Talk:Leipzig School (painting)

copyvio
The origin section is cited to, but is an almost verbatim copy of page 54 of http://www.zeitraumzeit.de/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Die-PostModerne-K%C3%BCnstler-und-K%C3%BCnstlergruppen-I.pdf]. From the lead: "Die Leipziger Schule ist eine Strömung der modernen Malerei der 1970er bis 1980er Jahre, die von Leipziger Malern geprägt wurde." becomes "The Leipzig School is a movement of modern painting from the 1970s to 1980s, which was founded and shaped by painters who predominantly lived and worked in Leipzig." Then "Erste Ursprünge  der  so  genannten  Leipziger  Schule  wurzeln  in  der  Künstlerszene  der  Stadt  der  1960er  Jahre." becomes "The first origins of the Leipzig School are rooted in the city's art scene in the 1960s." This continues to "Unter dem  Begriff  „Neue  Leipziger  Schule“  werden  sie  subsumiert  und  gelten  seit  ihren  spektakulären Markterfolgen, etwa in New York, als neue Stars des Kunstmarktes" which becomes: "They are subsumed under the term “New Leipzig School” and have recently been noted on the art market, for example in New York." Vexations (talk) 15:21, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * After Vexation's message on my talk page, I've gone back to the German source and realised that the "Style" section is a close paraphrase of a copvyio section in the German article. I've now erased the content. I'm not sure though how to deal with the "polluted" history of the article: the German article is an outright copvio, while the English one is "only" a paraphrase/translation. There are too many revisions to request a revdel. So, to arrive at a truly clean article the whole thing would need to be deleted. Vexations, could you indicate what you think is best, now that we know how the paraphrase came into being? Modussiccandi (talk) 15:58, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , I'm looking into it. The German Wikipedia article predates the date on the cited source (2017), so I'm thinking that the pdf is not crediting Wikipedia. That means that we could take the German article and translate that, and then work from there. The problem with that is that the German article lacks footnotes. The best solution would be to gather all the sources from the German and French versions, re-evaluate which ones are suitable for our project and then summarize what those sources say, in our own words. Vexations (talk) 16:09, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You're right, it does look like a case of circular referencing. Looking at the literature section, there is enough out there to write a detailed article on the topic while steering clear of that PDF. There is also the English-language source already used in the article. Since the stub is on a notable topic and there isn't the copvyio first suspected in its history, I think it's alright to let the stub remain in the mainspace. Modussiccandi (talk) 16:24, 28 January 2021 (UTC)