Talk:Académie de la Grande Chaumière/Archive 1

Lists of teachers and students

The discussion in Talk:Académie Julian#Lists of notable professors and students also applies here. However, the case for moving the lists from this article to a separate List of faculty and alumni of the Académie de la Grande Chaumière is less strong, because these lists are shorter and the rest of this article is smaller. However, we should not include any names that are red-linked and unreferenced. I propose to delete these names from the article, and move them to this talk page. Verbcatcher (talk) 19:03, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Obsession? Repeat Obsession, "should! would !" ;) Proposition, second opinion and so on... again..... --DDupard (talk) 21:00, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

User:DDupard In this case I am not proposing the addition of a list article, simply the removal of unreferenced red-linked names. This is not an obsession, simply the normal practice in English Wikipedia. In my opinion we don't need second opinions for this, it has already been discussed. I know that you initially resisted this in Académie Julian and you have been editing here, so I am attempting to be diplomatic by raising it here first. Verbcatcher (talk) 21:33, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Jean-Louis Forain. Before hoop jumping

Is your expectation for others to add references that are either in the respective articles or attached to the names, or do you think that you could do it yourself since it is such a concern about "normal practice in English Wikipedia" Wikipedia in English.--DDupard (talk) 21:53, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

WP:BURDEN says The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material. This is a Wikipedia policy, not just a guideline. I said "English Wikipedia" because the policies and guidelines of other Wikipedias are sometimes different. Verbcatcher (talk) 22:57, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

User:DDupard, why did you add this picture? is it intended to illustrate a point? If so please be explicit. I moved it to be in sequence, to indicate when it was added to the discussion. Why have you reverted this? Please sign your contributions, including pictures. Verbcatcher (talk) 16:22, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

:: References related to Académie de la Grande Chaumière for each artist listed are or should be included in their respective article, the list on Académie de la Grande Chaumière' page being only a recap or summary.--DDupard (talk) 19:03, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

As you read elsewhere: "It would be pedantry to remove people from the list". This one or any other actually.--DDupard (talk) 19:03, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

You are quoting out of context. This comment was made by User:Sionk in Talk:Howardian High School#William Grant Murray and Howardian High School, in the context of removing blue-linked names from a list where the facts are adequately cited in the linked article. Your arguments on that page are in contradiction to your arguments here. Your proposal there amounted to pedantry. Verbcatcher (talk) 19:23, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

No, no, the context is one list section being tagged for sources. Just as you did or are tagging pages listing teachers and alumni on various Art schools. --DDupard (talk) 19:31, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

And my proposal there is pedagogical--DDupard (talk) 19:33, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

If your proposal at Howardian High School was pedagogical then you were breaking the Wikipedia guideline Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. In view of your admission I will revert the tag from that article and from William Grant Murray. Were your edits to Écoles gratuites de dessin also pedagogical? Verbcatcher (talk) 19:47, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

if you agree that "It would be pedantry to remove people from the list", then stop doing it yourself. --DDupard (talk) 20:02, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Article William Grant Murray has not been reviewed by a third party and Écoles gratuites de dessin was painfully sourceless, at least there is improvement in term of substance on that one.☺--DDupard (talk) 20:21, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

As Verbcatcher says, I was talking about bluelinked articles in lists of people, per WP:LISTPEOPLE. Generally, we need people on lists to be notable (i.e. bluelinked or sources to prove they are notable) and we need proof somewhere that they meet the criteria of the list. As for the lists on this article, I can see the names are linked to a French Wikipedia article (where one doesn't exist on English Wikipedia). For me, that would ne adequate to prove they ahve some notability. There just needs to be some proof too that they were a teacher or pupil at the Academy. Sionk (talk) 21:33, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

:: References related to Académie de la Grande Chaumière for each artist listed are or should be included in their respective article, the list on Académie de la Grande Chaumière' page being only a recap or summary.--DDupard (talk) 19:03, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

The discussion has to be read on this page and on académie Julian' page to be abble to follow the arguments and understand the various concepts of International encyclopedia, English version of the encyclopedia, German version etc, the refs in respective articles, etc. Thanks for the 2 cents anyway.--DDupard (talk) 21:49, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

