Talk:Stephane Graff

Regarding recent contention on this page
"There does not appear to be major commentary on his work, and there is no statement that any of it is in the permanent collection of a major museum. Almost all of the article is his own comment on his own work, reprinted in various places, or in publications such as "What's On", which is not a RS for art reviews." This preceding quote is taken from the deletion proposal made soon after the article's creation in 2015. Ensuing discussion found that, while the subject may not be an artist, the inclusion of the subject's work in philanthropic fundraisers and private galleries might render them a somewhat notable photographer.

A misunderstanding has since arisen regarding this article. Attempts made to include reference to the subject's father are not intended, nor amount to, vandalism. Edits made by anonymous IPs follow discussion in the art community about wealthy individuals paying fees to exhibit work and then masquerading as credentialed. Wikipedia is not the place for people to write laudatory articles about themselves and then obstruct due elaboration provided for readers that might stumble upon the page. The subject's billionaire father, as stated in the supplied citations (for example ), is crucial to understanding Graff's privately funded exhibitions at private galleries. This is a fact of life in art criticism. It is important information in understanding the provenance of the Artist's work.

The edit warring needs to come to an end. Reference to Graff's billionaire family should be included under the section 'Personal Life' or otherwise be present in the opening summary, as found in recent edits removed by 'Correctenglish22' and 'TheDoDahMan'. If the problem persists then I welcome intervention by Wikipedia moderators.

P.S Regarding the user whose account name included 'Raggedtrouseredphilanthropists': the account name presumably refers to the 20th century novel. I doubt that it is malicious.

Kind regards, Courbet1866 (talk) 10:40, 9 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Reference to Graff’s father does not in itself amount to vandalism, but defining an artist  by the financial background of his/her family, in the opening few words, is inappropriate.


 * Indeed, Courbet1866  makes a personal assumption, without any evidence, that Graff privately funds his own exhibitions and this suggests that the venues where he has exhibited, including private galleries, museums and public institutions  (for example  http://www.artnet.com/artists/stephane-graff/biography), are being paid off by the artist to show his work so that he can "masquerade as credentialed". This totally undermines the authenticity and artistic merit of Graff or other artists with similar backgrounds, and erodes the integrity of the galleries, museums and public institutions themselves.


 * Courbett1866 ’s  arguments are defamatory as they are based on inaccurate assumptions that may damage the reputation of the artist and his life’s work as well as all institutions connected with it.


 * This line of thinking is usually associated with a romanticised and clichéd notion that only poor and struggling artists are genuine. In view of art criticism, the validity of an artist, their authenticity and the provenance of their work, the financial status of the artist’s family background bears little relevance or concern.


 * Of course, family background is important to provide a better understanding of a person’s life. On my previous edit, I added a section at the bottom of the page under the title ‘Personal Life’, stating "Stephane Graff is the son of Laurence Graff" which I consider is in accordance with Wikipedia’s   conventions. I hope that there can be a consensus.


 * Kind regards Correctenglish (talk) 19:22, 9 June 2019 (BST)

Stephane Graff's father
I just want everyone to know that I don't have an axe to grind either way with this article. I am just doing my job and enforcing BLP policy. Since you have provided a reference that says Mr. Graff is the son of a wealthy person, I don't have a problem with the changes. I think everything has worked out to my satisfaction, so if everyone else is satisfied we'll just consider the issue closed. Agreed?TheDoDahMan (talk) 10:40, 10 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes, agreed. Don't worry, I didn't interpret your conduct as invidious. Hopefully this has settled the matter :)


 * Once the lock expires I intend to restore the original edit so that the article summary will read "Stéphane Graff (born 1965), son of billionaire, Laurence Graff, is a Franco-British, self-taught artist, based in London. . ."


 * Evidence adduced to the article's deletion discussion page raises doubts about the article's remaining text. But I suggest that this be overlooked for now. The above edit will banish some of the concerns raised during the deletion discussion and provide clarity for readers.


 * King regards, Courbet1866 (talk) 14:30, 10 June 2019 (UTC)


 * No, I do not agree that the edit should be restored as Courbet1866 describes above. Why have none of my comments been taken into consideration? Correctenglish (talk) 17:02, 10 June 2019 (BST)


 * OK. How do you feel it should be phrased?TheDoDahMan (talk) 17:14, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

@Correctenglish. I hope all is well. I will address your comments directly.

You are quite right to observe that art is not an avocation exclusive to the poor. There are, quite literally, millions of people who practice photography and art worldwide. The vast majority of them do not have a Wikipedia article. Contributors to the article's deletion page observed that:

"There does not appear to be major commentary on his work, and there is no statement that any of it is in the permanent collection of a major museum. Almost all of the article is his own comment on his own work, reprinted in various places, or in publications such as "What's On", which is not a RS for art reviews."

This is not an indictment against the subject, nor his art. Many great works of art were not celebrated during their time. However, the only identified evidence distinguishing the subject's art from the many millions of photographers in the world is the supplied references to private exhibitions. This, in my view, necessitates the early reference to the subject's father, and source of wealth, if the article is to be understood by the reader. Please remember to be neutral to the subject-matter.

Kind regards, Courbet1866 (talk) 17:10, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Speaking generally (because I don't know this subject) we only include in the opening sentence of a biography very important details of why a person is notable, and who a person's parents are is normally considered a poor indicator of notability (see WP:NOTINHERITED). If someone is notable because of who their parents are, we normally don't write about them except within their parents' article, other than, say, people who are in line to the British throne (who are notable chiefly because of who their parents are). For an artist this would be very unusual: they should be notable for their own body of work, or they should not have their own article. So the first sentence should be less like "Stephane Graff is the son of a billionaire" and more like "Stephane Graff is an artist". Otherwise, mentioning notable members of his family in the article is common practice, it's an important detail (assuming it can be reliably sourced). It can even be in the lead, but it needs to have appropriate weight. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:22, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for this. I am willing to defer to your superior knowledge of Wikipedia convention. The notability of this subject in the art community is disputed. Based on what you have written, it is my suggestion that the subject's wealth and family represent vital, accompanying information in understanding the following references to private exhibitions. For this reason I would recommend including an allusion to the subject's billionaire father in the lead, in a manner you deem appropriate.

Courbet1866 (talk) 17:33, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Notes on formatting
hi everyone. Just a couple of pointers here on participating in discussions on Wikipedia, since it might be a little different from the internet forums you might be used to: I hope that helps. If you have any questions please let me know. I'm going to review the discussion above and add some input. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:08, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) It's conventional to keep conversations together under one "level 2 header" (a line that looks like, with two sets of = characters). If you need to break out a sub-discussion, you can add more = signs to make a level 3 or level 4 header (like   for example). Please don't start new subsections unnecessarily.
 * 2) Please add your new reply to the bottom of the thread, and use indents to organize your comments. Adding a : to the start of a line of text indents it one level. A double colon adds a second indent level, and you can stack them as deep as you like.
 * 3) Please remember to sign your comments with four tildes, normally at the end of the last line of your comments and not on a new line.
 * 4) If you want to "ping" another editor, you can use the template ul (as in ) to create a link to their userpage, or ping to notify one or many editors (as in   produces . You have to sign your edit or ping does not work.
 * 5) If you put references in a talk page discussion, they will keep "floating" to the bottom of the page, unless you add reflist-talk in the spot you want them to appear.

Epilogue
Well,, it seems everyone other than the two of us were sockpuppets after all. I'm about to reduce the page protection to semi; do what you like, but please consider my comments above. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:18, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I will.TheDoDahMan (talk) 18:21, 10 June 2019 (UTC)