Talk:HA Schult/Archive 2

Suggestions for improving the paragraphs
Perhaps we should now have a look at every paragraph of the Schult article in order to improve it step by step, avoiding personal attacks. As for the lead, would the following addition be O.K.:
 * HA Schult, born Hans-Jürgen Schult on June 24, 1939 in Parchim, Mecklenburg is a German installation, happening and conceptual artist known primarily for his object and performance art and more specifically his work with garbage. He is most famous for his touring work, "Trash People".

This is what the well-known British newspaper, The Independent, says, and indeed, the "Trash People" must be called the most ambitious, most extravagant, most expensive and most recognized performance by Schult. What do you think? Wikiwiserick (talk) 14:26, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No, not appropriate, especially not in the lead (see WP:LEAD]]. To make a sweeping statement like that it would require consensus among sources -- i.e., it would require several sources that refer to Trash People as Schult's most famous work. Otherwise, it's just the opinion of a single source and would have to be attributed as "A 2011 travel article in The Independent (note that I've used this wording because no author is listed for the story) refers to Trash People as Schult's 'most famous work'," but even that's not all that useful because this is coming from a travel article, not an art expert/art writer. It's weak at best and certainly not appropriate for the lead. If you can find more sources that refer to Trash People as his most famous work, a sentence could be included that says something like "Schult is perhaps best known for his work 'Trash People'." Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:21, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Several other sources: Just a few examples. Many other sources also say pretty clearly that Schult is famous for his "Trash People". Wikiwiserick (talk) 23:15, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * "A rubbish hotel in Madrid", BBC: Talk Radio Europe, 17 January 2011: The temporary hotel is the work of the German artist HA Schult and was in Rome last year for the United Nations World Environment Day in June. It can be visited in Madrid’s Plaza de Callao between January 19 and 23, to coincide with the World Tourism Fair, FITUR. Schult, who is famous for his ‘Trash Men’sculptures, told Europa Press that the philosophy of this hotel, ‘is to show the damage that we are causing to the beaches and the coast; it reflects how things could turn out if we do not look after our planet’.
 * Recycled Art In Celebration of EL ANATSUI: HA Schult has become world-famous for turning trash into 1,000 life-size “trash people” which have been installed in many locations around the globe.
 * "Save The Beach", Sleeper Magazine, September/October 2010: German artist HA Schult, famous for his ‘trash themed’ artwork, created this pop-up hotel in the centre of Rome from beach garbage as part of international beer brand Corona’s Save the Beach campaign.
 * Ewa Manthey, "How green was my artwork", Global Times, 13 August 2012: Schult is famous four his army of one thousand life-sized Trash People (the name of the work) that he has installed around the world since 1996.
 * Corona - "Save a Beach", BritishKiteSurfingAssociation: The prestigious German artist HA Schult, famous for his work “Trash Men” and known for his strong environmental commitment and whose works are all made entirely from trash.
 * "HA Schult: Trash is Art", coronasavethebeach.org: His famous “trash men” have travelled the world exposing the degradation to which our earth is being subjected. From the pyramids of Egypt to the Plaza Real of Barcelona, Schult has sent his message to save the environment to all.
 * "HA Schult – Transforming Rubbish to Art", coronasavethebeach.org: HA Schult is an artist and sculptor from Germany who has achieved international recognition for his object and performance art and more specifically his work with rubbish. He came to prominence following the creation of a paper river in New York, which he constructed using only old issues of the New York Times.
 * I think those sources are pretty persuasive ... but the "most famous" wording is not quite right. Instead of  He is most famous for his touring work, "Trash People".  how about   His most noted work is the touring piece "Trash People".  That sounds less specific and more consistent with the sources. --Noleander (talk) 23:25, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * All these sources say that Schult is famous for his "Trash People". And he indeed is. Why not using the same expression? His "Trash People" were even discussed on the title page of Moscow's Pravda. Wikiwiserick (talk) 23:34, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the wording has nuanced meanings. To say "he is most famous for the trash people" is a very specific statement; it is more accurate reflection of the sources to say "he is famous for the trash people"  or " the trash people are his most noted work".   The latter two are less likely to be objected to by other editors. --Noleander (talk) 23:37, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Some sources say "famous", others "most famous" or even "world-famous". By the way, I am not sure if an artwork of an American artist has ever been discussed on the title page of the Pravda or has ever been exhibited on the Great Wall of China. Let's perhaps wait for the opinion of the other volunteers at DRN. Wikiwiserick (talk) 23:41, 20 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Some sources say "famous", others "most famous" or even "world-famous". By the way, I am not sure if an artwork of an American artist has ever been discussed on the title page of the Pravda or has ever been exhibited on the Great Wall of China. Let's perhaps wait for the opinion of the volunteers at DRN. Wikiwiserick (talk) 23:41, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Try not to peacock it. Cite a powerful source for anything like 'world-famous', but don't use subject 'most famous' as an attribute when it is modifying something like 'most famous for' lines. We want facts, wording quibbles will come up. Is this better than this? "...is most famous work (does he have other works of this caliber?) is the Trash People." "Schult's famous Trash People have graced (locations)"? They are fundamentally different, and I'd probably ask a copy editor from the Copy Editors guild do worry on the wording of this, we want it to be correct and neutral, but not to under or oversell his accomplishments. Schult's niche artwork IS a success and is worthy of note, I don't care how you show this, because its repeated 300+ times by reliable sources, but he is not the 'most famous artist' unless its 'most famous 'Trash People' artist' which he seems to be the only one doing it. My own choice would be to say, "Schult's famous Trash People" which takes focus off the subject and puts it directly to his famous work, afterall, Schult is only famous BECAUSE of the work. If we are discussing the subject, say who specially paints him as 'World-famous', I've used such attributions (even self-claims with such disclaimers) to note the group and the context of such a claim. You'll find a way, we just don't want to peacock it out as 'Schult is the greatest artist EVER zomg!' and everyone understands that. Again, I'm no master of the wording, copyeditors are specialists at it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:05, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, Noleander, Chris and I seem to be on the same page. It does seem clear that Schult is most notable for Trash People. And notable is more NPOV and better stylistically than "famous", regardless of whether or not other sources have used the word. I'm not sure why DRN be invoked for something so trivial though. Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:08, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