That may be new or chocking news to English speakers, I don't know.--DDupard (talk) 21:51, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Date of foundation

The text and the infobox say founded in 1902, without citing a source. But the plaque shown in the infobox says Fondée en 1904. The French article says Fondée en 1904. I will change the date to 1904. Verbcatcher (talk) 23:40, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

First things first

The appropriate move is to first ask for references on the article page with the proper dated section tag and leave this call for references in place for at least a year. (see polite way of asking for references)--DDupard (talk) 06:28, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

This does not usually apply to lists of names. Leaving a tag (probably for less than a year) is appropriate for text with useful content. Verbcatcher (talk) 16:13, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

No edit just tagging the above with --DDupard (talk) 17:20, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

American idiom : "Jump through hoops": [1] ☺--DDupard (talk) 16:35, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

DDupard, "The basic rule—with some specific exceptions outlined below—is that you should not edit or delete the comments of other editors without their permission." (Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Others' comments). You added tags to my posting. I reverted your edit and you have re-reverted. I am removing them again. If you want me to justify my comments then ask me to in a conventional posting. Verbcatcher (talk) 17:16, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Please do restore my image placement for (format sake), history will show you when and where, when pulling guidelines, please make sure you do abide by them.--DDupard (talk) 17:30, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

My edit of you image was "Fixing format errors", one of the examples for appropriately editing others' comments. I did not re-revert when you reverted my edit. Verbcatcher (talk) 17:41, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

So to summarise and return to the point, you may place, if you wish, a request for citations above the section "List": and leave it in place for at least a year. --DDupard (talk) 18:01, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

You appear are asking for justification for This does not usually apply to lists of names, meaning that we need not tag-and-wait before removing unsourced red-linked names from lists. This appears to be supported by User:Lemongirl942 in Talk:Académie Julian#Third Opinion: "Usually we do not keep redlink alumni, unless the subject might be unquestionably notable (See WP:WRITEITFIRST)." User:Primefac was broadly in agreement.

You also ask for a citation for "Leaving a tag (probably for less than a year) is appropriate for text with useful content." I think this is tendentious; I am simply referring to your (uncited) comment in the previous posting.

In Talk:Académie Julian#About the Third Opinion request you wrote: ""Removal of names that are not linked to a Wikipedia article in any language" , fair enough;)". Why does that not also apply here? Verbcatcher (talk) 18:07, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Most links were blue on the other school [2] before splitting and reshuffling, the new format, is not really user friendly by the way.--DDupard (talk) 18:17, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I have responded in Talk:Académie Julian#for the record. Verbcatcher (talk) 19:29, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

First things first , (repeat)

First, you call for sources. Second you wait. Third after a year if there are still no source added, you remove . Just to be fair. Enough, That is the rule--DDupard (talk) 18:17, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

If other editors are reviewing this discussion, please see the related discussions at User talk:Verbcatcher#Lists of teachers and students, Talk:Howardian High School#William Grant Murray and Howardian High School and the earlier discussion at Talk:Académie Julian#Lists of notable professors and students. Verbcatcher (talk) 18:19, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Nothing else to add until 0ctober 25 2017, 18:19, Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) .--DDupard (talk) 18:26, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Where has this wait a year rule come from ?

I would say the relevant part of WP:Red links is

• Lists of "notable people" in an article, such as the "Notable alumni" section in an article on a university, tend to accrue red links, or non-links, listing people of unverifiable notability. Such list entries should often be removed, depending on the list-selection criteria chosen for that list.

Without the application of notability criteria then what is being created is essentially an indiscriminate list of people who attended the college. I would support removing the redlinks. When someone creates an article for the individual artist demonstrating notabily, and indeed attendance at the college, then that name can be restored. This appears to be how the majority of art college, schools and university articles operate. It also has the advantage of alerting people that a new article has been created.14GTR (talk) 12:39, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Please see previous discussion on red links on Wikipedia in English but with articles (i.e) blue links in other language versions. + Call for translations, etc. etc.

