Talk:Académie Julian

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

When did it close?[edit]

When did it close? Why? --sparkit 04:09, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

Unsourced[edit]

What, who is Hamilton King, the only source supplied? Therefrom the tag. --rpd (talk) 20:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adolphe William Bouguereau[edit]

Adolphe William Bouguereau won Prix de Rome in 1850, far before 1868, when Académie Julian was established. Bouguereau did teach there as a professor. --Leeearnest (talk) 20:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Status: notability?[edit]

Does it make sense to limit new additions to this list? Is it appropriate at this stage of the article's development to initiate a standard limiting names on this select list to

(a) those who already have Wikipedia articles
and
(b) those who are notable for something other than having depicted war in art -- see, e.g., US Navy Cross edit history?

In a context informed by practices which seem to have worked out well at Navy Cross, all new additions who aren't already featured in an article could be re-redirected to this talk page section with the following edit history explanation:

artist must be known for something other than studying at this art school -- see "Status: Notability" on talk page

The redlinks of those who do not have an article yet are listed below:

Notes
  1. ^ Benezit
  2. ^ a b c Farmer, J. David. "Overcoming All Obstacles: The Women of the Académie Julian," California Art Club. April/May, 2000.
  3. ^ portraits by nc.com
  4. ^ Grove art online
  5. ^ (ru)Europart
  6. ^ collection.nationalmuseum.se
  7. ^ musee-orsay.fr
  8. ^ a b Russell, John. "An Art School That Also Taught Life," New York Times. March 19, 1989.
  9. ^ Westandatwar.org
  10. ^ [1]
  11. ^ Cultured.com
  12. ^ Benezit
  13. ^ (es)bvc.org
  14. ^ Ggbooks

When any of the above-listed redlink names turn blue, we will know that transferring these names to the talk page was a worthwhile exercise. If none turn blue, then we can deduce something about the notability of these artists. --Tenmei (talk) 14:21, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Émilie Desjeux 1861-1957: http://celebrations-de-bourgogne.org/1861-naissance-demilie-desjeux-portraitiste/ http://europeart.livejournal.com/729.html http://www.acejoigny.com/Library/echos_55.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tatesic (talk • contribs) 14:12, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of names[edit]

This list is quite silly. There is no information here. Just names. This needs an overhaul with prose discussing the legacy of the academy with a discussion of some of the students. We can't list them all. It serves no purpose as it stands. freshacconci talktalk 15:38, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I propose to remove the list of notable students, and to direct users to Category:Alumni of the Académie Julian. Ideally the list here should be compared with the list in the category, and the individual articles updated as necessary.
I would retain the much shorter list of notable professors (but to correct it - see below). Verbcatcher (talk) 15:18, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Students in 1883[edit]

Where might one be able to find a list of students from this year? There is a photo of Frances Benjamin Johnston in a group of women students in one of the FBJ books (sorry, it was from the library, years ago, I don't recall which book) but I *think* it was her class in Paris, about 1883. There is a woman in the front row with her hand on a skull; perhaps it was an art class where they studied anatomy. The ideal would be to find a list of the women in the photo. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 18:12, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

École nationale supérieure des Beaux-Arts[edit]

The article says that the Académie prepared students for the École des Beaux-Arts. This probably means specifically the École nationale supérieure des Beaux-Arts, also in Paris, doesn't it, rather than any of the several Écoles des Beaux-Arts around France? If there's no objection, I'll clarify that point. Colonies Chris (talk) 12:01, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Was Jules Cavaillès a professor at Académie Julian?[edit]

The article lists Jules Cavaillès as a notable professor. Is this accurate? It is not mentioned in his article, nor on the site referenced from his article. Verbcatcher (talk) 14:49, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of notable professors[edit]

Further to the above, the following are listed as notable professors, but their articles do not mention that they taught at the Académie Julian.

If there are reliable references for them teaching at the Académie Julian then their articles should be updated accordingly, and added to Category:Faculty of the Académie Julian. If there is no reliable reference than they should be removed from this article. Verbcatcher (talk) 15:10, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First american football game in Europe[edit]

American students of this school played 1897 vs other Americans from the École nationale supérieure des Beaux-Arts the first american football game in Europe http://www.postimg.org/image/m29agx18z/ http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k284207p/f4.zoom.langFR --Erixson (talk) 09:34, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, but I think this is too remote from the purposes of the Académie Julian to be included in this article. It seems that the team comprised students at the Académie, but it is unlikely that they officially represented it. In the old days this could have gone in a Trivia section, but these are now deprecated. This might have a place in History of American football. Verbcatcher (talk) 17:41, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please add the American impressionist artist Clark G. Voorhees to your list of American artist attending the Academie Julian in Paris late 19th century's[edit]

