This
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on June 10, 2019 and June 10, 2024. |
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
The previous version of this article was lifted from http://www.artrenewal.org/asp/database/art.asp?aid=746
I've rewritten it and added to it from other sources.
-- sparkit (talk) 22:35, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
i need help..i have a report due on him.. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.12.116.66 ( talk • contribs) .
I've reverted Coldcreation for the following reasons:
If the section belongs in the article at all - and I think it does - it belongs at the top, in association with the Realism section. It links Courbet to the Cubists - this is essential material, not an afterthought. Coldcreation's preferred location puts it entirely out of context.
Secondly, adding the information from 1912 is perhaps accurate, but entirely superfluous. Let's keep the article as concise as possible, without being pedantic - and pedantry is what it amounts to. Do you understand? 36hourblock ( talk) 22:39, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Clearly, I've mobilized Fortress Courbet.
No matter. What is significant is that we've included the information, from an excellent source. The missing section on Courbet/Cubism alerted me, and my assumption was that the editors were ignorant of the historical connection. Glad to provide it. 36hourblock ( talk) 22:39, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
If the section is not "essential", why has it persisted for over five years? Why not just "delete" it, as Modernaire suggests? Any comment, Coldcut? -- 38.126.242.222 ( talk) 19:01, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
My attempt to move the "Courbet and Cubism" section has been reverted. There is a history of opposition to this section, of which the editor who recently reverted the section participated. The appropriateness of moving the section into the main body of the article seems to me to be self-evident. I'd like to obtain an third person evaluation of the section and its source, and its proper placement within the article before resorting to a Dispute Resolution. Gustave Courbet
The editor who reverted declined to visit the talk page after I invited them to do so.
Allow me to add that my interest here is not simply asserting an opinion regarding Gustave Courbet and his influence on Cubism, but a more general principle concerning Wikipedia and its fidelity to sources.
I advise the third person participant to carefully view the article as I edited it, not the existing reverted format.-- CerroFerro ( talk) 19:29, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
...if it belongs at all...? User:Femkemilene: This presents an opportunity to expose the nature of the Wiki Establishment (WE). Let's proceed with a third party, then a dispute resolution so more Senior Editors can get their fingerprints on it before the Wiki Star Chamber shuts it down. CerroFerro ( talk) 17:47, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
User:Femkemilene is AWOL. The "several editors" doubt that the section on Courbet and Cubism "belongs at all" in the article and "it really isn't essential; maybe we should delete it." The source for the section is impeccable, but nothing in the way of citations from sources that contradict the material have been has ever been provided. The hostility to this section remains. A Third Opinion is in order. Otherwise you are simply sitting on this site like an incubus. -- CerroFerro ( talk) 17:43, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
Femke: Your remarks at Talk: Gustave Courbet are counterproductive. There has been no "discussion" because the editors who preside over this page have offered nothing in the way of evidence that the section on "Courbet and Cubism" is inappropriate, though they have insisted for years that it should be removed. No reason has been given, and you know it. Your insinuation that I "insulted" any editor on this matter is, in fact, a covert ad hominem against me. Now deny it.--CerroFerro (talk) 17:27, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
You said that unless an editor does as you'd like (engage further), the 'sit on the website like an incubus'. Maybe I misunderstood, but could you explain how that's not an insult? Femke (talk) 17:39, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
The current discussion seems to be more about placement, rather than inclusion. So I think it's rather logical that people don't provide source material. I don't remember interacting with any of the editors involved in this dispute before, and I don't have a stake in the dispute either, so I'm not sure why I would even want to deploy "tactics of the Wiki Establishment". Femke (talk) 18:42, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
I see some sources that address Courbet as adjacent to anarchism but not necessarily as an anarchist:
My take, based on the above sourcing and his background in the Paris Commune, is that Courbet was a revolutionary socialist with an anarchist lean, but I have yet to find a declarative source on the connection. He died in the 1870s during the rise of anarchism, the period when other Communards like Louise Michel adopted the term, so it's possible that this is just a naming thing in a weird window of time. But from what I can see, most invocations of "anarchist" in articles about Courbet are in reference to Proudhon, so it's not necessarily a " defining" trait for Courbet. czar 18:04, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
This
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on June 10, 2019 and June 10, 2024. |
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
The previous version of this article was lifted from http://www.artrenewal.org/asp/database/art.asp?aid=746
I've rewritten it and added to it from other sources.