What is the exact meaning of being famous for something? I would say that Schult is as famous as some of the following artists and more famous than several of them: You never heard of most of these artists? Interestingly, they all have been called famous for their work or a part of their work in published books. So why should Schult not be called famous for his "Trash People", as many sources say? Wikiwiserick (talk) 14:10, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Christo, an environmental artist famous for putting up the orange gates in New York's Central Park in 2005.
 * Damien Hirst, the British artist famous for his series of dead animals preserved in formaldehyde, has the most gruesome works on display.
 * Bridget Riley, an artist famous for her nonrepresentational and op-art paintings.
 * Kurt Schwitters, the artist famous for gathering discarded wrappers from sidewalks and gutters and lifting them onto his canvases.
 * Hundertwasser, the German artist famous for his riotous colors.
 * Yves Klein (1928–62) was an influential avant-garde French artist famous for his monochrome works, particularly those that used his trademark International Klein Blue.
 * Reuben Ward Binks (1880-1980): A British artist famous for his sporting paintings.
 * Wichmann, Karl Friedrich, Ger., 1775-1836; portrait sculptor, pupil of Schadow. Ludwig Wilhelm, his brother, 1785-1859 ; similar artist, famous for his busts.
 * Thomas Bewick (1753-1828), English graphic artist, famous for his wood- engraving techniques and his illustration of birds.
 * Our inaugural exhibition, Leeteg Tribute, paid homage to Edgar Leeteg, the artist famous for painting Polynesian beauties on black velvet while living in Tahiti.
 * Chao Shao-an (1905–98), a Hong Kong artist famous for his bird-and-flower paintings.
 * GILRAY (James), an artist famous for his talents as a designer of caricatures.
 * Thomas Nast, an artist famous for his interpretation of Santa Claus.
 * Kim Casali (1941–1997), N.Z. cartoonist, working in U.K. The artist, famous for her “Love is...” cartoons, was born Marilyn Judith Grove.
 * Frederic Remington, an artist famous for his paintings of the West.
 * Xu De-shcng is a Taiwanese comic artist famous for realistic color drawings.
 * Robert Smithson, the American artist famous for creating modern sculpture through the manipulation of earth.
 * C. Edgar Patience, an area native, was an internationally known artist, famous for carving coal.
 * "Fred Wilson: Objects and Installations, 1985-2000," the first retrospective of work by the artist famous for his mock museum installations.
 * Lilly Martin Spencer, an artist famous for her paintings of American children.
 * This is really a pretty trivial detail that deals more with style and semantics than anything else. I would never have a reason to use the word famous when writing a bio, particularly not with someone who is not universally known. Since you're a Christo fan, have a look at this WP bio as an example; doesn't mention the word famous anywhere (not that this is necessarily the most compelling example, but nonetheless...). Saying that Schult is "best known" for a particular work is a very clear unambiguous statement. "Famous" is a less well-defined quality. Famous means widely known. It's debatable whether Schult is widely known (especially outside of Germany and outside a fairly small sphere in the performance art world), but it is not debatable that he his "perhaps best known for his work Trash People" (with the possible exception of his trash hotel, which is one of his more talked about contributions). Someone like Paris Hilton is famous, but if I were writing her bio, I wouldn't even use the term famous in that article because there are other words that are more descriptive and less vague (eg, saying "she achieved notoriety for...", etc.). You have actually jumped into precisely the quagmire that comes with using the word famous, and that is trying to make comparisons with other artists and debating who is more or less famous. Your list above is a failed attempt at doing just that. At least some of the artists on that list are "more famous" (i.e., widely known) than Schult, Frederick Remington being a great example (and IMO Remmington is best known for his bronze sculptures, not his paintings as stated above, but that's a moot point). Do you understand now? Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:02, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The Oxford English Dictionary defines, "famous - known about by many people." And I think that the "Trash People" are widely known (presumably more known than the artist's name) because many newspapers all around the world reported about them. That's why the term should be applied to Schult's "Trash People". I would also use the term in order to describe Christo's work, as it is used in the lead to the Picasso article. Interestingly, Remmington seems to be not so well known in Europe. He is not even mentioned in the prestigious 7-volume Lexikon der Kunst (1987-94). Schult is and has a special article in volume vi (at a time when he had not yet created his "Trash People"). O.K., as I now see that the English Wikipedia articles are written from a specifically American perspective, we may not use the term "famous". What about this version: He is best (well?) known for his touring work, "Trash People", and his "Trash Hotel". Wikiwiserick (talk) 17:11, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, now we're on the same page. That seems to me like exactly the kind of wording that should be used. Interesting observation about Remington too BTW. I guess his cowboy themes resonate more with American audiences. Rhode Island Red (talk) 18:45, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Another option might be "his best known works include...". Either way. Rhode Island Red (talk) 18:46, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I have now added the following sentence to the lead: His best known works include the touring work, "Trash People", and the "Trash Hotel". Wikiwiserick (talk) 23:12, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

The next paragraph may include the additional information that Schult, in the late 1950s and early 1960s, studied at the Kunstakademie Düsseldorf together with Gotthard Graubner, Sigmar Polke and Gerhard Richter. See Axel Griesch, "Müllkünstler HA Schult: Ich möchte Unsterblichkeit. Und die ist nicht käuflich", finanzen.net, 13 May 2012. I didn't know before, but this is very interesting because both Graubner and Richter were influenced by Caspar David Friedrich, as Schult was. Polke was not, as far as I know. Wikiwiserick (talk) 23:23, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Saw your recent addition and it looks reasonable, but with respect to your comment above, you might one to skim through WP:LEAD. The lead is only a very brief overview -- essentially the most basic defining features -- of the subject, and it is a summary of what's stated in the body of the article. So the new text in the lead should also be mentioned somewhere in the body text, and sources should be cited in both places. You need not cite every relevant source in the lead, but one for Trash People and one for Trash Hotel would be a appropriate. Sources should be cited in the body text to back up the statement (i.e., that at least loosely establish that these works are his most notable) about each of the two works. The sources cited need only be sufficient to back up the statement. It doesn't have to be exhaustive. High quality of sources (e.g., well-known reputable publications; online, in English and easy to verify) is more important that quantity. Rhode Island Red (talk) 03:24, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Here is an interesting source dealing with one big problem of performance artists such as Schult: there is little of their projects that can permanently be shown in art museums. See Ossi Naukkarinen, "Integrative and Disintegrative Art", Contemporary Aesthetics, vol. 7 (December 2009). The author writes:
 * In some cases, the concrete object is the artist. When an artist creates art that cannot be transferred and is not necessarily recorded, such as processes, conversations, and community art experiments, the only transferable, and in some ways permanent, object remaining is the creator. Work and creator begin to fuse, making visual arts come closer to performing arts, such as the theatre, music, and dance. Miwon Kwon has noted how the practices in today's art world, as it were, also mobilize art intended to be ephemeral and location-bound and at the same time partly objectify it. There are many examples of works in the field of land and community art not transferable precisely in their original form, or even reproduced elsewhere by varying them, but art museums or galleries may still want an artist with a particular artistic style to create something similar in very diverse environments. They want that certain something that can be moved around, sold, and exhibited within the sphere of art. Disintegrative works are reassembled again and again. Kwon mentions Fred Wilson and Andrea Fraser as examples of famous "itinerant artists" whose personas are relatively easy to treat as brands or art service providers, and the list could easily be completed with, say, HA Schult or the WochenKlausur group. WochenKlausur even describes its own “method,” which the group has used in several countries including Japan, Sweden, and the U.S.

Do you have a suggestion for a short note dealing with this important fact within our Schult article? It may be included in the "Field of Art" section. Furthermore, I have added a "Critical voices" section. Any further suggestions? Wikiwiserick (talk) 16:29, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Something about the impermanence/lack of recording of performance art might be worth mentioning as a one-liner somewhere in the performance art article, but since the text above mentions Schult only in passing, I don't see anything that I would recommend including in HA Schult. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:15, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The other artists are also mentioned in passing. Why not include a short reference dealing with the problem and use this academic source? The problem is self-evident and Schult's name is mentioned. Wikiwiserick (talk) 17:23, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Because there isn't enough meat on the bone and you would have to bend over backwards to synthesize this in a way that would make it pertinent to Schult, and in the end all you would be saying is that some of his works aren't concrete/permanent because they are performance-based, which seems pretty self-evident to me; so much so that it probably doesn't even warrant being mentioned in the article on performance art, which is what this pertains to most, and certainly not in the HA Schult article.

