Misplaced Pages

:Featured article candidates/Whaam!/archive1: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 03:01, 1 August 2013 editCurly Turkey (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users103,748 edits →Bus Stop's disruptive editing← Previous edit Revision as of 03:22, 1 August 2013 edit undoBus stop (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers44,012 edits →Bus Stop's disruptive editingNext edit →
Line 427: Line 427:


——— <span class="vcard"><span class="fn nickname">]</span>&nbsp;(])</span> 02:56, 1 August 2013 (UTC) ——— <span class="vcard"><span class="fn nickname">]</span>&nbsp;(])</span> 02:56, 1 August 2013 (UTC)


::Curly Turkey—why are you reverting me ? ] (]) 03:22, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Revision as of 03:22, 1 August 2013

Whaam!

Whaam! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:01, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because this is a highly important work of art that has a September 28, 2013 50th anniversary of its first exhibition. Over the last few years Roy Lichtenstein's modestly notable works have been selling in the $42–56 million dollar range. This is his single most important/famous work. At an absolute minimum it would sell for $70 million but could sell for two or three times that. If it were to ever be sold it would surely land on the List of most expensive paintings. It is one of if not the very most valuable military art painting in the world.

Please note that Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Drowning Girl/archive1 remains open but appears to be on the verge of promotion, that I have been granted leave to open this discussion now, and that I have requested closure of Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Whaam!/archive1. Although I don't think it is an issue, for full disclosure, I note that Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Whaam! is underway.‎TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:01, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

  • Well that's the thing, Tony... I have no issue with commencing this FAC before Drowning Girl is closed, since the latter is close to that point, but you should've requested withdrawal of the Whaam ACR before starting this. Anyway, wearing my MilHist coordinator's hat, I'll archive the ACR now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:21, 15 July 2013 (UTC)


Comments from Curly Turkey

Just a few things I've noticed. I haven't read the article closely. I think it could use a good copyediting.

———Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:23, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

More from Curly Turkey

Reception

———Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:03, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Theramin

  • Well, this is getting there, slowly. I have applied a light flame-thrower to the under-brush (feel free to revert if you prefer) but I think you need some more copy-editing by a non-specialist. I have to confess to being stumped by the paragraph that starts "The most important element of Lichtenstein's procedure was "the enlargement and unification of his source material"..." What are you trying to say there? -- Theramin (talk) 23:47, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
    • It seems to be a good copyedit in many regards, but it has introduced and reintroduced some issues. I will address these.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:30, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
      • Most of this was a response to your copyedit.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:55, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
        • You are welcome, and apologies if I went wrong in places. Anyway, I have found and added a few extra pieces of information. I've done my best with the aircraft identifications (for some inexplicable reason, the art historians do not seem particularly bothered which models they are, but it is obvious in context). There are a few good quotes from the Tate website. Again, feel free to keep or lose as you prefer. I think I have exhausted what I can offer right now, but I may come back for another copy-edit in a few days. Good luck. -- Theramin (talk) 00:46, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

"largely constructive"? Sigh. Well, at least someone is reading the prose and correcting my inadvertent mistakes. As it seems to be impermissible to put comments in the article, I will repeat them here:

  • What source calls the painting "notable"? I'm sure we can find several calling it "iconic".
  • I think you need a sentence in the lead on whether this is art, or just copying.
  • I have reinstated some of the material deleted here on the pilot, which fits more naturally in the discussion of the source material rather than of the painting itself. The details of the story come from the comic itself (I am sure you have read it) and are mentioned in a couple of the sources. The identification of the fighter planes in the final version are obvious, I think, but I agree we need a better source.
  • Can you spell out the "implications about his statements on modern industrial America"? what implications? what statements? More generally, that paragraph needs some unpacking, I think.

I haven't been following closely the interesting debate above, but I noticed that quite a lot of the text that appears so controversial in this article already appears in Drowning Girl, which passed FAC recently without much trouble. Anyway, I doubt there is more I can sensibly add, so good luck. -- Theramin (talk) 00:59, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

    • Drowning Girl and Whaam! are both 1963 paintings. Much of the historical context and background supporting the two articles should obviously be similar. He had a 50 year career, but his two most notable works came from 1963. Their articles will share a lot in common. This would not be an issue if we were talking about two paintings from different eras in his career, but these are from the same era and will share context.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 20:29, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Opinion request

Issue 1
Ideally, yes. Ceoil (talk) 22:13, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
O.K. done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:03, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Issue 2
Issue 3

