: the version of the article as of 14 Aug seems pretty good: it looks like most of the puffery has been removed. Using this as a starting point, and limiting new material to solid sources should be a good path forward. --Noleander (talk) 22:46, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
OK by me. Thanks for taking the time. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:55, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I have found another source including texts written in English: a documentation of Schult’s "Arctic People". See HA Schult: Art is Life. This means that his "Trash People" were not transported to the Antarctica, as was announced in 2008, but instead to the Arctic region. I didn't know before. So it was O.K. to remove the reference to the Antarctica from the Wikipedia article, but a reference to the Arctic region may now be added. The project was supported by Dr Annette Schavan, Federal Minister of Education and Research, Germany, the Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research, The State Russian Museum, St. Petersburg, and several other institutes and organizations.

What is of much importance is that the same source contains illustrations of most performances by Schult, among them photographs of his "Hotel Europe" (1999), showing Schult’s 130 oversized portraits of celebrities, and his Berlin "LoveLetters Building" (2001), for which he was compared with Christo. The source also includes the following text by Peter Weibel on Schult:

For decades HA Schult has managed to stimulate public awareness using images he has experienced. He stages topics in public places, which are normally edged away from the public. His art work is always directly related to the location where it is shown. He confronts the feudalism, which is manifested in gigantic triumphant buildings with the pauperism of the exploited workers who built them. He pays tribute to the unnamed soldiers and slaves and not to the heroes and sovereigns.
HA Schult shows the anonymous people who are the real heroes, to whom we owe such spectacular cultural monuments, and who are admired by tourists ignorant of their misery. He tears the glittering jewellery off the history of construction.
Places become no places the living become the dead and the dead become the living dead. The glamour of history will be a dread, welfare will become a horror. In the name of clarification there will be a dual occupation, namely the re-entry of the invasion and the return of reality. HA Schult redefines places, sites and buildings that have already been named by the public.
This re-entry into history happens in reverse. Luhmann’s re-entry meets Freud’s return of suppression and consciousness.
The living dead, the depraved in the shadow, return to the light in HA Schult’s art. The unnamed people who have helped others to glory and to the glamour of the history they have build: the palaces and pyramids they have cleaned up the garbage and they were treated like rubbish. They are the victims who were historically considered to be trash by the offenders.
Now they will be rehabilitated. They will be presented right in front of the historic locations of power and glamour they built. People made of trash. We live in an era of trash. We produce trash and we become trash and we, the majority, are always treated like trash. By showing the people who were made into trash by history and cruelty, the spectacle of horror becomes a mirror. The shocking wounds, which were inflicted on the people and other living beings become visible in an impressive picture, which returns from the zone of suppression, from the desert of reality. It shows us reality like a desert populated by zombies: Trash!
Do we want such a world? A world of devastation and harm? A world, a planet of slums full of trash people? Is this our vision?

Parts of this text may be used for improving the Wikipedia article. Any further suggestions? Wikiwiserick (talk) 13:35, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Could you please provide publication details for the source mentioned above. It looks as though it may be a self-published/primary source, which would make it less than ideal as a source for quoting a third party. It's also linked directly to Schult's website (http://hastsite.interlutions-preview.de/). Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:31, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
I only stumbled across this site while searching the internet for sources on Schult written in English. I have no further information about it. It seems as if this is an excerpt from a forthcoming book on Schult's current project. Perhaps it will be published by one of the major organizations listed on this site, as they have supported the artist's project. Be that as it may, the source includes useful material not to be found elsewhere. Wikiwiserick (talk) 15:45, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Stumbled on it on the artists website that is. It doesn't look anything at all like an excerpt from a forthcoming book. It looks like a self-published exhibition catalog or something akin to that. Regardless, it seems you've answered your own question. If the source has not yet been published and you have no idea about the publication details, then it would not be suitable for inclusion. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:15, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Even if it will be a self-published documentation of Schult's Arctic project, it may be used because of the commentary by Peter Weibel and the excellent illustrations. We may also include an external link to this site. Wikiwiserick (talk) 17:28, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Actually, this is the crux of the issue -- a self-published source should never be used as a source about a third party; e.g.., Weibel in this case. See WP:BLPSPS. Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:24, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Here are some further publications:

  • Aktionskünstler HA Schult: Müllmenschen vor dem Kölner Dom - an article published in the well-known German magazine, Stern.
  • Venezia vive: il giornale della mostra, Goethe-Institut, Rome, n.d. (1976) - an Italian publication published by the prestigious Goethe institute, dealing with Schult's Venice happening of 1976.
  • Jetzt!Zeit... Eine archäologische Reise in die Gegenwart von HA Schult, exh. cat., Museum Ludwig, Cologne, 15 August-15 September 1980 - a catalog published by the Museum Ludwig, one of the major art museums in Germany.
  • Siegfried Salzmann, Dieter Adelmann, Otto Dressler, Im Namen des Volkes: das "gesunde Volksempfinden" als Kunstmaßstab, exh. cat., Wilhelm-Lehmbruck-Museum, Duisburg, 6 May-22 July 1979, pp. 74 ff. - a catalog published by the well-known Lehmbruck Museum, including a critical discussion of Schult's "Situation Schackstraße", a performance mentioned in our article.
  • Dieter Honisch, Einraum-Ausstellungen ’74, exh. cat., Museum Folkwang Essen, 1975 - a catalog published by the prestigious Museum Folkwang.
  • Jürgen Morschel, "HA Schult Städtische Galerie im Lenbachhaus, München (15.11.74 - 5.1.75)", Das Kunstwerk, 28 (1975), pp. 73-74 - an exhibition review in an art journal, including a discussion of "Der Müll des Franz Beckenbauer", a work mentioned in our article.
  • Karlheinz Nowald, H. A. Schult: Die Welt in der wir atmen , exh. cat., Kunsthalle Kiel, 10 March- 14 April 1974 - this is the original source of the 1974 article partly dealing with the influence of German Romantic painting on Schult.
  • Ulrich Schmidt, H. A. Schult: Kaputte Idylle, exh. cat., Museum Wiesbaden, 24 June-12 August 1973 - another German museum catalog.

All of these sources are not self-published. They show that Schult had many exhibitions in well-known German art museums from the 1970s on. Therefore, he cannot be called a minor figure in the art of the twentieth century. Wikiwiserick (talk) 17:28, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

There are now two further content disputes in which Rhode Island Red is also deeply involved:

As I am here to improve some Wikipedia articles dealing with German art, willing to include valuable additional content and always looking for reliable sources, I do not understand what is going on here. It is really a waste of time. I'll have a break. Wikiwiserick (talk) 20:17, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Of the sources above, the only one that looks remotely interesting to me is the Stern article. Instead of digging up more obscure offline German sources, consider the advice given above about ideal sources. Perhaps WP:NOTEVERYTHING will make it clearer:
"In any encyclopedia, information cannot be included solely for being true or useful. An encyclopedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details. Rather, an article is a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject."
Also refer to WP:NOTREPOSITORY. Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:38, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

It seems that I am the only person who is frequently looking for valuable sources on Schult, among them books, museum catalogs, articles in art journals etc. However, Rhode Island Red does not accept most of these reliable sources. Who is able to solve this problem? Wikiwiserick (talk) 13:10, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm starting to get a bit exasperated with your obtuse replies about how you don't understand. Please tell me, which part of WP:NOTEVERYTHING did you not understand? You asked for advice and the advice you were given was that focus should be placed on high-quality, readily verifiable mainstream sources in English. The "problem" seems to be your approach to editing, but so far you've resisted all outside attempts to help you fix it. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:12, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Some additional sources:

The latter article includes the following remark, which may be used for the Wikipedia article: "Rosa Piqueras, spokeswoman for the environmental project, said the idea was to show something a little different from the ideal destinations touted by the tourism industry. 'We wanted to show what our holidays could become if we don't clean our beaches,' she said. About 30-40 percent of the objects adorning the hotel were picked up from beaches in Britain, France, Germany, Italy and Spain. The dirtiest, said Piqueras, were the beaches in southern Italy." Wikiwiserick (talk) 13:06, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:HA_Schult/Archive_1&oldid=1136781757"