Please add the American impressionist artist Clark G. Voorhees to your list of American artists attending the Academie Julian in Paris in the late 19th century. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:196:80:90:8505:6903:5D22:90E4 (talk) 13:06, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of notable professors and students[edit]

Notable students section[edit]

I recently added the {{alumni}} tag to the Notable students section. This generates the following notice:

This article's list of alumni may not follow Wikipedia's verifiability or notability policies. Please improve this article by removing names that do not have independent reliable sources cited within this article showing they are notable and alumni or by incorporating the relevant publications into the body of the article through appropriate citations.

User:DDupard has deleted this tag, with the check-in comment "removed unnecessary tag". I think the tag is appropriate. Firstly because there were six (now seven) redlinks in the list. Secondly, many of the linked articles do not provide citations for these people having studied at Académie Julian. Of the first five in the list, only one cites a source for this. Uncited claims in the linked articles may be based only on the list in this article. Also, the citations should be in this article, not in the linked articles. I propose to reinstate this notice.

However, there is also the issue of whether we should have this sort of list. The list is of little use to our readers and is out of proportion in this article. Other articles on educational institutions do not have this sort of list. We currently list 244 alumni, and there are 367 in Category:Alumni of the Académie Julian.

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Embedded lists#Size says Consideration should be given to keeping embedded lists and tables as short as feasible for their purpose and scope: material within an embedded list should relate to the article topic without going into unnecessary detail; and statistical data kept to a minimum per policy.

I propose that we limit the list to an few truly prominent alumni: for example, heads of state, Nobel prize winners and (in this context) artists with whom a generally well-educated person is likely to be familiar. I suggest these:

We would have a link to Category:Alumni of the Académie Julian.

In order to avoid losing useful information (and maybe antagonising our editors), we could transfer the list to a new article: List of Alumni of the Académie Julian. However, as we have few citations there may be little point in this. Comments please. Verbcatcher (talk) 17:42, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Verbcatcher, and thank you for taking the time to present your point of view, I removed the tag indeed , finding it "disgraceful"... Your offer to create a list page or link to the category is fine with me. As far as just giving the names of just a few well known artists is concerned, my position would be either all or none. Cheers!--DDupard (talk) 17:57, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello DDupard, I think giving well-known artists is useful. Our readers are likely to be interested that Henri Matisse and Marcel Duchamp were students, and this would give an indication of the importance of the Académie. Verbcatcher (talk) 18:08, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Verbcatcher, on the other hand, having red links calls for the creation of the corresponding article, and anyhow a piece of information, even incomplete , is information (in my mind).--DDupard (talk) 18:14, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
DDupard, a red link is good if references are cited that show that the subject attended Académie Julian and also that he or she meets the Wikipedia:Notability (people) guidelines. Unsourced information should not be in Wikipedia (but I don't actively delete it). Wikipedia articles (other than list articles) should be readable; not all facts about a topic merit inclusion. I now favour deleting the list of alumni and naming two or three in the body of the article, probably Matisse and Duchamp. I would delete the list of professors (or move it to a list article); we already name several instructors in the text and could reassess those which we name. Verbcatcher (talk) 21:41, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The notability guidelines for artists are given in WP:ARTIST. Verbcatcher (talk) 21:51, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Verbcatcher, that falls into the category: personal WP:POVPUSH. Why would Marcel Duchamp be listed excluding the others like Diego Rivera or Pierre Bonnard to name but 2, totally un-encyclopedic--DDupard (talk) 08:07, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
DDupard, the Marcel Duchamp article says "Duchamp is commonly regarded, along with Pablo Picasso and Henri Matisse, as one of the three artists who helped to define the revolutionary developments in the plastic arts in the opening decades of the twentieth century, responsible for significant developments in painting and sculpture" and cites sources. While Rivera and Bonnard are important artists, and arguably greater artists than Duchamp, Duchamp and Matisse are the most historically significant artists in the list. My prioritisation of historical significance over aesthetic merit follows the guidelines in WP:ARTIST. Verbcatcher (talk) 12:41, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Verbcatcher: complete section here: for this guideline.

Authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, and other creative professionals:

  1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.
  2. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique.
  3. The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
  4. The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition , (c) has won significant critical attention , or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.--DDupard (talk) 12:55, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
DDupard, these support my selection of Duchamp. They do not mention artistic merit. For #2, Duchamp is known for originating Anti-art, a precursor of conceptual art, and for being a key figure in Dada and Cubism. For #4b I suggest the list here, the Norton Simon Museum [2] and the Fine Art Society [3]. For #4c a web search shows significant critical attention. For #4d I suggest MoMA [4], the Tate [5] and the Centre Pompidou [6]. Only one of the the criteria need be met for notability, and Duchamp is preeminent in #2.
You have not justified your removal of the {{alumni}} tag, other than saying that you found it "disgraceful". Most of the names have no sources cited in the article showing they are notable and alumni, and several do not cite sources for this in the linked articles. Should I add {{citation needed}} to every name without a citation? Verbcatcher (talk) 13:54, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Verbcatcher, Citation: + or - 1,119 items in here oxfordindex and 36 items here universalis, 38 here treccani, and 151 here Highbeam, 423 Jstor (which tends to indicate a global interest in this information)--DDupard (talk) 15:42, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
DDupard, I am not claiming that anything is incorrect in the list of students, I simply want to alert users that most of the names are unsourced, and to ask editors to cite sources for them and to remove the names if citable sources are not available. The availability of research tools increases the justification for this, because finding citable sources should be easier than in many other fields. Perhaps Template:Alumni is a little harsh in asking users to remove uncited entries without looking for citable sources, but this may follow Wikipedia policy. We could also add Template:Alumni edit notice (asking users not to add uncited entries) or Template:Cleanup list (more general).Verbcatcher (talk) 20:39, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have transferred the lists to List of people associated with the Académie Julian. Verbcatcher (talk) 01:29, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of notable professors and students[edit]

User:DDupard, over the last week we have discussed whether the lists of professors and students of the Académie Julian should be in a seperate list article, see Talk:Académie Julian#Notable students section and Talk:List of people associated with the Académie Julian#Status of academiejulian website. I am upset that you have effectively reverted my edits without continuing the discussion on the talk pages. This is the sequence of events:

  1. I proposed transferring the list of alumni to a seperate list article, citing Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Embedded lists#Size.
  2. You reponded with "Your offer to create a list page or link to the category is fine with me".
  3. I moved the lists to a new article: List of people associated with the Académie Julian, with a link from Académie Julian. My check-in comment mentioned the similar List of people associated with the London School of Economics.
  4. You pointed out that the new structure did not match the Académie Julian articles in other Wikipedia languages.
  5. I indicated that making Wikipedia articles correspond in all languages was unachievable. As far as I know this is not a Wikipedia policy. I pointed out that having lists of faculty and alumni in a list article was common in Wikipedia, see Category:Lists of people by university or college. I indicated the reasons why lists might be included in or excluded from a parent article.
  6. You chose not to continue the discussion. You returned the lists to Académie Julian, albeit in a different format, and removed the link to List of people associated with the Académie Julian making it effectively an orphaned article.
  7. You have added a large number of red-linked student names, without citing sources to establish that they were students and were notable. We had also discussed this on the talk pages.