Sources

Source review - spotchecks not done

Source review v2 - per request, still without spotchecks

Comments from Binksternet

  • There should be a lengthier prose explanation of Ben Day dots which Lichtenstein used in this and many other of his pop-art paintings to good effect. Lichtenstein painstakingly hand-painted the dots which would have been automatically generated in normal printing.
  • The context of the original cartoon imagery should be discussed. The Irv Novick image is a fantasy of the future as imagined by a fictional Native American pilot named Johnny Cloud who was active in World War II. The two airplanes depicted are jet fighters of the Korean War era. See pages 200–204 of High & low: modern art, popular culture, ISBN 9780870703546. I will bring further comments to bear on this article. Binksternet (talk) 21:53, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
"Few people know that the pilot firing those missiles is a Native American, ‘Johnny Cloud, Navaho Ace’, who receives predictions of his future through ‘smoke pictures’."
Added.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:28, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
You wrote the following:

Several of Lichtenstein's comics-based works in which the face of the pilot is visible, including Okay Hot-Shot, Okay!, Jet Pilot and Von Karp, are inspired by the World War II Navajo U.S. Air Force fighter pilot Johnny Cloud of DC Comics' The Losers. Some sources claim that Cloud, "who receives predictions of his future through 'smoke pictures'", is the subject of Whaam!, even though the plane in the work is the combination of two panels and its subject's face is not visible.

The reader should be told this is a fictional pilot. It won't hurt to say the character was developed by Kanigher. The bit about the plane being the subject of two panels and the face not visible is your own interpretation. The general scene painted by Lichtenstein was from a comic which featured Johnny Cloud. We know that Lichtenstein changed various aspects of the original but nobody says Lichtenstein swapped in a new pilot. Binksternet (talk) 18:56, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes. I would also like the reader to be told that the text in the text balloon was written by Kanigher to represent Johnny Cloud's thoughts.
"He reproduced the Ben Day dots of comic strips by laying a metal screen over his canvas, spreading paint with a roller and rubbing it in with a toothbrush."
That is not an adequate WP:RS to support this fact in this article. Lichtenstein only used this technique after doing circles freehand for a while. Several early works have uneven dots, such as Look Mickey, Engagement Ring (Roy Lichtenstein), and likely I Can See the Whole Room...and There's Nobody in It!. We need a source that says by the time he did this work he was using metal screens.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:54, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Particularly pertaining to the "Benday dots" I also find this: "The piece was drawn directly on to canvas with pencil and painted in layers of oil and the Magna brand of acrylic paint. Layering meant the paint could remain wet during the production process and allow for manipulations of shape and colour. The Benday dots were produced using a scrub brush and handmade metal screen, the outline of which is evident, on close inspection, in parts of the background. From the preparatory drawing we can see how Lichtenstein has manipulated the original source, including the text."
Added.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:25, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
"But he never abandoned his signature method, the Ben-Day dot (named after inventor Benjamin Day's 1879 technique for reproducing printed images by using dots to recreate gradations of shading), ensuring that his work would remain as recognisable as it was quotable."
"The Ben-Day dots, too, were meant to suggest the manufactured and simulated: "The dots I use to make the image ersatz. And I think the dots also may mean data transmission." The work is "supposed to look like a fake, and it achieves that, I think," he explained." Bus stop (talk) 22:09, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
  • There should be a link to Robert Kanigher who developed the character Johnny Cloud, USAAF pilot, member of the hot-shot squadron called The Losers. "Character Sketch: The Comic That Inspired Roy Lichtenstein", Yale Press, June 26, 2012. Binksternet (talk) 23:45, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
    • The Kanigher/Johnny Cloud stuff is interesting in and of itself, but isn't it tangential to the painting? Given that the imagery was combined from a number of strip panels, we don't even know if that silhouette is "really" Johnny Cloud. After all, it's clearly not the same plane. Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:08, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
      • The Yale Press connected the dots. We cite reliable sources, and the Yale Press is one of them. Binksternet (talk) 03:46, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
        • ""We cite reliable sources" doesn't mean we hunt down every source imaginable and then pile the article up with every tangential tidbit we can find—otherwise, we end up with this. This article doesn't even have a summary of the story the panel(s) originally came from (nor is anyone calling for one), but we're supposed to have the backstory to that nonesxitant back story?
