Wikipedia

Template:Did you know nominations/Maximilian Liebenwein

< Template:Did you know nominations
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Allen3 talk 10:40, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Maximilian Liebenwein edit

(
)

Created by Good King René (talk). Self nominated at 15:54, 16 January 2014 (UTC).

  • My limited command of German requires me to accept the source on good faith. The article is certainly long enough. Begun on Jan. 16, it's getting a little stale, but whose doing is that? I would prefer fewer redlinks in an article that's getting front-page treatment, though. --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 16:05, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
I agree it's unfortunate about the number of redlinks, but it just goes to show that enwiki's lacking coverage of this particular area (late 19th/early 20th century German Europe, especially artists). Most of the redlinks do have articles on dewiki, even with their stricter notability standards, so I think they're fine to let sit until they get turned blue. (If it's really a blocker, I can make rough-and-ready stubs for the ones on dewiki, but they won't be particularly great articles.) Good King René (talk) 12:23, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I can see in the article where it says he lived in a tower of Burghausen Castle, but it does not say there that he redecorated it in the Art Nouveau style. It separately says that he worked on "it" (presumably the tower) as a total artwork, and then the next sentence says that this was a period when he discovered his affinity for Art Nouveau. This does not mean that he used Art Nouveau at Burghausen; there needs to be a specific statement (and sourcing to back it up) in the article for it to be usable in the hook. I don't have time now to review the prose entirely, but I noticed that "germane" was used near the end of the "Life" section in the Post-war Vienna paragraph, and I can't figure out what a "germane climate" is, except that it wasn't good. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:11, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I edited the article to replace the "germane climate" wording (which bothered BlueMoonset) with a more meaningful statement, based on the German source.
The hook fact isn't in the article. Several of the sources tell about the series of paintings he painted the walls of the tower, but the article doesn't clearly indicate that his artwork in the tower was wall paintings, and I've not seen a source that identifies the paintings as Art Nouveau (although he is strongly identified with that movement). I suggest a revised hook, assuming that the article gets edited to clearly support it:
I looked at the sources so that I could add some information to the article, but the sources and article now support the following hook. Binksternet (talk) 21:55, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm puzzled by the basis for some of the recent changes to the article. There are two sources cited for the statement "In the space of three days in 1899, Horst-Schulze and Liebenwein painted a frieze inside the tower, so that Liebenwein's bride-to-be would see it on her first visit." Only one of the two cited sources has information about the frieze in the Burghausen Castle tower; the other source is about a frieze in Linz. Neither of the sources says anything about painting the frieze in three days, and I don't see an indication that the painting was made so his future wife would see it on her first visit; it only says it was painted for the occasion of her first visit. Regarding the proposed hook, the wording "where they both would live" is misleading -- there's no indication that he painted the frieze for their future home, rather, he painted it where he was living at the time (in the place which was to become their future home). --Orlady (talk) 03:44, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
By "permanently" I meant residing in one place, the place being the castle tower, as opposed to visiting the tower only in the summer but living in Munich. One of the sources says the following: "In 1897 when Liebenwein was living as an independent painter in Munich, he visited his painter friend and colleague Walter Ziegler, and the two discovered Burghausen Castle. Liebenwein moved there in 1899. For the first visit of his bride to Castle Burghausen he created a frieze with his friend Paul Horst-Schulze, the frieze exists today inside Liebenwein Tower at the castle." The second source is the key to your observed problem, I think. There are several web addresses for the article named "Maximilian Liebenwein - Ein Jugendstilmaler zwischen München und Wien". I assumed that the one already cited in the article was the same one I was looking at, despite the difference in URL. Here's the one I saw, which is a huge PDF with the article on digital page 62, though page 60 is indicated in 'print'. It says the following on digital page 64 (indicated page 62): "In 1897 and '98 he [Liebenwein] spent the summer in Burghausen, where he moved in 1899. Using his own design he remade (richtete) the largest tower of the castle to be a home and studio, and created a fresco together with Paul Horst-Schulze in three days." Thus we have a frieze/fresco created in three days with Horst-Schulze for the occasion of the first visit by the bride. The bride would of course be Anna Essigmann who Liebenwein married in 1901. Thus using simple math per WP:CALC, the 1899 frieze must have been hurriedly created for the first visit of the "bride-to-be" rather than the newly married bride. Binksternet (talk) 05:10, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for that explanation and the "Neues Museum" online source you found, Binksternet.
That "Neues Museum" source is a good one (it supports some statements in the Wikipedia article that are currently sourced to documents I can't access, and it might help fill in some details in the article) -- and one I had not seen before. I've inserted it in the article in place of the erroneous citation to the Linz document with the same title.
Your explanation of the word "permanently" makes sense, but the word doesn't work for me as a reader of this article. In the modern context it could be said that he made the castle his "permanent address", but in the context of the biography of a dead man, the words "moved permanently" usually mean "for the rest of his life". I've reworded that bit to say that he established his residence and studio in the castle tower.
I have no argument with describing the "bride" who visited as his future wife, and the "Neues Museum" source does support the "three days", but I think it requires more than simple math to say that the fresco created in three days (per Neues Museum) is the same work as the Wandfries (frieze on the wall) that Stadtmuseum Burghausen says they painted for the occasion of the first visit of his future wife. It is likely that both sources refer to the same wall painting, but I can't determine that from the sources I've seen (and that are cited in support of the statement in the article). Unless someone has a source (e.g., one of the offline books cited in the article) that provides more information on what was/is painted on the tower's walls, I'm afraid it is WP:SYN to describe the 3-day fresco and the future-wife-visit wall-frieze as the same painting -- and we really can't use a hook that claims he painted a frieze for his fiancée in the place where they would live, when the source says only that he painted it for her visit.
I continue to think the most interesting part of this hook is that an Art Nouveau painter lived in a medieval castle and added his artwork to its walls. I'm uncomfortable with any of the proposed hooks, however, when the presentation of the hook fact in the article appears to involve WP:SYN. --Orlady (talk) 16:08, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
In my brief reading on the topic yesterday, it appeared there was only one significant frieze on the wall of Liebenwein Tower, one that the sources described. Are you saying there are two or more? Binksternet (talk) 16:27, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
I don't know how many paintings are on the walls of the tower. However, the wording of the hook originally proposed, the term Gesamtkunstwerk, and some statements indicating the existence of a series/cycle of paintings/frescoes lead me to think there are multiple paintings. --Orlady (talk) 21:22, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the creator/nominator (who presumably knows something about the artwork in the tower) has not edited since 1 February. Apparently the Liebenweinturm in the castle is now an art gallery. I found a YouTube video of what appears to be a gallery opening there (I didn't listen to the sound). Most of the walls are painted in an off-white shade, but wall paintings are visible at around minute 14 of the video (in the background of images of people eating and talking). What I see in the video clearly fits the description of a "frieze" and I believe it's on at least 3 walls of the room. I believe the following hook is entirely true and is supported by sources cited in the article:
Thanks for sitting through the video; I admire your patience. Your hook looks good to me. Binksternet (talk) 18:21, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
  • New reviewer needed to check ALT3 hook and do whatever other reviewing is needed to vet this nomination—it should be more comprehensive than the initial review, which didn't cover a fair number of DYK criteria. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:21, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Willing but not enthusiastic: most of the article relies on a thesis, which I am unable to study, I assume good faith ;) - The hook ALT3 borders boredom, ref #9 would support that he and his friend did the Fresko in three days, which would make it a bit more interesting, also "medieval" would make a contrast to Nouveau. The cute addition - that it was so that bride could see it as a surprise - is unfortunately not in that source, - the sequence of painting and living may have been the other way round. Mention that the tower was his residence, and summer residence while he lived in Vienna? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:00, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
I agree that it would be more effective to say that the castle is medieval (i.e., ... that Art Nouveau painter Maximilian Liebenwein lived in a tower of the medieval Burghausen Castle and painted a frieze on its walls?), but I don't recall that the Liebenwein article indicates that it's a medieval castle. (That would require yet another edit to the article and probably another reference citation.) --Orlady (talk) 15:08, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
I studied the pdf a bit, it has several pages on the paintings which cover three walls of one room, each with several themes, Walther von der Vogelweide and Parzival, with texts (pp.50–53), and yes medieval (p. 48), and yes first visit of bride with mother and sister (p. 50), no to the three days (or I overlooked it). Will add a bit to the ambitious article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:18, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Added a bit, your turn. Gesamtkunstwerk is used in the PDF, but not for the tower project. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:29, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