Rather than start an edit war, let's discuss this here. Verbcatcher (talk) 12:47, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1) No reverts: the link to the list is still in the article. 2) One article does not preclude the existence of another one in a different, (if not more informative) format. 3) Red links are calls to create articles, calls for enrichments, calls for users to participate in creation. 4) And for red links and ref., there is a global reference in the external link section. 5) There is no neutral, objective, dispassionate reason for your being upset. --DDupard (talk) 14:21, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:DDupard, even though you did not use the undo facility you have effectively reverted my edit. After discussion I removed the lists in the article; you have added similar lists without continuing the discussion. We could make improvements to the format of the lists wherever they are placed. There is little point in maintaining parallel lists in both the main article and the list article.
The format of the lists and whether they are in a separate article are editorial judgements for which there are no clear-cut right or wrong answers. However, I am clear that the inclusion of unsourced red-linked names in the list of alumni breaks Wikipedia:Verifiability. We need to cite sources that show that all the names in the list of alumni were alumni, and that they meet the notability guidelines (in WP:ARTIST). The policy is that all facts should be verified where they appear (see WP:LISTVERIFY), however this is often not achieved and it is probably acceptable for the facts to be sourced in the linked articles. Unsourced red-linked (or unlinked) names are not acceptable.
Your new lists in Académie Julian do not include the references cited in List of people associated with the Académie Julian. This is a backwards step, and risks losing these citations if the list article becomes moribund. Presumably the names in your new lists come from the source in the external links section. If so, you should explicitly cite this (I suggest a citation next to the title of each table). As I have pointed out, this is a self-published source which we should treat with caution. This source only indicates who taught at or attended the Académie, it gives no evidence of notability.
As you point out, red links are a way to request new articles. This does not justify including unsourced material. Also, the onus is on you to establish that the subject meets the notability guidelines, see WP:REDYES. Another motivation for adding unsourced names is to help develop the list, adding names that may eventually be sourced. This is the wrong place to do this, see WP:PURPLIST.
I propose to delete the lists in Académie Julian. We could move the lists in your new format to replace those in List of people associated with the Académie Julian, but this would lose citations. If the new list is to stay then I propose to delete the unsourced red-linked names. Do you think it is useful to continue discussing this here, or should we use Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, probably by seeking a Wikipedia:Third opinion? Verbcatcher (talk) 20:46, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
1) I repeat, the link to : List of people associated with the Académie Julian is still in the article Académie Julian, 2) Sources or better, links to the equivalent page in another language for each red name can be added if you wish so, 3) I repeat WP.in English is a version in English of an international encyclopedia. 4) The chart format listing country of origins shows or tends to show that the académie attracted people from all over. 5) My personal opinion is that listing faculty and students on the Académie Julian page is relevant to the article. 6) I also placed the charts in "Show/Hide" mode so as to limit clutter. 7) If you wish for a third opinion, I prefer that to be plural, in which case it would be o.k with me.--DDupard (talk) 21:39, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:DDupard:
1) I was mistaken when I wrote that you had deleted the link to the list article. Sorry.
2) Sources are better than links. Links to Wikipedias in other languages are useful if there is no English Wikpedia article. Presumably the notability guidelines are broadly similar in all Wikipedias. If the linked article (in any language) has reliable citations then this reduces the importance of a citation in this article; ideally the citations should be added to this article but this is difficult if the sources are not available on-line: you should only cite a source that you have inspected personally. However, in my limited experience, the French and Spanish Wikipedias are often less well cited than English Wikepedia.
3) Wikipedia is not a single encyclopaedia in multiple languages. There are Wikipedias in 294 languages, each of which is a separate encyclopaedia which may have different policies and conventions.
4) I do not object to giving nationalities in the list of students, although this can be difficult because countries change and people change nationality. I don't feel that it is necessary to illustrate the wide range of nationalities by including the list in the article: we could say "[...] it was popular with French as well as foreign students from all over the world, particularly Americans, and attracted students from at least forty countries, see List of people associated with the Académie Julian" (although some fanatical editors might object to the lack of a local citation).
5) I agree that the lists are relevant to the article. However, as I said earlier, the list of alumni is of little use to our readers and is out of proportion in this article. Just because the lists are relevant does not mean that they need to be in the article. Many articles on colleges have a list of notable alumni in a separate list article.
6) The show/hide mode helps, but I don't think that it is the answer.
7) Do you mean by "plural" that we should seek multiple third opinions? We might only get one editor giving an opinion through the Wikipedia:Third opinion process. However, this would be advisory and not binding, and it would not preclude other options described in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Verbcatcher (talk) 13:05, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A quick remark: not sure the term "Dispute" applies here : User Verbcatcher, has been present on this talk page since 22 May 2014, with the same proposal to remove the list. October 2016 sees the same.... (!)--DDupard (talk) 13:29, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I proposed removing the lists in 2014, in reponse to another editor. There were no comments on this, and I did not follow it up at the time. I have since been keeping an eye on the page and have made a few edits. Does this make me less qualified to comment on the page and to try to improve it? As I see it, we disagree about two issues:
  • Whether it is preferable to place the lists of faculty and alumni in the main article or in a separate list article, or in both. This is an issue of editorial judgement. I favour having the lists only in a list article, User:DDupard favours having them in the main article and is content for there to also be a list article.
  • Whether it is acceptable to include names in these lists that are red-linked with no evidence of notability. This is an issue of interpreting Wikipedia policies. I want to delete these names, User:DDupard wants to keep them. Verbcatcher (talk) 18:51, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So lets get to work and add sources to better things instead of a delete, as far as the existence of 2 lists is concerned, please understand that I am only trying to accomodate your "creating" of that second page, as it seems to be a recurring preoccupation of yours--DDupard (talk) 19:06, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So, with this last exchange in mind, please do work at bettering your list , and just leave the one on Académie Julian alone, I promiss I’ll give all requested references for your satisfaction and that of the WP guidelines, that is to say either include those in the corresponding artist article or on the Académie Julian page. It might take a few weeks but please do bear with me and time constraints--DDupard (talk) 19:35, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:DDupard: Asking me to not to edit an article while you work on it breaks Wikipedia conventions. You should not do development work of this sort in a live article, use your sandbox. It would be a waste of effort for us to work simultaneously on separate lists of the same people in two articles.
I am concerned that your list does not use the references cited in the the list article. Many of these are of better quality than the self-published site that you are using. Several (or most) of the entries in the site you are using do not establish notability.
However, our disagreement centres on the location of the lists and on redlinked names whose notability has not been established. We can discuss the format of the lists and whether and how we merge them later. I am now going to seek a Wikipedia:Third opinion. Verbcatcher (talk) 12:33, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have not specified what source I was going to use, and please do seek a neutral third opinion, keeping in mind that I have been offering a compromise. --DDupard (talk) 13:57, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Académie Julian, its place in Art history : Students and Professors[edit]