I have added some further information. One online source dealing with controversial happenings of 1969 says that the "Situation Schackstraße" was staged by Schult, Ulrich Herzog and Günter Sarée:
 * In den frühen Morgenstunden des 15. Juni kommt es zum Happening „Situation Schackstraße“ in Schwabing mit HA Schult, Günter Saree und Ulrich Herzog. Auf der Straße finden sich fünf Tonnen Altpapier, einhundertsechzig geteerte Fußmatten und eine Schreibmaschine. Neunundzwanzig Fußmatten-Eigner erstatten Anzeige. Der Prozess gegen die drei findet am 13. März 1970 statt. Das Urteil vom 16. März lautet fünfhundert Mark Strafe ersatzweise fünfzehn Tage Haft für Schult und Saree, tausend Mark ersatzweise zwanzig Tage Haft für Mattenentwender Herzog. Die Richter begründen ihren Urteilsspruch mit dem Tatbestand der Nötigung. HA Schult dazu: „Ich habe mich damit auch einverstanden erklärt. Ich habe so argumentiert: Wenn ein Müllwagen ab und zu eine Straße verstopft, dann hupen die Autos zwar, aber sie kommen auch nicht durch. So habe ich gesagt, dass der Müll und die Kunst etwas Gemeinsames auszusagen haben.“

This is also mentioned in the other sources. However, the other two artists are not so well known in the USA. Wikiwiserick (talk) 19:49, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The website doesn't seem to be a reliable source. Who is it operated by? Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:22, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * This is the sub-bavaria site by artist and writer, Günther Gerstenberg, who has published books and essays dealing, for instance, with proletarian themes and with protests in Munich. The text cited above has been published in a volume edited by Zara Pfeiffer, to which Gerstenberg has contributed an essay entitled, "Flusslandschaften – Protest in München von 1945 bis in die Gegenwart. Auszug aus den Jahren 1948 bis 1950". To my mind, it's reliably sourced. Similar information concerning Ulrich Herzog and Günter Sarèe can be found in HA Schult der Macher. The other additions you have removed are also based on reliable sources. Wikiwiserick (talk) 02:29, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you please provide a link to the site's "about" page or wherever it was that you may have gathered the information above about the site. A personal webpage is probably not a WP:RS. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:11, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The German Wikipedia has an article on Sub-bavaria. The project was founded in 2005 by Julian Doepp, Patrick Gruban and Ania Mauruschat. It deals with Bavarian artists, art forms, exhibitions and subcultures. There is also a radio programme. However, we don't need a reference to this source, as Günter Sarée and Ulrich Herzog are also mentioned in the other German sources (e.g. Eugen Thiemann, Christel Denecke, Dieter Treeck and Hans Rudolf Hartung (eds.), HA Schult der Macher (Cologne: Rheinland Verlag, 1978), pp. 28-39, and Ludwig Leiss, Kunst im Konflikt: Kunst und Künstler im Widerstreit mit der 'Obrigkeit'  (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1971), pp. 467-68). Wikiwiserick (talk) 18:56, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't ask for an article on sub-Bavaria. Go back and read the question. Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:27, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * This site says about the sub-Bavaria project:
 * Laptop, Lederhosen und Oktoberfest - so sieht man Bayern im Rest der Republik. Nicht zu Unrecht. Doch jenseits der Wiesn, in den Speckfalten der Lederhosen und in den Weiten des bajuwarischen Kollektivhirns hausen unendlich viele, mehr oder weniger abstruse Geschichten und Facetten bayerischer Subkultur. Um dieses bajuwarische Geheimwissen zu demokratisieren wurde das Projekt sub-bavaria ins Leben gerufen.
 * This page says that the text and illustrations are by Günther Gerstenberg. However, we do not need this source, as the other sources cited above include the same information.

I have found another source about Karl Otto Götz: Oliver Kornhoff and Barbara Nierhoff, Karl Otto Götz: In Erwartung blitzschneller Wunder, exh. cat., Arp Museum, Remagen (Kerber Christof Verlag, 2010), p. 114:
 * 1959-1979 Professur an der Kunstakademie Düsseldorf. Seine ersten Schüler sind Gotthard Graubner, H. A. Schult und Kuno Gonschior. 1961 folgen Gerhard Richter, Sigmar Polke und Franz Erhard Walther.

This source clearly says that Graubner and Schult were Götz's first students (in 1959), followed by Richter and Polke (in 1961). Wikiwiserick (talk) 00:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Since you chronically misquote sources, I can no longer blindly trust the offline sources in German that you cite. You were given some pretty clear advice on the DR request to focus on online, highly reputable verifiable sources in English, and now you have regressed back to loading the article with offline sources in German to support key statements. If you have to scrape the barrel that deep for sources and can't find anything more on Schult from better sources, that's a good sign that it's probably time to stop expanding the article. Rhode Island Red (talk) 01:49, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

You have removed important information that is supported by many reliable sources. You didn't even bother to use Google book search to check if the quotations are correct. Your watchdog attitudes seem to be out of control now and need to be controlled by some administrators here. Would you please use Google book search and type in I'm happy that I never met people like you in real life. Wikiwiserick (talk) 18:18, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * "1959-1979 Professur an der Kunstakademie Düsseldorf. Seine ersten Schüler sind Gotthard Graubner, H. A. Schult und Kuno Gonschior. 1961 folgen Gerhard Richter, Sigmar Polke und Franz Erhard Walther"
 * "Unter Caspar David Friedrichschem Himmel"
 * "I do not know another German artist who grasps his tasks so comprehensively"
 * I've already spent too much time trying to fix your mistakes, so from here on in, if you have anything that you wish to include in the article that is based on sources that cannot be readily verified (i.e. offline or In German), then you can propose it here for discussion. If the source is in German, then post the original German text here, along with your proposed translation, and we can take it from there. Also be advised that at this point it appears that you are a WP:SPA and violating WP:COI. Again, WP is not a place for advocacy or self promotion. And again, please respect the outcome of dispute resolution. Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:50, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

You have removed: The first source, an exhibition catalog including a biography of Götz, not only says that Götz hold a professorship at the Academy of Fine Arts from 1959 to 1979, but also that "his first students were Gotthard Graubner, H. A. Schult and Kuno Gonschior. Followed in 1961 by Gerhard Richter, Sigmar Polke und Franz Erhard Walther" ("1959-1979 Professur an der Kunstakademie Düsseldorf. Seine ersten Schüler sind Gotthard Graubner, H. A. Schult und Kuno Gonschior. 1961 folgen Gerhard Richter, Sigmar Polke und Franz Erhard Walther").
 * Among his fellow students were Gotthard Graubner, Sigmar Polke and Gerhard Richter. (Oliver Kornhoff and Barbara Nierhoff, Karl Otto Götz: In Erwartung blitzschneller Wunder, exh. cat., Arp Museum, Remagen (Kerber Christof Verlag, 2010), p. 114. compArt: Karl Otto Götz. Axel Griesch, "Müllkünstler HA Schult: Ich möchte Unsterblichkeit. Und die ist nicht käuflich", finanzen.net, 13 May 2012.)

You have removed: The source says that Schult’s first great performance, "Situation Schackstraße", was staged by Schult and his fellow combatants, Ulrich Herzog and Günter Sarrée: "Seit Beginn der sechziger Jahre in München lebend, hat er (Schult) dort 1969 seine erste große Aktion: Situation Schackstraße. Fünf Tonnen Altpapier laden er und seine Mitstreiter Ulrich Herzog und Günter Sarrée ab …"
 * In 1969, Schult, Ulrich Herzog and Günter Sarrée were arrested for covering a street in Munich with trash and paper; they referred to the event as a "happening" and dubbed it "Situation Schackstrasse". (Ursula von Kardorff, "Kunst oder Müll? Geteert und verurteilt", Die Zeit, 27 March 1970.)