Let's avoid creating a provincial encyclopedia ....(or worse) etc. etc.--DDupard (talk) 12:46, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

And the answer to my question, Where has this wait a year rule come from ? is... 14GTR (talk) 13:10, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Or more: encyclopedia under constant construction - I don't have time to find the specific ref, but blatant common sense, when asking for something, wait time is usually expected --DDupard (talk) 13:19, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

So lets be clear, this 'rule' you stated above, of waiting a year after asking for a citation before deleting the name or statement in question, is no such thing - just what you regard as common sense ? 14GTR (talk) 13:27, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

To be clear: it is a guideline, guidelines are based on common sense (Wikipedia 101), there are no such things as rules.--DDupard (talk) 13:30, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

And the Guidelines make no reference to waiting a year, so we can delete the red links, or decide to keep them, once agreement has been reached on this page. I think a new section heading would be appropriate.14GTR (talk) 13:52, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

List of teachers and students (continued)

So, as in the section List of teachers and students at the start of this page, I would like to propose we remove the red links from the lists in the article. When someone creates an article for the individual artist demonstrating notabily, and attendance at the college, then that name can be restored. This appears to be how the vast majority of such articles operate. Contributions, please.14GTR (talk) 13:52, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Please read entire debate (already closed) on [[3]]. Repeat, Wikipedia in English is a Version in English of an international encyclopedia. Removal is impoverishment. Repeat encyclopedia under constant construction.--DDupard (talk) 14:00, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I have posted a request for assistance at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Sources for lists of names. Verbcatcher (talk) 14:18, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I want to clarify my position.

1. All names in a list should have adequate citations somewhere in Wikipedia that estalish alumnus/a status and notabality to English Wikipedia guidelines.
2. If a name has no link to a Wikipedia article in any language and cites no adequate references then it should be removed.
3. A link to a Wikipedia article in any language is prima facie evidence of notability. However, notabilty guidelines vary between Wikipedia language editions and if the linked article does not establish adequate notability by English Wikipedia guidelines (and there is no adequate reference here) then the name should be tagged or removed. If a linked article in English Wikipedia does not establish notability then the name should be tagged, and the linked article should be tagged or nominated for deletion.
4. If the linked article does not state that the person was a student (and there is no adequate reference here) then the name should be removed. If the article asserts this without an adequate source then the name should be tagged. The article should also be tagged, unless it is in a language where the editor's skills are inadequate.
5. Ideally, before tagging or removing, the editor should make a quick search for citeable sources, and cite them if this resolves the problem. This does not preclude the immediate removal of unreferenced and unlinked names.
6. Tags should use the "reason=" parameter to clarify the problem.
7. When a name is removed it should be listed on the talk page.

This is more relaxed than WP:LISTVERIFY, which says "statements should be sourced where they appear". Is it acceptable to everyone involved? Verbcatcher (talk) 17:43, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

My attempt to seek agreement by discussion is plainly not working, so I will be more direct and remove and tag names in the article. Editors can then take a view on these edits. Verbcatcher (talk) 16:22, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Inappropriate canvassing

See here: Wikipedia:Canvassing and here |User talk:HazelAB--DDupard (talk) 16:03, 26 October 2016 (UTC) + 1--DDupard (talk) 21:54, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, really, I don't think I was canvassed. I tried reformatting a list and got reverted. Another editor agreed with my contribution and left me a note to let me know. Nothing about the current controversy inclines me intervene here again. HazelAB (talk) 16:21, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Clarification: talking about the message left on your page, nothing to do with your interventions that are quite ok--DDupard (talk) 16:27, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I, too, was talking about the message of thanks left on my page. I didn't detect any "intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way". I wasn't even invited to participate in the discussion - for which I am grateful, as this is not at all my cup of tea. HazelAB (talk) 16:37, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, mine neither--DDupard (talk) 16:39, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Deleted names

These names have been deleted from the article following the discussions above.