 The list of students with the indication of the country of origin associated with dates gives context information pointing to the historical period. Specific political state of a country comes to mind , it places the information within the framework of global trends or movements and meshes together a worldwide concomitance of circumstances. The Académie Julian, common denominator for some early 20th century trends in visual arts, has its place in art history, the students and their names partake of the legend.--DDupard (talk) 15:50, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Illustrated here by 26 inter-wiki versions of the page hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation , "dedicated to encouraging the growth, development and distribution of free, multilingual, educational content" [7], [8].--DDupard (talk) 18:24, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
:: References related to Académie Julian for each artist listed are or should be included in their respective article, the list on Academie Julian' page being only a recap or summary--DDupard (talk) 16:38, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Third Opinion[edit]

Note:advice below was rejected by one of the parties, so I prefer if someone else gives an third opinion as well. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:02, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Response to third opinion request (Disagreement on tagging for sources):
I am specifically looking at the issue of tagging for sources. This edit by User:Verbcatcher about tagging for alumni sources was appropriate. We regularly tag articles or sections needing work. These tags are not supposed to be removed till the problem is resolved. If a second editor disagrees, they are not supposed to remove the tag if they simply disagree. See more at Help:Maintenance template removal. Accordingly, this removal wasn't exactly correct and neither was the description that the tag was "disgraceful". In case of disagreement over a tag, it should not be removed unless a third editor comments as well. In fact I remember saying something similar recently at the the Adminstrator's Noticeboard as well.
Usually we do not keep redlink alumni, unless the subject might be unquestionably notable (See WP:WRITEITFIRST). However, it is always necessary to provide a source. For blue linked alumni, the information must be sourced at the very least in their articles. It is also good practice to create a separate list of alumni if there are too many. This helps to declutter the article. I also think User:DDupard is correct in saying that either all notable alumni or none should be kept. It is hard to determine who are "prominent", so anyone who has an article on Wikipedia and is alumni, would generally deserve to be on the list. I would be glad to clarify if required. Thank you Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:38, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I had a look at the article and I'm not sure if we really need to duplicate the list. The organisation of notable professors and students by country can simply be moved to List of people associated with the Académie Julian. It can be organised and cited better over there instead of cluttering this article. As for the red links, how about moving them to a talk page and demonstrating notability. I'm usually hesitant to allow redlinks in lists because the notability of an article is usually unclear until it is created. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:41, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ping DDupard and Verbcatcher. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:50, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Lemongirl942, could you please indicate your alternative account? Thanks--DDupard (talk) 08:48, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You mean an alternative user account? I have only one User:Lemongirl1942. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:51, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, I would prefer a third opinion coming from a user with time-wise a longer experience. Thank you anyhow--DDupard (talk) 08:59, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If that's your wish, I am fine with it. I am however restoring the tag as it should not be removed till the problem is solved. I appreciate if you do not remove it. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:46, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@DDupard: The tag is not supposed to be removed. The issues have not been solved. I would appreciate if you do not edit war. If you want to remove the tag, you need to demonstrate consensus here for removing and I don't see it at the moment. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:03, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I should specify that we are in need of third opinion(s) on the part of users with a clean record : User talk:Lemongirl942#September 2016 and User talk:Lemongirl942#Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion--DDupard (talk) 11:14, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
May I suggest you to WP:AGF a little? We usually tend to discuss about the content at hand not the contributor. If you notice, I have commented only about the content here, not the user. (I have not commented anything about you. That would be like me saying that your edit count is 1400 which possibly indicates that you are less experienced.) I haven't been doing that.
Now as for the clean record, there is no such requirement of a "clean record" and quite a few of the admins have blocks. Where do we go for a "clean record" then? What matters here is whether the advice is based on current policies/guidelines. Btw, if you are really particular, then please do read this (as well as the next report on that same page) in full before making a judgement. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:08, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If I may venture an opinion (my edit count in WPen is only 2346 to whoever may feel the need to ascertain it): the separate list of people associated with the Académie Julian art school is duplicative with the Category:Faculty of the Académie Julian page and Category:Alumni of the Académie Julian page. So wouldn't it be preferable for both lists to be reinserted back into their original page whence they should never have been removed (resulting, as could be expected, in edit warring). --Elnon (talk) 22:49, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Elnon, thank you for your opinion. However, if you check the history I think you will find that I have acted reasonably: I proposed the the move on the talk page. The only responder appeared to be ok with my proposal so I made the change. There has been no edit warring: when similar lists were added back to the article I raised it in the talk page and I have not re-reverted. While I am not questioning your motives for intervening, you are not an independent observer: you have been discussing the matter with DDupard on your French talk page, although you have since deleted this. Verbcatcher (talk) 02:20, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I propose, to go back to the antebellum state on page Académie Julian , remove the tag , take a break leave things alone for a moment.--DDupard (talk) 06:01, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Verbcatcher: - When I was first approached by DDupard about his predicament, after a cursory look I gave him an answer that was favorable to your option of a separate list (see our discussion on Académie Julian here, more particularly my original answer: Je viens de jeter un coup d'œil à la PdD. Si je puis me permettre un avis, trouvez un accommodement avec votre interlocuteur, il m'a l'air compétent et civilisé, sa liste est bien présentée et le fait qu'elle soit séparée du texte n'est pas une difficulté insurmontable, il suffit d'un clic pour y accéder et d'un autre clic pour retourner à la page principale. Pour commencer, vous pourriez peut-être donner suite à sa demande d'enlever les liens rouges des deux listes cachées ainsi qu'il vous le demande, cela détendrait l'ambiance.). When I looked again into the matter a few days later, I realized that things were not as clear-cut as they had seemed to me in the first place. It occurred to me that the faculty and alumni categories offered a substitute for the separate list page and there was no need for more or less the same thing being encountered in three different places. As we say in French, trop, c'est trop. I believe an opportunity for fruitful collaboration between DDupard and yourself may be lost if some sort of compromise is not achieved. --Elnon (talk) 10:04, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:DDupard returning the article to "the antebellum state" amounts to returning it to the state that you preferred, this does not amount to a compromise. I favour leaving the pages with their current layout for now. I hope that another third opinion will appear soon and that this will help a consensus to be reached. Meanwhile, please continue your work adding links and citations, this is valuable and if necessary can be merged into whatever layout we end up with. Verbcatcher (talk) 18:24, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As you say that is "work".--DDupard (talk) 18:32, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder[edit]