You have removed:
 * As these works were both inspired by the romantic painting of Caspar David Friedrich and the modern age of consumption and waste, German critics such as Siegfried Salzmann and Hilmar Frank pointed out that Schult has been called "the Romantic of the consumption age" or "Caspar David Friedrich of the consumption age." ("Unter Caspar David Friedrichschem Himmel erweist sich HA Schult als der 'Romantiker des Konsumzeitalters.' " See Siegfried Salzmann, Mythos Europa: Europa und der Stier im Zeitalter der industriellen Zivilisation, exh. cat., Kunsthalle Bremen, 1988, p. 316. 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), p. 100. For a discussion of the influence of 19th-century German Romantic landscape painting on Schult, see also Karlheinz Nowald, HA Schult: Die Welt, in der wir atmen, exh. cat., Kunsthalle Kiel, 10 March-14 April 1974. Reprinted in Thiemann, Denecke, Treeck and Hartung (eds.), HA Schult der Macher (Cologne: Rheinland Verlag, 1978), p. 384.) The artist describes himself as "a Romantic of the consumption age" and "a great moralist". (Barbara Sichtermann, "Nichts zu sagen", Die Zeit, 11 (1990).)

Salzmann writes, "Under Caspar David Friedrich’s sky HA Schult proves to be the Romantic of the consumption age" ("Unter Caspar David Friedrichschem Himmel erweist sich HA Schult als der 'Romantiker des Konsumzeitalters' "). Hilmar Frank points out that Schult has been called "Caspar David Friedrich of the consumption age" ("Caspar David Friedrich des Konsumzeitalters").

You have removed: The source says "the controversial 1960s" ("die Kontroverse der sechziger Jahre"). By the way, this source also mentions that Schult, Gerhard Richter, Sigmar Polke and Franz Erhard Walther were classmates under Karl Otto Götz at the same time: "Vier Jahre war er Schults Lehrer. ... Damals betreute Götz weitere kommende Stars wie Gerhard Richter, Sigmar Polke oder Franz Erhard Walther." Everything is well sourced. Wikiwiserick (talk) 21:10, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * During the controversial 1960s some conservative critics had even questioned whether Schult's work qualifies as "art". (Philip Krohn, "HA Schult, Der Müllkünstler", Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 3 August 2009.)
 * OK, give me a bit to digest all that and I'll let get back to you. Rhode Island Red (talk) 01:06, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * To make things easier, let's tackle these 4 points/issues one at a time (we can number them 1-4 for the sake of simplicity). In regard to issue #1, you have only provided only one online source that can be readily verified, and in that article it was Schult that made the claim about who his classmates were. That's not OK for a quote about third-parties. The other sources are offline and in German, so I'm not even considering them. More importantly, as I said before, there's already a WP article on Kunstakademie Düsseldorf and a list of the people who attended the institution, so all that's needed here is a wikilink to that article, which the article on Schult already includes. Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:45, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry that I do not accept your argument on point #1. The information that Graubner, Schult, Richter and Polke were among Götz's first students at the Düsseldorf Academy of Fine Arts is from a German exhibition catalog on Götz published by the prestigious Arp Museum. It is certainly a reliable source. As for the same information, there is also an online biography of Götz provided by the Arp Museum. Wikiwiserick (talk) 21:29, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you also refuse to accept the logic behind not listing everyone's classmates in their WP bio? Bill Gates went to Harvard, but his bio doesn't list his classmates. Like I said, the link to the academy's WP article solves any problem -- the reader need only follow the hyperlink. Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:32, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * BTW, an exhibition catalog, even one that's online, is not a particularly good source in general given that they are not typically refereed or subject to editorial scrutiny; i.e., the author merely submits whatever he wants to say and it's reprinted verbatim. This is particularly so for living artists, obviously, who may be closely involved in staging exhibitions of their own works. The Gotz bio you cited above from arpmuseum is crap. It's a Word.doc, not a published article of any kind. As a general rule of thumb, if you have to scrape the barrel that far down for sources to back up a statement, then the statement probably doesn't merit inclusion. Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:41, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

The link to the academy's WP article does not solve any problem, as there are nearly 100 artists listed on this page without information about their classmates or professors. As the Word.doc is a handout provided by the prestigious Arp Museum, it is not crap. The same information can be found in a published catalog on Götz written by Dr Oliver Kornhoff, art historian and director of the Arp Museum, and Dr Barbara Nierhoff, also a reputable German art historian. If fellow students of an artist are notable for their national or international success, they are frequently mentioned in artists' biographies. Some examples from Wikipedia articles: So if Schult had classmates at the Düsseldorf Academy who became famous as artists, then this fact should be mentioned, especially since two of these artists were influenced by Caspar David Friedrich, as Schult was. Wikiwiserick (talk) 19:00, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Allan Kaprow: Later he would attend the High School of Music and Art in New York where his fellow students were the artists Wolf Kahn, Rachel Rosenthal and the future New York gallerist Virginia Zabriskie.
 * Cy Twombly: On a tuition scholarship from 1950 to 1951, he studied at the Art Students League of New York, where he met Robert Rauschenberg, who encouraged him to attend Black Mountain College near Asheville, North Carolina. At Black Mountain in 1951 and 1952 he studied with Franz Kline, Robert Motherwell and Ben Shahn, and met John Cage.
 * Richard Serra: While at Santa Barbara, he studied art with Howard Warshaw and Rico Lebrun. ... Serra studied painting with Josef Albers at the Yale University School of Art and Architecture between 1961 and 1964. Fellow Yale Art and Architecture alumni of the 1960s include the painters, photographers, and sculptors Brice Marden, Chuck Close, Nancy Graves, Gary Hudson and Robert Mangold.
 * R. B. Kitaj: After serving in the United States Army for two years, in France and Germany, he moved to England to study at the Ruskin School of Drawing and Fine Art in Oxford (1958–59) under the G.I. Bill, where he developed a love of Cézanne, and then at the Royal College of Art in London (1959–61), alongside David Hockney, Derek Boshier, Peter Phillips, Allen Jones and Patrick Caulfield.
 * Brice Marden: Marden earned his MFA from the Yale School of Art and Architecture (1963), where he studied with Esteban Vicente, Alex Katz, Jon Schueler, Jack Tworkov, Reginald Pollack, Philip Pearlstein, and Gabor Peterdi. Among his fellow students were the future artists Richard Serra, Chuck Close, Nancy Graves, Gary Hudson and Robert Mangold.
 * Chuck Close: Among Close's classmates at Yale were Brice Marden, Janet Fish, Richard Serra, Nancy Graves, Jennifer Bartlett, Robert Mangold, and Sylvia Plimack Mangold.
 * Allen Jones (sculptor): In 1960 he was expelled from the Royal College of Art, where fellow students were R. B. Kitaj, Peter Phillips, David Hockney and Derek Boshier.
 * Malcolm Morley: After release, he studied art first at the Camberwell School of Arts and then at the Royal College of Art (1955–1957), where his fellow students included Peter Blake and Frank Auerbach.
 * Peter Phillips (artist): As one of the originators of Pop art, Phillips trained at the Royal College of Art with his fellow students David Hockney, Allen Jones, R.B. Kitaj and other figures in British Pop Art.
 * John Philip Falter: After graduating from high school in 1928, Falter studied at the Kansas City Art Institute where he met and became friends with R. G. Harris, Emery Clarke, and Richard E. Lyon.
 * Christopher Perkins (artist): He was educated at Gresham's School, Holt, then at the Heatherley School of Art in London, in 1907, an academy in Rome in 1908, and the Slade School of Fine Art, where his fellow students included Dora Carrington, Mark Gertler, Stanley Spencer and C. R. W. Nevinson.
 * Robert Bevan: Amongst his fellow students were Paul Sérusier, Pierre Bonnard, Edouard Vuillard and Maurice Denis.
 * E. Phillips Fox: He studied art at the National Gallery School in Melbourne from 1878 until 1886 under G. F. Folingsby; his fellow students included John Longstaff, Frederick McCubbin, David Davies and Rupert Bunny.
 * Floris Verster: Between 1880 and 1884 Verster continued his training at the Royal Academy of Art in The Hague where some of his fellow students were George Hendrik Breitner, Isaac Israels and Willem de Zwart.
 * Louis Valtat: Among his fellow students were Albert André (1869–1954), who became a close friend, as well as Maurice Denis (1870–1943), Pierre Bonnard (1867–1947), and Edouard Vuillard (1868–1940).
 * John Peter Russell: Russell then went to Paris to study painting under Fernand Cormon. (His fellow students there included Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec and Émile Bernard.)
 * Of course it solves the "problem"; the problem isn't about whether or not you get a detail that you would like to include appears in the article, it's about whether or not the reader gets encyclopedic information, and in this case if the reader is curious about the academy, all they need to do is follow the wikilink. That's why wikilinks exist. And again, a Word.doc with no author information or any evidence that the material has been refereed is not an RS, no matter how much you wish it were. The list of artists above may include some exceptions where classmates are mentioned, but I have to wonder how many examples you purposely omitted from the list where classmates were not mentioned. So while exceptions may exist, they are not the rule. I followed a few links from the articles you cited and found no mention of classmates (eg, Franz Kline, Robert Motherwell, Ben Shahn, Jackson Pollock, etc.).