This needs a new reviewer. Apparently some folks are waiting for me to review it, but since I wrote the ALT3 hook and made substantive edits to the article, I'm not eligible. --Orlady (talk) 12:55, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I was waiting for an ALT4 to possibly mention medieval, that's why I said "your turn", --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:00, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
There is a problem with adding that here: It's not supported. Someone has added text to the article saying that the castle "fit the concept of a medieval castle". That is not the same as saying it was a medieval castle, and even that "concept" statement is not supported by the cited sources. The thesis that we have been reading indicates that he was attracted to Burghausen (the town) as a medieval city/town; but, as near as I can determine, it doesn't say that the castle was/is medieval. --Orlady (talk) 15:24, 31 March 2014 (UTC) Of course, the castle itself is unquestionably medieval -- sources exist in both English and German: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] etc./usw. --Orlady (talk) 15:32, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
I didn't suggest you have to say that the castle is medieval (although it is). Page 10 of the cited source says "am Rückweg von einer Italienreise, „entdeckte“ Liebenwein für sich die mittelalterliche Stadt Burghausen an der Salzach und verlegt 1899 seinen Wohnsitz dorthin.", p. 48: "Mit seinem reizvoll angelegten und sich über mehr als 1 km Länge erstreckenden Burgensemble inklusive umgebender Altstadt entsprach Burghausen den damaligen Idealvorstellungen von einer deutschen Stadt des Mittelalters und war passende Kulisse für ritterlich-romantische Themen, die Liebenwein in zahlreichen Werken darstellte." You can possibly derive better wording for the article from that, something better for "Idealvorstellungen" than "concept". You could also mention the themes. What I don't like about ALT3 is "its walls" when it is three walls of one room. Your turn again ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:45, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
I'll work on a substitute for that "Idealvorstellungen" passage. However, I do think that it's necessary for the hook to say the castle is medieval, if only because the hook needs to be short. Therefore, while I'm working on rewording, here are two new versions of the hook:
ALT5 preferred, - thanks for your improvements in the article also, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:02, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Maximilian_Liebenwein&oldid=808328233"