Also note, (Repeat): references are included in each corresponding artist page so as not to have too long a references-section on the Académie Julian page--DDupard (talk) 11:34, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That would have been perfectly fine by me: except that it is not the case here. Many of the articles are red links. I see that you have included links to the French Wikipedia. However, the notability standards differ across Wikipedia and what is notable on the French may not be notable here. We require references on "this Wikipedia". As for your concern about a "too long references section", that is the reason why I suggested that this should be split off to List of people associated with the Académie Julian. There really isn't a need to duplicate information on both pages. If you don't like the format at List of people associated with the Académie Julian, that can obviously be discussed or changed as required. But the data itself should preferably go there. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:46, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See above (International). There are links to (fr) , (hu), (uk), etc. Which is to say, references do exist on Wiki-Data, also hosted by the Wikimedia foundation.--DDupard (talk) 11:52, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The references have to exist on the "en" Wikipedia. Whether it may exist on other projects, I don't know. But over here, we require references. The reason is that each Wikipedia project is governed differently and we don't know the standards on other Wikipedia. What are considered reliable source at other places may not be considered reliable here. Which is why we require references here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:01, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See above: enrichment and call for translations (evidently with references). --DDupard (talk) 12:07, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean here. Do you mean that if the red links exist, then someone will create an article? Note that this is usually true for prose text, but not for list items. See the guideline at WP:REDLINK which states Lists of "notable people" in an article, such as the "Notable alumni" section in an article on a university, tend to accrue red links, or non-links, listing people of unverifiable notability. Such list entries should often be removed, depending on the list-selection criteria chosen for that list. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:11, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See above: a red link is a call for the creation of the corresponding article (i.e. text) , please let's take a break.--DDupard (talk) 12:15, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if you are actually understanding me. No one here is saying that we are going to go and delete all of the red links. What we are saying is that "if it is determined, that a red link is not notable enough for inclusion in the English Wikipedia, there is no need to keep it in the list". We do stuff here by discussion - we do not remove all red links immediately and certainly not without discussion and evaluation. Some of the red links for example (particularly some of the professors) are clearly notable. No one here is asking to delete all of them. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:44, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also[edit]