          Far more importantly, notice that the Yale source states: "Several of Lichtenstein’s comics-inspired paintings, including Okay Hot-Shot, Okay! (1963); Von Karp (1963); and Jet Pilot (1962), are based on a character named Johnny Cloud from the DC Comic’s All American Men of War series (1956 to 1966)." Never in the body of the article is Whaam! even once mentioned—though the painting is used to illustrate the article, without comment. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:19, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
          • The Paul Gravett source which is already used in the article says that the pilot in Whaam! is Johnny Cloud. Binksternet (talk) 00:51, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
            • The Gravett claims no such thing. Here's what it does say:
              1. "... the image would not have been drawn without the initial script probably by editor Robert Kanigher ..." — It is not clear who the writer of the story was; Gravett speculates it was Kanigher.
              2. "To be accurate, in the case of ‘WHAAM!’, Lichtenstein did not follow Irv Novick’s panel completely but used it as the underpinning composition and for one sound effect and narrative caption. He then sketched out a remixed version (above), replacing Novick’s side-view of the attacking plane on the left with a sharper, clearer plane at an angle, taken from the following issue, All American Men Of War #90, from the story ‘Wingmate of Doom’, panel 3 on page 11, drawn by Jerry Grandenetti (below)." — He did not use the plane that Johnny Cloud was in.
              3. "... the most famous, most reproduced single panel from a comic book, but it has been totally removed from its context as merely one of 67 panels across a 13-page story." — Gravett then goes to describe the story and the story's background (including scans of the original 13-page story) but never once claims, suggests, or implies the silhouette in the painting was the same character that appeared in the story—in fact, he appears to imply the exact opposite when he emphasizes that the plane was replaced by one from a different story drawn by a different artist.
            • In short, there is no source that supports the claim that the silhouette is Johnny Cloud, or that the dialogue was written by Kanigher. That the original story included a character orginally co-created by Kanigher is tangential—at best endnote fodder, but in know way helps the reader better understand anything about the painting. Curly Turkey (gobble) 13:58, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
              • I disagree strongly. Paul Gravett says in his Kanigher obituary that Kanigher's "war comics were the sources for nearly all of Roy Lichtenstein's pop art of war, notably his 1963 paintings, Whaam!" The Kanigher text is an undeniably important part of the work of art, and we should tell the reader who wrote it. The library science lecturer Ernesto Priego of City University London, writing for Comics Grid, credits Kanigher with the text and Novick with the visuals, and connects the single Kanigher/Novick panel with the Lichtenstein work, despite the various changes to aircraft, flame, etc. Priego is not alone, of course. The Tate's own description of the artwork makes reference mainly to the single Kanigher/Novick image, you know, the one that says "Whaam" in it. Binksternet (talk) 15:19, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
                • The Guardian obituary was from 2002. The article where Gravett qualifies that with a "probably" was from 2013. It's pretty clear that Gravett has become less confident in that assumption. I don't expect the Tate to put the research in themselves (tracking down anonymous comics contributors? Unlikely)—they almost certainly relied on the statements of Gravett or others. Priego gives credit to Kanigher in his sources, but what does he base that on? The work is uncredited (as can be seen in the original posted at the Gravett 2013), and two years after that blog post, Gravett gives us his "probably". If Kanigher is to be credited, it will have to be similarly qualified. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:07, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
                • I do like this quote from the Priego: "Besides embodying the cultural prejudice against comic books as vehicles of art, examples like Lichtenstein’s appropriation of the vocabulary of comics highlight the importance of taking publication format in consideration when defining comics, as well as the political economy implied by specific types of historical publications, in this case the American mainstream comic book. To what extent was National Periodical Publications (later DC) responsible for the rejection of the roles of Kanigher and Novick as artists in their own right by not granting them full authorial credit on the publication itself?"
                  It seems Priego's saying that Lichtenstein can't be blamed for not crediting the original creator(s), as they were anonymized by the company that produced the comic book. I think it might be worthwhile considering working that into the article. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:16, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I think you guys should know, that I am extremely inexperienced at editing contentious topics. I am not much of a fan of dabates. I avoid editing contentious topics like the plague. I apologize for my tentative style of editing these topics that are under debate. I admit that I am probably seeking consensus on this talk page more than might be normal. I hope it obtains on some issues. Failing that, I hope someone else would take a stab editing these issues.-TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:18, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments from John