 * Besides, examples of what some pages may or may not do is not the ultimate arbiter of how similar pages should be written -- commonsense and WP policy is the ultimate guide. I could understand you arguing about this if we were talking about people that Schult studied under, or people he was directly influenced by, but merely mentioning the names of some of his classmates qualifies as trivia, and a complete list of his classmates is already available to the reader by following the hyperlink. Now if there were a reliably sourced article that talked about his classmates and included some commentary about how their artistic styles were similar as a result of their studying under the same person, that might be a different story, but that's not the case here.


 * By the way, the entry you included for Cy Twombly mention people he studied under; not who his classmates were -- using misleading evidence undermines your argument. Lastly, you still have the issue about WP:RS; you have no verifiable reliable sources other than Schult's own comment, which is not sufficient to support a statement about third parties.


 * So there you have it -- a trivial detail that's poorly sourced is not worth arguing for. Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:58, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * There are many more Wikipedia articles including references to classmates of art students, as art historians agree that they usually influence each other. And I would say that a false claim undermines your argument. From the Cy Twombly article: "At Black Mountain in 1951 and 1952 he studied with Franz Kline, Robert Motherwell and Ben Shahn, and met John Cage." The detail concerning Schult's classmates is not poorly sourced, as it is to be found in a published German catalog on Götz written by reputable art historians. If you use Google book search you'll see that the information about Götz's first students is from this reliable source. Just type in "1959-1979 Professur an der Kunstakademie Düsseldorf. Seine ersten Schüler sind Gotthard Graubner, H. A. Schult und Kuno Gonschior. 1961 folgen Gerhard Richter, Sigmar Polke und Franz Erhard Walther". Furthermore, it is a fact that these young Düsseldorf students influenced each other. In his early Academy years, Schult studied painting. Schult's red sky in some of his "biokinetic objects", which combines painting techniques with garbage, is very near to the colors in Graubner's colored cushions. It is certainly no coincidence that Graubner, Schult and Richter were influenced by the work of Caspar David Friedrich. Therefore, it makes sense to include a reference to these classmates in the Schult article. Wikiwiserick (talk) 18:46, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I stopped reading your twaddle right after the part about Cy Twombly. Motherwell and and Shahn were not Twombly's classmates; they were his teachers. If you can't get the story straight, I'm not going to waste any more time discussing this with you. Stop refusing to get the point. Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:07, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not sure about this fact, as the Twombly article says, he studied with (not under) Kline, Motherwell, Shahn etc., but you may indeed be right in this case, as I have now seen that Twombly was much younger than Kline, Motherwell and the other artists. Be that as it may, the Twombly article also states, "On a tuition scholarship from 1950 to 1951, he studied at the Art Students League of New York, where he met Robert Rauschenberg..." But this detail about Twombly is unimportant. More important is that Schult's classmates influenced each other and became famous German artists themselves. That's why they must be mentioned in the article. We need a third opinion here. Wikiwiserick (talk) 19:15, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * What I said about Twombly is not debatable -- it is a FACT that Motherwell and and Shahn were his teacher's, not his classmates. You keep repeating what you want the article to say while ignoring the fact that you don't have good sources to back it up. It's a circular argument and a waste of time. I already pointed out that if there were a good online source saying that these artists influenced each other through their association at the academy, or that their styles overlapped because of having studied under the same teachers, then that detail might merit inclusion, but you don't have the solid sources needed to back it up. The bar is high when referring to other individuals (i.e., third parties) in someone's bio. If there's no obvious linkage, then the detail is just trivia. I know that I wouldn't want my bio saddled with the names of people who coincidentally happened to attend one of my schools, and in some cases that feeling is probably mutual. Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:19, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The said detail is well sourced and it isn't trivia, as any expert who has knowledge of the German art scene would confirm. Here are two additional sources on Götz: "An der Düsseldorfer Akademie saßen Gotthard Graubner, Gerhard Richter, Sigmar Polke und HA Schult in seinem Seminar." See "Karl Otto Götz zum 95. Geburtstag", in Die Weltkunst, Volume 79 (2009), p. 110. "Und nicht zuletzt wirkte Götz von 1959 bis 1979 als Professor an der Düsseldorfer Kunstakademie, wo er unter anderem Polke, Richter, Graubner und HA Schult unterrichtete. In deren Werken zeigt sich die Fernwirkung von Karl Otto Götz." See Stefan Lüddemann, Bilderwelten einer Jahrhundertwende: Texte zur Kunstkritik. Kunstkritiken 1996-2006 (Göttingen: V&R unipress, 2006), p. 257. Wikiwiserick (talk) 22:25, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If you're falling back to putting the onus on me to scour the National Library for some obscure documents in German (a language that I don't speak, as you know) then you're going around in circles. Again, focus on what's been written in verifiable highly reputable online sources, preferably in English. Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:39, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

These are two highly reputable sources: Professor Emeritus Gerd Presler has a PhD in theology and a PhD in art history. Journalist and art critic, Dr Stefan Lüddemann has a PhD in art history.
 * Gerd Presler, "Karl Otto Götz zum 95. Geburtstag", in Die Weltkunst, Volume 79, no. 3 (2009), p. 110.
 * Stefan Lüddemann, Bilderwelten einer Jahrhundertwende: Texte zur Kunstkritik. Kunstkritiken 1996-2006 (Göttingen: V&R unipress, 2006), p. 257.

