The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Talk:Pablo Picasso (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• C.Gesualdo (talk · contribs)
• Modernist (talk · contribs)
• Coldcreation (talk · contribs)
• Freshacconci (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

In the introduction of the article of Pablo Picasso this sentence can be found: Picasso, Henri Matisse and Marcel Duchamp are regarded as the three artists who most defined the revolutionary developments in the plastic arts in the opening decades of the 20th century, responsible for significant developments in painting, sculpture, printmaking and ceramics. This is not only arbitrary and arguably incomplete, there are also no sources given that actually support this statement. I brought these arguments to the Talk Page and extensively explained them, however no one is directly responding to them with counter arguments.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I explicitly asked for arguments, but none were given.

How do you think we can help?

By sending people who at least know enough about art history to understand that a bold statement like: 'Picasso, Henri Matisse and Marcel Duchamp are regarded as the three artists who most defined the revolutionary developments...' is absolutely ridiculous.

Summary of dispute by Modernist

To be brief; it only takes common sense to realize that the sentence being ridiculed and objected to is completely correct and easy to understand especially in the context of an article about Pablo Picasso. Picasso is undeniably one of the most influential artists of the 20th century. Early in his career he encountered through Gertrude Stein a relationship with one of the leading living artists in Paris - Henri Matisse who was 10 years his senior and a leading force behind Fauvism. Picasso and Matisse [1] soon developed an artistic rivalry that they engaged in for decades that followed. When the Fauvist movement began to fade from the centerstage and artists like Georges Braque abandoned that movement for something new Cubism and it's spacial and it's textural implications predominated the avant-garde art scene. Picasso soon expanded his artistic vocabulary along with Braque by essentially inventing Cubism, modern collage, and constructed sculpture with the help of Julio Gonzalez. Picasso's work morphed during the Surrealist and Dada era; as he emerged as a titan of that time period. Marcel Duchamp slightly younger than Matisse and Picasso gave up painting and sculpture altogether in creating his readymades and declaring it's art if I say so....ultimately opening the door to Conceptualism. By the 1930s Picasso was the leading living avant-garde painter in the world. Matisse had moved to the South of France to continue his sensual, and radically decorative and articulate color paintings. The impact of Matisse begins to appear through the teaching of Hans Hofmann and the writing of Clement Greenberg. Hofmann who moved to the USA in 1933 becomes the most influential art teacher in New York from the 1930s through the 1950s. Hofmann and his knowledge of color and Matisse opens the door to artists like Mark Rothko, Clyfford Still, and Jackson Pollock; while Picasso has an enormous impact on Arshile Gorky, Willem de Kooning and Pollock as well. In essence Matisse, Picasso and Duchamp had an enormous impact on art in the late 20th century...Modernist (talk) 20:31, 2 January 2017 (UTC)Modernist (talk) 19:29, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To add:

• Abstract Expressionism, Color field painting, Neo-Dada, Pop Art, Conceptual Art, Performance Art, and Installation Art - major late 20th century movements can be traced to the important, vital influences of Picasso, Matisse, and Duchamp.....Abstract Expressionism is clearly also rooted in Surrealism; it was inspired by both Picasso and Joan Miro as well as Andre Masson. Matisse was a primary inspiration for both Abstract Expressionism, Color field painting and what came next including some works by the Pop artists like Tom Wesselmann and others, and finally Duchamp was enormously influential to the Nexus movement, anti-art movement, and conceptual art, installation art and performance art as well...Modernist (talk) 20:31, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of dispute by Coldcreation

Talk:Pablo Picasso discussion

• • Your comment is not an argument, but an introduction in 20th century art history. But apart from that, I haven't denied the fact that Matisse, Picasso and Duchamp were highly influential. But to say that they're the three artists who most defined the revolutionary developments (which the article does) is simply not true and quite ridiculous. And the fact that you're unable to provide any scientific sources that support the claim makes the sentence unsuitable for Wikipedia. C.Gesualdo (talk) 18:52, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I really do not appreciate your using the word ridiculous as your comment, by the way...Modernist (talk) 20:21, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• • @Modernist,

I would very much like to see proof and sources that state that specifically Picasso, Matisse & Duchamp are the three artists who most defined the revolutions in 20th century art. That's all I'm asking.

This is becoming more and more absurd. I only edited a clear inaccuracy in the introduction of the article of a painter and I have to go through this kafkaesque situation?

