Content deleted Content added
Line 437: ::::::::::And BTW, if you are the artist himself, or a second party writing on his behalf, that's OK too. If that's the case, it might be worth reading [[WP:COI]], but having a COI doesn't necessarily preclude you from contributing (although in some situations it's at least frowned upon) or require that you reveal your identity (although such transparency is encouraged in the case of a COI). If you need input, I'll be happy to help out. I actually think some of the artist's works/happenings are pretty interesting...especially the plane crash into the NY garbage dump. My issue is just that I'm a stickler for procedure and good encyclopedic writing. [[User:Rhode Island Red|Rhode Island Red]] ([[User talk:Rhode Island Red#top|talk]]) 21:12, 12 August 2012 (UTC) I partly do not understand your argument. I am not Schult himself, but I am well informed about his work. Just for your information: the 398-page publication, ''HA Schult der Macher'' is an oeuvre catalog of the artist, edited by four authors and including essays written by German art historians, reprints from newspaper articles dealing with the artist's happenings, and discussions of all works by Schult previous to the publication date. It is the standard publication on the early work of Schult. Therefore, it is quoted six times in the first part of the article. However, I am thankful for your help if it does improve this article. [[User:Wikiwiserick|Wikiwiserick]] ([[User talk:Wikiwiserick|talk]]) 21:34, 12 August 2012 (UTC) :Be that as it may, it's an obscure, very old, and out of print source, so it can't be readily verified -- it's not ideal IMO; it would be much better to find [[WP:SECONDARY|secondary sources]] in English that quote the original source. And in what way do you think that the work is a "standard publication" about Schult? What standards are you referring to? Are you saying that he is a subject of academic interest and academic articles are citing this older work? As I said before, it's best not to lean on a single source too heavily because the article needs to reflect a balanced POV of the subject; not the POV of a single source, and in this case, the source in question is particularly problematic for verification. [[User:Rhode Island Red|Rhode Island Red]] ([[User talk:Rhode Island Red#top|talk]]) 22:30, 12 August 2012 (UTC) | |||