We are writing an article about a well-known German artist. DRN Volunteer SGCM said above: "Generally, non-English sources are allowed." Another DRN Volunteer, Noleander, said: "the best sources are journals, newspapers, and books by major publishers. Those sources should favored over websites and PhD theses. That Weibel source looks fine." See. It is your problem, Rhode Island Red, that you don't speak German. So you do not have the right to question my highly reputable German sources, especially in view of the fact that the German quotations will appear on the screen if you use Google book search. Wikiwiserick (talk) 18:45, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Around in circles we go. You are completely ignoring the broader issues I mentioned. As for offline sources in German, you've already demonstrated that you take liberties with the interpretation and translation of sources, so I'm afraid that I cannot blindly trust your assertions about what such sources say. I loathe the idea of wasting any more time with Google translations, so if you have anything to propose, provide the original German quote from the online source followed by your English translation. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:37, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems as if you are the only person who cannot trust my assertions about what the reliable German sources say. I have already provided the original quotations from the German sources followed by my English translations above. We need a referee here who is able to read German texts. Wikiwiserick (talk) 19:53, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Your arguments have shifted so much that I don't even know what your assertion is anymore. I have already addressed the references you mentioned and explained why the proposed text is problematic (eg, trivial, poorly sourced, claims about third parties) and how you can work around it (wikilinking to the academy's article). If you still want to belabor the point, then for the sake of clarity, perhaps you should go back to square one and propose an amended version of the text you wish to include and the sources that you wish to cite. For any sources that are online but in German, you can provide, along with the link, the original quoted text in German that backs up the proposed text, as well as an English translation; however, note that your own translations may not be adequate (translations should be done by reliable sources or experienced WP editors who specialize in that sort of thing). Don't bother with offline sources in German. Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:50, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I have already quoted from the following reliable source: Oliver Kornhoff and Barbara Nierhoff, Karl Otto Götz: In Erwartung blitzschneller Wunder, exh. cat., Arp Museum, Remagen (Kerber Christof Verlag, 2010), p. 114. It says about Professor Götz:
 * 1959-1979 Professur an der Kunstakademie Düsseldorf. Seine ersten Schüler sind Gotthard Graubner, H. A. Schult und Kuno Gonschior. 1961 folgen Gerhard Richter, Sigmar Polke und Franz Erhard Walther.

This source includes a chronology which states that Graubner and Schult were Götz's first students at the Düsseldorf Academy (in 1959), followed by Richter and Polke (in 1961). If you use Google book search, the German text will appear on the screen. Several other sources cited above include the same information. So the following sentence should be added to the Schult article: "Among his fellow students were Gotthard Graubner, Sigmar Polke and Gerhard Richter." This is a very short sentence, but it includes useful information for all those readers who are interested in current German art. Wikiwiserick (talk) 21:07, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I just did some more digging and found out that both Sigmar Polke and Gerhard Richter did not start at the Academy until 1961, which is the year that Schult left. So it's very obvious they were not "classmates" per se. They merely attended the same institution. I already pointed out that such an association would qualify as trivia and would not be suitable for inclusion in this article on Schult. Notice also that these biographies on Polke and Richter don't mention anything about Schult (thus underscoring my previous argument about why their names should do not belong in Schult's bio). I also must add that I'm getting a little bit fed up with your misleading arguments and focus on WP:ADVOCACY for Schult. WP is not a place for such advocacy, and if you have a WP:COI (your editing history and WP:SPA status suggests that you do), you shouldn't be editing the article at all. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:19, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Your most recent comment showed that you are still refusing to listen. As I said, when addressing an editorial issue please provide: (1) proposed text (2) link to online source (3) quote of original supporting text (in German or English), and (4) any translations (and identify the source of the translation). This will improve the clarity of your arguments and will make things easier for other editors. Also, don't send me on wild goose chases to search through Google books or sift through your hundreds of previous posts. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:30, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Richter and Polke entered Götz's class at the Kunstakademie Düsseldorf in 1961, Schult left this class at the end of the year. You cannot deny that Schult, Graubner, Richter and Polke were classmates at least for some months, that they were influenced by Götz and that they inspired each other. From an art historical perspective, this is of some importance, and that's why this fact should be mentioned in the article. Here are three additional sources: So the following sentence may be included in the Wikipedia article: "Among his fellow students who were deeply influenced by Professor Götz were Gotthard Graubner, Sigmar Polke and Gerhard Richter." Wikiwiserick (talk) 23:55, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "Vier Jahre war er Schults Lehrer. ... Damals betreute Götz weitere kommende Stars wie Gerhard Richter, Sigmar Polke oder Franz Erhard Walther." (For four years, Götz was Schult’s teacher. ... At that time he supervised other upcoming artists such as Richter, Polke and Walther.) See.
 * "An der Düsseldorfer Akademie saßen Gotthard Graubner, Gerhard Richter, Sigmar Polke und HA Schult in seinem Seminar." (Graubner, Richter, Polke and Schult participated in Götz’s seminar at the Düsseldorf Academy of Fine Arts.) See
 * "Und nicht zuletzt wirkte Götz von 1959 bis 1979 als Professor an der Düsseldorfer Kunstakademie, wo er unter anderem Polke, Richter, Graubner und HA Schult unterrichtete. In deren Werken zeigt sich die Fernwirkung von Karl Otto Götz." (And, not least, Götz worked as a professor at the Düsseldorf Academy of Fine Arts, where he trained Polke, Richter, Graubner and Schult. Their works show the long-range effect of Götz.) See.
 * No that's what you might put in Gotz's bio, not Shult's. The very fact that you would know (or claim to know) the exact graduation dates for Schult and other students at the academy indicates that you're much too close to this subject (or are Schult himself), and again I urge you to stop skirting WP:COI and WP:ADVOCACY. Aside from that, your assertions about the dates of graduation are hearsay and the quoted text you provide merely shows that they were students at the Academy, which we already know, not that they were students at the same time or that they took any classes togther, or that their styles were in anyway cross pollinated at the academy. So yes, I can easily deny that these artists inspired each other, because to date you haven't put forth even one iota of reliable evidence to suggest that is the case (just your own hearsay).


 * As for the dates at the Academy, college graduation generally takes place in Spring/early summer and newly enrolling students begin classes in the fall, so it’s perfectly conceivable that Schult never even overlapped by so much as a day with Polke and Richter, but more importantly, I don’t see how they could have been “classmates” in any scenario because college freshmen and seniors generally don’t take the same classes. You're overstating his connection with these other artists, when their contact at the Academy would have been fleeting at best. Whatever, it’s clearly inappropriate to make such a connection; and now that the dates have been established, you pretty much haven’t a leg left to stand on. We’re back to what I said originally; a link to the academy is all that’s needed or warranted. Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:56, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I just noticed. Now you are just stating blatant lies. You said that one of the sources contained the following quote:


 * “For four years, Götz was Schult’s teacher. ... At that time he supervised other upcoming artists such as Richter, Polke and Walther.”


 * When in fact, what the article says is:


 * “For four years he was Schults teacher...Goetz then supervised other future stars such as Gerhard Richter, Sigmar Polke, and Franz Erhard Walther.”