The page was started on January 16, 2003, [9] with the list appearing after a few edits on the same date. In my mind, it is also a matter of respect for what other editors have worked for, over the years.
The point being: building, adding, organizing, continuing... --DDupard (talk) 21:11, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

About the Third Opinion request[edit]

The reposting of the Third Opinion request has been removed (i.e. rejected) since a 3O has already been given and another opinion would be a fourth opinion, which is not available through the Third Opinion Project. As is made clear there, 3O's are not in any way binding and do not "count" towards consensus and, thus, disputants are free to accept them or reject them as they see fit. (And see my history of 3O's not counting as tiebreakers.) If you feel you need additional content dispute resolution consider Dispute Resolution Noticeboard or a request for comments. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:45, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:DDupard, I have reverted an edit by User:Primefac that preempted this discussion (in spite of the edit implementing my preferred resolution); in my check-in comment I asked Primefac to contribute here. As we have exhausted the formal third opinion process I am trying to recruit further help. I have left a note at Wikipedia talk:College and university article advice#Académie Julian. I have also left a note at User talk:14GTR#Académie Julian, as this user edited this page today. Do favour using the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard? We may yet need to use Wikipedia:Requests for mediation, but we should first try to reach a consensus. Verbcatcher (talk) 16:39, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I firmly stand by my decision. The alumni list was entirely too long and poorly-formatted to include in this article, especially since the "List of alumni" page exists. While I will not speak on their behalf, I feel that Lemongirl942 would most likely agree with it (diff, for reference) based on the above conversations. Please note that I did add in some alumni to the updated list, along with references, and obviously more could potentially be added if desired. So... that's a fourth opinion (undo the undo and implement my changes). As a note, it was DDupard that brought me into this with a {{help me}} request, without mentioning the debate raging on this talk page, which is why I BOLDly made the changes I did. Primefac (talk) 16:45, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Verbcatcher, Have transferred the chart with country of origin, (you probably do understand by now why this is meaningfull), on List of people associated with the Académie Julian, as long as the list is maintained, updated and respected, it’s ok with me, I am getting tired about this ( somewhat mundane) discussion about format. Please let's drop it. Thank you for your participation User:Primefac.--DDupard (talk) 16:55, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:DDupard, thank you. I also favour removing the list of notable professors, which is already in the list article. Are you ok with this? If not, the section title Notable professors and alumni is misleading because all the names are professors. When you moved your list to List of people associated with the Académie Julian did we lose any of the names or references in the old list, or had you incorporated these in your list? Verbcatcher (talk) 17:28, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The link should not say "See also " but rather "Complete article" or "Complete list", since this is not at all anecdotic to the main subject of the article.--DDupard (talk) 17:34, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The list article is not a complete list of professors and alumni: it is only intended to list those that are notable, and we have probably not identified all of these. I propose to delete the section Académie Julian#Notable professors and alumni, as the professors are listed in the list article, and the list article is linked under See also. But perhaps we should give more prominence to this link. Verbcatcher (talk) 17:49, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The most prominent place for the information relating to faculty and students is/was on the article itself. Enough of this disorganizing. Please.--DDupard (talk) 18:24, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Primefac, do you have any comment the the inclusion of uncited, red-linked names in the list of alumni? Verbcatcher (talk) 17:28, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think that having redlinked names that have fr articles (such as Raoul Verlet) is perfectly acceptable, but there are a huge number of non-notable alumni/professors that will never get articles. There are plenty of fr/redlinks at the moment, so I would start by only including those.
As for the section breaks - both sections link to the same List, so it's probably better to have the prof/alum groups as subsections (which I've done). As for actually keeping that section; it's a matter of preference I suppose. A short "teaser" list of people is perfectly acceptable, and it's a bit more obvious than a simple link in the "See also" section. Primefac (talk) 18:00, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"huge number of non-notable alumni/professors" seems, to me, a bit much:)--DDupard (talk) 21:10, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:DDupard, sorry to keep bugging you, but in the light of Lemongirl942 and Primefac's comments will you accept to the removal of names that are not linked to a Wikipedia article in any language? I would be content to defer their removal until you have completed your current work on these lists. Verbcatcher (talk) 21:17, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Removal of names that are not linked to a Wikipedia article in any language" , fair enough;)--DDupard (talk) 21:34, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I personally don't have so much of a problem with red links. Even if no version of Wikipedia has an article, it is still OK to keep the red link, as long as a reliable citation is provided which shows that the subject is notable. Some of the professors, for example, are red links, but are clearly notable due to having received civilian honours from the French government.