• André Dauchez, unlinked, Bénézit article does not say that he was a student, probably not notable
• Jean-François Desrousseaux de Vandières, unlinked, no article in Oxford Art Online, probably not notable
• Beba Zemborain, redlinked, no article in Oxford Art Online, probably not notable
• Georges Artemoff, redlinked, no article in Oxford Art Online, probably not notable
• Arnold Geissbuhler, redlinked, Bénézit stub article does not say that he was a student, probably not notable
• Martha Haffter, redlinked, Bénézit stub article does not say that she was a student, probably not notable
• Willy Jordan, redlinked, no article in Oxford Art Online, probably not notable
• Gottlieb Kurfiss, redlinked, no article in Oxford Art Online, probably not notable
• Max Uehlinger, redlinked, Bénézit stub article does not say that he was a student, probably not notable
• Bertha Züricher, redlinked, Bénézit stub article does not say that she was a student, probably not notable
• David Birmingham, redlinked, no article in Oxford Art Online, probably not notable
• Joseph Alexander Akerman, Jr, redlinked, no article in Oxford Art Online, probably not notable
• Alirio Oramas, redlinked, Bénézit stub article does not say that he was a student, probably not notable

Verbcatcher (talk) 16:22, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

The following each appeared twice.

• Zao Wou-Ki
• Zinaida Serebriakova
• Seund Ja Rhee
• Balthus

Verbcatcher (talk) 16:30, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

I have deleted the following names because there is no evidence that they were teachers or students at this Académie.

• Amedeo Modigliani, not mentioned as student here in the linked article, or in his articles in Benezit and Grove Art Online
• Maurice Denis, not mentioned as a teacher here in the linked article, or in his articles in Benezit, Grove Art Online and Oxford Companion to Western Art
• Charles Guérin, not mentioned as a teacher here in the linked article, or in his article in Benezit
• Fernand Léger, not mentioned as a teacher here in the linked article, or in his articles in Benezit, Grove Art Online and Oxford Companion to Western Art
• Émile-René Ménard, not mentioned as a teacher here in the linked article, or in his article in Benezit. Possibly not notable
• Bernard Naudin, not mentioned as a teacher here in the linked French article, or in his Benezit article. Possibly not notable
• Jean Toth (1899-1972) (as a teacher), not mentioned as a teacher here in the linked French article. No article in Oxford Art Online. Possibly not notable
• Olga Boznańska, Not mentioned as a teacher here in the linked article, or in her article in Grove Art Online.
• Lino Enea Spilimbergo, not mentioned as student here in the linked article, or in his article in Benezit
• Serge Gainsbourg, not mentioned as student here in the linked article, or in his article in Oxford Music Online
• Pascual Navarro, not mentioned as a student here in the linked Spanish article, or in his article in Benezit

Self-published source

I tagged the following source with Template:Self-published inline

(fr)André del Debbio - La Grande Chaumière

User:DDupard has reverted the tag, with the check-in comment Not at all self published: site is André del Debbio ( 1908- 2010) , http://www.andredeldebbio.com/index.html - not the school.

It appears that DDupard has misunderstood the Wikipedia meaning of "self-published", see Wikipedia:Identifying and using self-published works. For the purpose of this tag, self-published means not published by a traditional publisher (such as a news media organisation). It does not mean "published by the person or institution under discussion".

The linked website is clearly self-published. The website is about the sculptor fr:André Del Debbio. A note on the homepage says Informations recueillies par Anael TOPENOT (Information gathered by Anael Topenot). fr:André Del Debbio identifies Anael Topenot as Del Debbio's widow; this supports my conclusion that this is a personal webpage dedicated to Del Debbio. If this is not self-published, then who published it?

A brief web search identifies the author Anael Topenot as a painter. In my view this does not qualify this source for the "|expert=y" parameter than can be used with Template:Self-published source.

I will reinstate the tag. Verbcatcher (talk) 20:21, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

I have added the parameter "|certain=yes" to the tag, based on my analysis of the source. This removes the question mark from the displayed page. Verbcatcher (talk) 20:40, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

See also Self-published_doesn.27t_mean_a_source_is_automatically_invalid. Why dont you concentrate on what you know Verbcatcher and clearly identify what field the "artist" Iwan Bala is in, the intro to the page does not inform the reader, is he a musician, a painter or an actor, you probably know. --DDupard (talk) 20:43, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Template:Self-published inline is "used to flag statements with self-published sources such as a personal web page or a self-published book, which, due to the lack of oversight on such works, are therefore potentially unreliable." It does not say that the source is invalid. If I thought the source was invalid then I would have tagged it with Template:Unreliable source?, or simply deleted the citation. However, this source has few of the characteristics of a reliable source listed in the page you have linked.