 * Your translation is misleading BS, so at this point I’m going to ask you to just go away. I have no more time to waste reading your duplicitous comments. You’re wasting WP resources and being disruptive and dishonest.

From your statements above I can only conclude that your ignorance both of the German language and the German art scene is the problem here.

One source says,
 * "Vier Jahre war er Schults Lehrer. ... Damals betreute Götz weitere kommende Stars wie Gerhard Richter, Sigmar Polke oder Franz Erhard Walther."

In the given context, the only accurate translation is:
 * For four years, Götz was Schult’s teacher. ... At that time he supervised other upcoming stars such as Richter, Polke and Walther. See.

As other sources say that Schult studied fine arts at the Düsseldorf Academy from 1958 to 1961, he must have left the Academy at the end of his fourth year (i.e. 1961) in order to complete his study (mimimum 8 semesters).

Studying fine arts at the Düsseldorf Academy (and other German and Austrian academies of art) was (and still is) based on the traditional master class system. In the master-class system, the course of studies is not based on a consecutive curriculum. Rather, a community is established which students join when beginning their studies and in which they are supposed to find their own path: artistic ability is trained by way of the example given by professors or elder fellow students. This is based on the idea that the ability of pushing boundaries and innovative talent cannot be developed "by the book" and on the basis of given knowledge. See.

I am sorry to say, but you are not the right person to decide what should be included in the Schult article and what should be left out. Wikiwiserick (talk) 17:57, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It wasn't my translation, it was Google's, do if you don't like it, go complain to them that they are ignorant of the German language. That translation is consistent with what we already know about the dates of attendance (i.e., Schult left in 1961 at the time that Polke and Richter were just starting at the academy). Again, you are obviously way too close to the subject of this article. You apparently have a WP:COI and it appears that you are unable to approach this subject objectively. Rhode Island Red (talk) 18:26, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, your comment about the master class structure at the academy is misleading. The link you provided shows that the system was enacted in 2005, 44 years after Schult left the academy. Please stop grasping at straws and throwing out these deceptive claims. Rhode Island Red (talk) 18:30, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You should have read the entire article concerning the Vienna Academy of Fine Arts. Then you would have noticed that they were critically discussing the traditional master class system in 2005 (a system in use in all German and Austrian art academies of the twentieth century). As their website says: "This is an ideal of the creative human that dates back to the period of Romanticism and no longer matches the realities of today." As for Google Translate, you can be sure that their translation of "damals" is wrong, as any German reader will tell you. Furthermore, there is no conflict of interest, as you frequently claim. I have only written a paper on Schult's early work during a university course and many other papers on German artists of the twentieth century. That's why I have more knowledge about the German art scene than most Americans here. It's just my intention to improve the English articles on German art of the twentieth century. That's all. Wikiwiserick (talk) 18:59, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Your single-minded interest in and detailed knowledge of Schult goes well beyond that of someone who merely wrote a paper in college. Better for you to say nothing than to use such a patently absurd excuse. I would characterize your efforts here to date as writing a lopsided WP:VANITY bio about Schult and trying to jam his name into as many other articles as possible. Anyhow, I don't intend to belabor the issue here, but if this keeps up, a COI investigation will be the next step. Getting back to the editorial issue, your article about the master class system is completely irrelevant, so do you have anything of substance to add? Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:41, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Your accusations are ridiculous, especially in view of the fact that you do nothing to improve the Schult article by adding further content. All you can do is removing what others have written and placing tags on Wikipedia pages. I have never seen such a poor and unpleasant attitude toward other users who wish to add well-sourced content to Wikipedia articles before. As stalking can be defined as the willful and repeated following, watching and harassing of another person and in view of your frequent removals of my edits, you really should re-think your attitude on Wikipedia, as it is very close to cyberstalking.

The information about the master class system in use in twentieth-century academies of art has proved your claim wrong that "college freshmen and seniors generally don’t take the same classes." In academies of art they do. That’s why Schult and the other artists were “classmates”, and this is of much importance to art critics and art historians who often draw comparisons between artists. As for the content of the Schult article, I would like to add the following, well-sourced information: "Among his fellow students who were deeply influenced by Professor Götz were Gotthard Graubner, Sigmar Polke and Gerhard Richter." Any suggestions by other users? We need a third opinion here. Wikiwiserick (talk) 11:19, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The information about the master class system in the link you provided describes the system as it existed in the 21st century, not in 1961. It has no bearing whatsoever on this argument. You're grasping at straws. Keep it on topic please. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:01, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You have no knowledge at all about the master class system of German and Austrian Academies of Art, which was already invented in the Romantic period, i.e. the 19th century. See . Here is an English source dealing with the Düsseldorf Academy: "The introduction of master classes was another important innovation. The master pupils who were assigned their own studios and worked in close contact with their teachers, were more than mere assistant teachers at the Academy." See The Duesseldorf Academy and the Americans, Issue 2, Munson-Williams-Proctor Institute, High Museum of Art, National Collection of Fine Arts (U.S.), 1973, p. 14. This master class system was in use during the entire twentieth century. See Nikolaus Pevsner, Academies of Art, Past and Present (Cambridge University Press, 1940), p. 285, and this source on the Austrian artist, Joseph Bramer. See also this example. The traditional master class system was only criticised in the 21st century. You can be certain that Graubner, Schult, Richter and Polke were students in Götz’s master class. I hope that another user can solve the problems here. Wikiwiserick (talk) 18:34, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You're way off on a tangent and doing nothing to help your case. If you have nothing relevant to add, I'm tuning out. Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:12, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, you are the person who falsely claimed that, according to the source, the master class system was enacted in 2005 and did not exist in 1961. As for the content of the Schult article, the sentence, "Among his fellow students who were deeply influenced by Professor Götz were Gotthard Graubner, Sigmar Polke and Gerhard Richter", should be added. Wikiwiserick (talk) 20:44, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Dispute March 2013
I took a break from Wikipedia for several months because of your behavior, Rhode Island Red, 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, as is the deliberate inclusion of wrong dates. Therefore, I am reincluding the well-sourced additional information. Wikiwiserick (talk) 16:56, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Refer to my comment here. Also, out of respect for WP:TPYES, kindly refrain from attacking me in your whiny Talk page posts and focus on content instead. Similarly, stop cross posting these identical gripes on multiple pages, as spelled out in WP:MULTI. Lastly, honor WP:TPNO and refrain from misrepresenting my activity as you did above when you wrongly suggested that I was actively engaged in an edit war on anther article. Play by the rules or you will likely be blocked. Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:43, 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) 13:20, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You know full well that we discussed this exhaustively right through until September of 2012. 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)
 * 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) 15:48, 2 April 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 and even includes wrong dates, we need a third opinion here. Wikiwiserick (talk) 13:23, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, that's a shame. I don't accept your ignoring our past discussion, edit warring, and self promotion; so what do you propose we do about it? If you revert one more time, I will file a block request and a COI violation complaint. Your move. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:49, 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) 17:04, 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.
 * You are right that nothing has changed. You are still deeply engaged in reverting my well-sourced edits, and you are the only person doing so. 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. Wikiwiserick (talk) 19:21, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Continuing dispute April 2013
My version of the article includes, apart from several other details, the following information:
 * HA Schult studied art at the Kunstakademie Düsseldorf from 1958 to 1961, where he was a student of Georg Meistermann, Joseph Fassbender, Karl Otto Götz and Joseph Beuys. Among his fellow students were Gotthard Graubner and, in 1961, Sigmar Polke and Gerhard Richter.