C.Gesualdo (talk) 23:36, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Volunteer note - There has been discussion on the article talk page. The filing party has not notified the other editors on their talk pages. The filing party says that this dispute can be addressed by "sending people who at least know enough about art history to understand that a bold statement like" [is incorrect]. The purpose of this noticeboard isn't to find knowledgeable editors. Will the filing party be satisfied by moderated discussion with the other named editors (which is the purpose of this noticeboard)? If they want additional editors, they might try a request at WP:WikiProject Visual Arts. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:59, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Volunteer note - User:C.Gesualdo - You are the filing party. You have filed this request. Do you want moderated discussion? If so, you are in the right place. Do you want other editors with a knowledge of art history to comment? If so, go to the Visual Arts project talk page. A third option is a Request for Comments. You are the filing party. You have filed this request. Do you want moderated discussion? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:03, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@ Robert McClenon Yes, I would like to have a moderated discussion, because this is going nowhere. The two people who are now responding in the discussion - Modernist and Coldcreation - are not supplying scientific sources and refuse to give proper arguments. C.Gesualdo (talk) 18:52, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

•  Volunteer note: @C.Gesualdo: I would like to welcome to you the dispute resolution noticeboard, as I realize this is your first time participating in a case here. As User:Robert McClenon did in xis comment above, DRN volunteers, mediators, and case volunteers often use third party pronouns or references, such as "case filer," to process the case. These comments are not meant to be rude or derogatory, but are a part of case handling to process disputes more smoothly, e.g. ensuring that the 'case filer' has notified other involved editors of the DRN case. In case you have not already done so, feel free to read through the top of this page, i.e. WP:DRN.

•  Volunteer note: @C.Gesualdo: @Modernist: I understand that editing can become a personal experience when there is a dispute or disagreement between two editors or among multiple editors. I'd ask that we refrain from making any personal attacks or references. Personal pronounces, such as "you," should also be avoided if possible. Direct quotations to refer to the other party's statements are fine, as long as such references are made to further discussion. As I realize mediation may be helpful, I have opened this DRN case. In the opening statements above, you have provided a brief overview of your concerns. I would appreciate if (in the section below) both editors would include reliable third party sources to substantiate arguments. Please note that if the argument you are trying to support is "x person is the one of the most influential people in the advancement of string theory," you should provide links to multiple textbooks and scholarly articles, for instance, that precisely support such a claim. Referencing some of x person's largest accomplishments doesn't necessarily qualify the phrase "one of the most influential." Also, note that promotional pieces and statements x person's advisers are not truly third-party nor independent. Although 'common sense' may be usable in real-world conversation, information in Wikipedia articles should be sourced so that fellow editors or readers can verify the information. Feel free to click on the blue links in my comment to read more about the topics I have covered. Also, please feel free to pose any further questions, comments, or concerns about this dispute (or DRN in general) that you may have in a calm manner. Thanks for reading! --JustBerry (talk) 02:33, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@JustBerry, this is getting crazier and crazier! Where on earth did I say that I have a problem with calling Picasso 'one of the most influential artists of the 20th century'? Nowhere! All I said was that a sentence that specifically claims that three specific artists are SPECIFICALLY the ones who 'most defined the revolutionary developments in 20th century art' is arbitrary and incorrect. Especially if it's NOT supported with proper sources. Why do we have to go through all this nonsense to perform one simple edit? Unbelievable! C.Gesualdo (talk) 03:03, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Volunteer note - Please keep discussion here to a minimum until it is opened by a moderator. Please refrain from comments about other editors. The purpose of this noticeboard is to discuss article content, not to discuss other editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:17, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Volunteer note - Please note that a volunteer has opened a section labeled Involved Parties. That section is for the parties to post their comments for moderated discussion. Please also note that the moderator has control of the discussion. Do not post further comments here; post them in the section opened by the moderator. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:41, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
•  Volunteer note: @C.Gesualdo: @Modernist: Pinging involved parties who have posted their dispute overviews to review Robert McClenon's two prior notes. Please post bulleted one/two sentence overview for each issue you would like to discuss (without personal statements) along with reliable third party sources for each bullet. I have italicized the guidelines I had posed previously below:

I would appreciate if (in the section below) both editors would include reliable third party sources to substantiate arguments. Please note that if the argument you are trying to support is "x person is the one of the most influential people in the advancement of string theory," you should provide links to multiple textbooks and scholarly articles, for instance, that precisely support such a claim. Referencing some of x person's largest accomplishments doesn't necessarily qualify the phrase "one of the most influential." Also, note that promotional pieces and statements x person's advisers are not truly third-party nor independent. Although 'common sense' may be usable in real-world conversation, information in Wikipedia articles should be sourced so that fellow editors or readers can verify the information.

Also, please post in the subsection created below (created for involved editor postings). --JustBerry (talk) 17:54, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Involved Editors #1

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.