I find your remark "Why dont you concentrate on what you know" insulting. If you have comments to make about Iwan Bala then please make them on its talk page. My editing of that article today does not make me responsible for everything in the article. Verbcatcher (talk) 21:12, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

I see that you have reverted the tag again, this time with the comment "removed irrelevant abusive tagging". The tag is not irrelevant, and I do not believe that I was being abusive. Verbcatcher (talk) 21:15, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

User:DDupard, you have not properly engaged with my points. The Andre del Debbio source is clearly self-published, and the tag I have added is correct. Even if this were a reliable source, it would still be appropriate to tag it as self-published.

See Wikipedia:Identifying and using self-published works, which says:

Identifying a self-published source is usually straightforward. You need two pieces of information: Who is the author or creator of the work? Who is the publisher of the work? If the answers to these questions are the same, then the work is self-published. If they are different, then the work is not self-published.

I also want to question the use of this source: Galerie du pistolet d'or. This is a small commercial art gallery, and as such its website should be classified as self-published. The author of the website is probably the owner or manager of the gallery. I would not treat the websites of major galleries such as the Tate as self-published.

Also in the same source, please help to interpret the phrase Elle alla parfaire sa formation à Paris, fréquentant la Grande Chaumière et des ateliers libres. This appears to indicate that Berte Dubail attended free studio sessions at the Académie de la Grande Chaumière, but was not necessarily registered as a student there. Please comment on this. Also, this source does not establish Dubail's notabality.

I will reinstate the tag on the Andre del Debbio citation, and add another on Galerie du pistolet d'or. Please do not remove these tags unless you have properly discussed the issues here. Verbcatcher (talk) 23:17, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for resolving this. Verbcatcher (talk) 19:04, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Art Indépendant

I want to question our use of the term Art Indépendant, implying that this was an art-historical movement.

We recently had this sentence:

It became famous in the early twentieth century and opened the way to the "Art Indépendant" (Independent Art).

I changed this to:

The Académie de la Grande Chaumière became famous in the early twentieth century and opened the way to Art Indépendant.

I left a redlink in the hope that another editor would create an article or change the wikilink to an appropriate article. User:DDupard obliged, and made a link to Indie art. I think this link is misleading, Indie Art is a parallel term to Indie music, and refers to art produced since the late 20th century by artists independent of the mainstream commercial art market. I have found few sources on this, but this Flickr group may show some examples. I do not think we can say that the Académie de la Grande Chaumière had any particular role in opening the way to this.

This phrase in our article may have come from the Académie's website, that says

Montparnasse, the heart of the art at the beginning. The Academie de la Grande Chaumiere is the only institution at the beginning of the century 
 has paved the way for Independent Art, letting exprimerlibrement all forms or techniques, freeing its visitors and artists of academic trends but artistically-binding also intellectually. It was somehow a place of resistance and pure creation.

— Académie de la Grande Chaumière website

This appears to have been badly translated by software, and not checked by an English speaker. The corresponding page in French has:

Montparnasse, le coeur de l'art au début du siècle. L'Académie de la Grande Chaumière est la seule institution qui, au début du siècle, ait ouvert la voie à l'Art Indépendant, laissant s'exprimer toutes les formes ou techniques, libérant ainsi ses visiteurs et ses artistes des tendances académiques contraignantes artistiquement, mais aussi intellectuellement. Elle fut, en quelque sorte un lieu de résistance et de création pure.

— Académie de la Grande Chaumière website

I interpret this as referring to "art that is independent of academic constraints", and not referring to an movement called "Art Indépendant".

We do not have a source for the art school becoming famous in the early 20th century, so I will delete this sentence. I will change the following sentence to: "It was dedicated to both painting and sculpture. It did not teach the strict academic rules of painting of the École des Beaux-Arts, and led to art that was free from academic constraints." citing the source in French. Verbcatcher (talk) 02:56, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Total agreement.--DDupard (talk) 06:16, 14 November 2016 (UTC)