-- sparkit (talk) 22:35, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
i need help..i have a report due on him.. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.12.116.66 ( talk • contribs) .
I've reverted Coldcreation for the following reasons:
If the section belongs in the article at all - and I think it does - it belongs at the top, in association with the Realism section. It links Courbet to the Cubists - this is essential material, not an afterthought. Coldcreation's preferred location puts it entirely out of context.
Secondly, adding the information from 1912 is perhaps accurate, but entirely superfluous. Let's keep the article as concise as possible, without being pedantic - and pedantry is what it amounts to. Do you understand? 36hourblock ( talk) 22:39, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Clearly, I've mobilized Fortress Courbet.
No matter. What is significant is that we've included the information, from an excellent source. The missing section on Courbet/Cubism alerted me, and my assumption was that the editors were ignorant of the historical connection. Glad to provide it. 36hourblock ( talk) 22:39, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
If the section is not "essential", why has it persisted for over five years? Why not just "delete" it, as Modernaire suggests? Any comment, Coldcut? -- 38.126.242.222 ( talk) 19:01, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
My attempt to move the "Courbet and Cubism" section has been reverted. There is a history of opposition to this section, of which the editor who recently reverted the section participated. The appropriateness of moving the section into the main body of the article seems to me to be self-evident. I'd like to obtain an third person evaluation of the section and its source, and its proper placement within the article before resorting to a Dispute Resolution. Gustave Courbet
The editor who reverted declined to visit the talk page after I invited them to do so.
Allow me to add that my interest here is not simply asserting an opinion regarding Gustave Courbet and his influence on Cubism, but a more general principle concerning Wikipedia and its fidelity to sources.
I advise the third person participant to carefully view the article as I edited it, not the existing reverted format.-- CerroFerro ( talk) 19:29, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
...if it belongs at all...? User:Femkemilene: This presents an opportunity to expose the nature of the Wiki Establishment (WE). Let's proceed with a third party, then a dispute resolution so more Senior Editors can get their fingerprints on it before the Wiki Star Chamber shuts it down. CerroFerro ( talk) 17:47, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
User:Femkemilene is AWOL. The "several editors" doubt that the section on Courbet and Cubism "belongs at all" in the article and "it really isn't essential; maybe we should delete it." The source for the section is impeccable, but nothing in the way of citations from sources that contradict the material have been has ever been provided. The hostility to this section remains. A Third Opinion is in order. Otherwise you are simply sitting on this site like an incubus. -- CerroFerro ( talk) 17:43, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
Femke: Your remarks at Talk: Gustave Courbet are counterproductive. There has been no "discussion" because the editors who preside over this page have offered nothing in the way of evidence that the section on "Courbet and Cubism" is inappropriate, though they have insisted for years that it should be removed. No reason has been given, and you know it. Your insinuation that I "insulted" any editor on this matter is, in fact, a covert ad hominem against me. Now deny it.--CerroFerro (talk) 17:27, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
You said that unless an editor does as you'd like (engage further), the 'sit on the website like an incubus'. Maybe I misunderstood, but could you explain how that's not an insult? Femke (talk) 17:39, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
The current discussion seems to be more about placement, rather than inclusion. So I think it's rather logical that people don't provide source material. I don't remember interacting with any of the editors involved in this dispute before, and I don't have a stake in the dispute either, so I'm not sure why I would even want to deploy "tactics of the Wiki Establishment". Femke (talk) 18:42, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
I see some sources that address Courbet as adjacent to anarchism but not necessarily as an anarchist:
My take, based on the above sourcing and his background in the Paris Commune, is that Courbet was a revolutionary socialist with an anarchist lean, but I have yet to find a declarative source on the connection. He died in the 1870s during the rise of anarchism, the period when other Communards like Louise Michel adopted the term, so it's possible that this is just a naming thing in a weird window of time. But from what I can see, most invocations of "anarchist" in articles about Courbet are in reference to Proudhon, so it's not necessarily a " defining" trait for Courbet. czar 18:04, 21 November 2022 (UTC)