All this is reliably sourced. In an interview, Schult himself has stated that he studied at the Düsseldorf Academy of Fine Arts together with Gotthard Graubner, Sigmar Polke and Gerhard Richter: According to Wikipedia policy, even Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities. However, this is an interview statement by the artist in a reliable financial newspaper, not in a self-published source. Three further sources say about Schult's professor, K.O. Götz: This source additionally mentions Götz's influence on Polke, Richter, Graubner and Schult:
 * "In the early 1960s I studied painting at the Düsseldorf Academy of Fine Arts, together with today's great painters such as Gotthard Graubner, Sigmar Polke and Gerhard Richter." ("Ich habe Anfang der 60er-Jahre an der Kunstakademie Düsseldorf mit heutigen Malergrößen wie Gotthard Graubner, Sigmar Polke und Gerhard Richter Malerei studiert.") See Axel Griesch, "Müllkünstler HA Schult: Ich möchte Unsterblichkeit. Und die ist nicht käuflich", finanzen.net, 13 May 2012.
 * "1959-1979 professor at the Academy of Fine Arts Düsseldorf. His first students [were] Gotthard Graubner, HA Schult and Kuno Gonschior. Followed in 1961 by Gerhard Richter, Sigmar Polke und Franz Erhard Walther." ("1959-1979 Professur an der Kunstakademie Düsseldorf. Seine ersten Schüler sind Gotthard Graubner, H. A. Schult und Kuno Gonschior. 1961 folgen Gerhard Richter, Sigmar Polke und Franz Erhard Walther.") See Oliver Kornhoff and Barbara Nierhoff, Karl Otto Götz: In Erwartung blitzschneller Wunder, exh. cat., Arp Museum, Remagen (Kerber Christof Verlag, 2010), p. 114.
 * "For four years, he (Götz) was Schult's teacher. ... At that time Götz supervised other upcoming stars such as Gerhard Richter, Sigmar Polke and Franz Erhard Walther." ("Vier Jahre war er Schults Lehrer. ... Damals betreute Götz weitere kommende Stars wie Gerhard Richter, Sigmar Polke oder Franz Erhard Walther.") See Philip Krohn, "HA Schult, Der Müllkünstler", Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 3 August 2009.
 * "At the Düsseldorf Academy Gotthard Graubner, Gerhard Richter, Sigmar Polke and HA Schult sat in his (Götz's) seminar." ("An der Düsseldorfer Akademie saßen Gotthard Graubner, Gerhard Richter, Sigmar Polke und HA Schult in seinem Seminar.") See Gerd Presler, "Karl Otto Götz zum 95. Geburtstag", in Die Weltkunst, Volume 79 (2009), p. 110. (Professor Emeritus Gerd Presler has a PhD in theology and a PhD in art history.)
 * "And, not least, from 1959 to 1979, Götz worked as a professor at the Düsseldorf Academy of Fine Arts, where he, among others, trained Polke, Richter, Graubner and HA Schult. Their works show the long-range effect of Götz." ("Und nicht zuletzt wirkte Götz von 1959 bis 1979 als Professor an der Düsseldorfer Kunstakademie, wo er unter anderem Polke, Richter, Graubner und HA Schult unterrichtete. In deren Werken zeigt sich die Fernwirkung von Karl Otto Götz.") See Stefan Lüddemann, Bilderwelten einer Jahrhundertwende: Texte zur Kunstkritik. Kunstkritiken 1996-2006 (Göttingen: V&R unipress, 2006), p. 257.

My version also includes the following information:
 * As these works were both inspired by the romantic painting of Caspar David Friedrich and the modern age of consumption and waste, German critics such as Siegfried Salzmann and Hilmar Frank pointed out that Schult has been called "the Romantic of the consumption age" or "Caspar David Friedrich of the consumption age."  The artist describes himself as "a Romantic of the consumption age" and "a great moralist".

German art critics such as Siegfried Salzmann and Hilmar Frank, i.e. two independent and reliable secondary sources, point out that Schult has been called "the Romantic of the consumption age" or "Caspar David Friedrich of the consumption age": For a discussion of the influence of 19th-century German Romantic landscape painting on Schult, see also Karlheinz Nowald, HA Schult: Die Welt, in der wir atmen, exh. cat., Kunsthalle Kiel, 10 March-14 April 1974. Reprinted in Thiemann, Denecke, Treeck and Hartung (eds.), HA Schult der Macher (Cologne: Rheinland Verlag, 1978), p. 384.
 * The late art historian and art museum director, Dr Siegfried Salzmann wrote, "Under Caspar David Friedrich’s sky HA Schult proves to be the Romantic of the consumption age" ("Unter Caspar David Friedrichschem Himmel erweist sich HA Schult als der 'Romantiker des Konsumzeitalters.' ") See Siegfried Salzmann, Mythos Europa: Europa und der Stier im Zeitalter der industriellen Zivilisation, exh. cat., Kunsthalle Bremen, 1988, p. 316.
 * Art historian Hilmar Frank points out that Schult has been called "Caspar David Friedrich of the consumption age" ("Caspar David Friedrich des Konsumzeitalters") 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), p. 100.

So it is a mystery to me why this well-sourced information, together with other additional material, is frequently removed by one specific user, Rhode Island Red, who falsely claims that I am inappropriately trying to draw an association between Schult and other students at the Düsseldorf Academy. To my mind, this user seems to have found a certain delight in edit warring and harassing other users who would like to improve Wikipedia articles. See also Frank L. VanderSloot and Talk:Frank L. VanderSloot. His behavior is unacceptable. Wikiwiserick (talk) 20:35, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It shouldn't be a mystery. every point was addressed in our previous talk page discussions. You simply chose to ignore them after several months had elapseed, hoping that no one would notice. You seem to be violating WP:COI and WP:BLP, which dictates that poorly sourced, unsourced, or contentious material should no be restored after it is removed from the BLP. You are in the wrong here since you are bypassing convention and edit warring. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:27, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Your accusations are ridiculous. All my contributions are based on reliable sources. You have deleted these well-sourced edits without giving any content-related arguments for your blind reverts. This means that you are ignoring Wikipedia policy. Wikiwiserick (talk) 11:48, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Superfluous tags
Rhode Island Red has added the following tags to the article:

This is only the personal opinion of one specific user, who has a long history of edit warring. Therefore, these tags should be removed, as the accusations are untenable, as any unbiased user can attest. Wikiwiserick (talk) 22:03, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The tags are not superfluous. I and other editors have explained the issues to you ad nauseum, and this is well documented in the Talk archives, but you are refusing to get the point. It appears that you are the subject of the article or otherwise closely connected with the BLP subject, and this seems to be at the root of your editing conflicts. Since we've been unable to reach consensus in one-on-one discussion, the tags have been added so as to solicit additional attention from outside editors, as per protocol. The tags should not be removed until the issues have been resolved. If you are willing to revert back to the last stable version, before the latest reinsertion of contentious edits, I'd be OK with removing the tags; otherwise not, and we can proceed to other methods of dispute resolution. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:39, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You are the only editor who thinks that the tags are necessary. I am not closely connected with the article's subject. As a user interested in current German art, I am here in order to improve the English articles on post-war German artists. One of these artists is HA Schult. Interestingly, you are the only user who adds superfluous tags to the article in question. Wikiwiserick (talk) 18:49, 19 June 2013 (UTC)