Wikipedia is a work in progress and it takes time. It is for situations like these that we have the tag. The tag shows that it is a work in progress and it invites users to chip in and help. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:03, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we should include red-linked names where good references are cited that show that the subject was a student and is notable. However, the criteria in WP:ARTIST are rigorous. In my opinion the criteria should be broader, I would probably include anybody with an article in a top-grade authoritative source such as Benezit, the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography or the Encyclopædia Britannica. But this is not the place to raise this issue. Verbcatcher (talk) 16:01, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
On second thoughts, a stub in Bebezit like this is inadequate. Verbcatcher (talk) 22:27, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
BeNezit = Dictionary of Artists, a stub is a stub, like this wp encyclopedia, it is a work in process, a work in process (repeat), not a delete --DDupard (talk) 23:14, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source of quotation[edit]

User:DDupard, who is the author and what is the source of the quotation you added recently: "By my count, more than 50 nationalities [...]"? Is this by Egmont Arens? The quote cites The New York Times, but it does not appear there. Is it from the source cited in the previous paragraph [10]? I can't see it there, but it's a blurry image and my French is poor. Was the quote originally in English? If not then you should give the original with a translation, see MOS:BLOCKQUOTE. Verbcatcher (talk) 19:04, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The quote is from New York Time : Russel: An art school that also taught life, Page 2, As far as Gallica is concerned, I agree it is not the most modern access, but if you click on the page, it activates a Zoom mode, I summarized the content from the French critic,(i.e) " ... on s'habituait ... à considérer l'art américain comme une sorte de reflet de l'enseignement de l'Académie Julian". A bit of trust please--DDupard (talk) 19:17, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't notice the second page. It's not that I don't trust you, I initially looked up the source because I was tempted to change 50 to fifty, following the MOS. The source has 50, so it should not be changed. According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Attribution we should name the author in the main text. Verbcatcher (talk) 20:41, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Done--DDupard (talk) 20:50, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Art Nouveau[edit]

We should probably mention Art Nouveau, which was important in Paris during the Académie's heyday. How does this relate to the less conservative, freer, more sincere approach to art, corresponding to the Secessionist art movement in Germany? Verbcatcher (talk) 01:16, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Art Nouveau" related to Louis Comfort Tiffany (U.S) ), Jugendstil (Germany ), Sezessionstil (Vienna), Nieuwe Kunst (NL), Stile Liberty (Italy), Modernismo (Spain ), Style sapin (Switzerland), Modern (Russia ). French term « Art nouveau » was coined by a French gallery for a show exhibiting this kind of work, and the "name was adopted". One can find examples of art nouveau in areas of France close to the actual German border. Not representative of France general preference in term of aesthetics.--DDupard (talk) 06:38, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it does make sense, since there were a few Germanic students, along with Mucha...;)--DDupard (talk) 10:23, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

for the record[edit]

Most links were blue [11] before splitting and reshuffling. By the way, the new format is not exactly user friendly .--DDupard (talk) 16:30, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I added Template:Alumni, which generates "This article's list of alumni may not follow Wikipedia's verifiability or notability policies." It does not mention red links, this is only a symptom of the problem. As I said at the start of this discussion, "many of the linked articles do not provide citations for these people having studied at Académie Julian. Of the first five in the list, only one cites a source for this." This issue remains to be resolved.
We discussed the format of the new lists in Talk:List of faculty and alumni of the Académie Julian. I posted a draft. You appeared to approve my deaft when you wrote "I trust that you are going to craft a beautiful page, judging by the glimpse you offered above." The current tables follow my draft, with the additional column for references that you suggested. Verbcatcher (talk) 19:07, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, correct, however adding or removing from the page is in fact no simple task. but let's leave it as is for peace sake.--DDupard (talk) 19:41, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Pages should be formatted for the convenience of readers. The convenience of editors is less important. Verbcatcher (talk) 21:16, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Readers are editors as well, but let's drop it.--DDupard (talk) 21:21, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Académie_Julian&oldid=1204813152"