Oppose on prose, and this is before I properly read the lengthy discussions above. I hate "iconic" being in the lead as it's a glum cliché (even if it's true), and the existence of "the sketch is on two piece of papers" found on a cursory glance at the article suggests it has not been properly proof-read. --John (talk) 07:36, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

(Delegate comment - I have moved the lengthy discussion, which was above to the nomination's Talk Page. Graham Colm (talk) 21:16, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment from Modernist

Strong oppose pending resolution to Bus Stop's objections, discussion here: ...Modernist (talk) 18:52, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Since there is very little agreement from other discussants about his issues, they were given little weight. If you agree with all or some of his thoughts please explain what you would like to see done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 19:33, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
P.S. You may not be familiar with the fact that GrahamColm (talk · contribs), one of the FAC directors moved his 97KB of issues to the FAC talk page at Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates/Whaam!/archive1. Much of his commentary was ignored by me the nominator because the other discussants disagreed with most of it. Read the full 97KB before standing so strongly behind this oppose. After a FAC director cast his comments aside, you found him seeking an audience at the Misplaced Pages:Village_pump_(policy).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 19:42, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
I've read most of his comments here and on the talk page - the gist is he objects to discussion regarding Lichtenstein's relationship to his comicbook sources - in general - and thinks those general discussions belong to the Roy Lichtenstein biography and/or the Appropriation article. Bus Stop is not a troll and his issues cannot be swept under the rug...Modernist (talk) 20:23, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
If you've read the 97k, then show some eveidence by resonding to the actual points that have been made. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:46, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
I suggest that all discussion regarding Roy's sources for this painting ("Whaam!) be included; while general discussion of Lichtenstein's relationship to comic book artists and comic book art (in general) be added to his biography and not be included here - This is an article about a specific painting (albeit part of a group of 'War' paintings), but not part of a specific series...Modernist (talk) 20:35, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your prompt response. This article falls under WP:WPVA, WP:MILHIST and WP:COMICS. Most of the content that you, Modernist (talk · contribs), and Bus stop (talk · contribs) as WPVA members are objecting to is content that has been encouraged by COMICS members Curly Turkey (talk · contribs) and Hiding (talk · contribs). To me it seems like some general context is relevant for an article. This is the first controversial article that I have ever tried to promote. Have you considered the COMICS opposition, what they call the commercial art perspective? I am fairly sure you will say you have so I guess I shall ask if you could clarify the broad elements that you would like to see moved more specifically. Are you talking about all of Whaam!#General_context, some of that section or more than that?---TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 21:19, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
I think that section is not needed. This is about the painting specifically. Roy was a painter he wasn't a cartoonist...Modernist (talk) 21:28, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
And nobody's made the slightlest attempt to paint Lichtenstein as a cartoonist. What's your point? That context is bunk? Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:46, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
My point is Lichtenstein is an important painter - if you want context - use the artworld of the 1960s when Abstract Expressionism was waning, and Minimalism, Hard-Edge Painting, Color Field painting and Pop Art was on the rise. No one was looking at the comic books; since you brought it up...Modernist (talk) 22:10, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
I have trouble reading this response as anything but a bizarre non sequitur. How is this an argument from removing context? Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:17, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
I guess you just don't have a clue...Modernist (talk) 22:24, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
WP:NPA, WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL? Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:05, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't expect the Tate or the CAI to add to discussions in every single painting Lichtenstein's relationship to commercial sources in general. Specific sources for this painting are enough...Modernist (talk) 21:40, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Then you disagree with the weight given to those sources by multiple RSes? Please read those multiple RSes before responding, or we'll just go through this whole ridiculous treadmill yet again. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:46, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

For the record, I do think the "General context" section is way overdone and should be severely reduced, and possibly merged into another section. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:49, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

This is very good. Please let me know what elements of that should be moved to the bio, since it is you and Hiding that I have included this for.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 23:29, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
What if we start by moving the 1st and 3rd paragraph to the bio? That is about half of the content? (Directed at Curly Turkey and Hiding).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 23:35, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
I made my comments clear - I think the General context section can be removed.... reduced here to a couple of sentences the entire section or one like it can be added to the biography, and linked here...Modernist (talk) 21:57 22:05, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
It should be made clear that most of the content of that section wasn't there when Bus Stop was making his comments. Bus Stop's comments did not refer to most of what is in that section now. He clearly stated he wanted all context to do with attribution issues removed (but you read the 97k, so you know this, right?). Read the BBC, Gravett, and Priego sources. They spend paragraph after paragraph talking about exactly those issues in the context of this painting.
So answer these questions:
  1. Do you think context is bunk?
  2. Do you think it's still bunk even when multiple sources obsess over it?
  3. Can you be bothered to read the sources?
  4. Have you read any of the arguments to keep the contextual material at all?
———Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:15, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes I just responded to some sources presented in the discussion this weekend, which expanded this section. It seemed like there was a lot of agreement that the Priego content would be beneficial. Most of the other stuff was just links Hiding was pointing to but by people who are notable enough to have WP bios. Would be glad to move some of this content.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 23:29, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
These sources, often the case when analyzing an artist or a specific creator, are focusing on one work and then stating the same principles apply to a range of works by that creator. That's a very common writing style, but one must not be confused that it emphasizes the example picked over that issues on the creator. This is not to say that any of the Gravett source should be used at Whaam! as to call out the specifics noted, but that the broader strokes about Ray's work that Gravett and the other sources cover using Whaam! as the example are all sources that are much better suited for that discussion at Ray's article, not Whaam!. --MASEM (t) 22:26, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
True, most of the stuff that's recently been included shouldn't have. As I point out below, Bus Stop wasn't objecting to thatTemplate:Susbt:emdashhe couldn't have, as it wasn't in the article yet. Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:03, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
My answer stands - my comments stand - I don't answer to you! WP:NPA, WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL...Modernist (talk) 22:21, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
So your objection remains vague and unactionable, and thus can safely be ignored. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:53, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Have to agree on Bus Stop and Modernist's opposes here. The sections on "Background" and "General Context" are far too broad (covering all of Ray's comic-inspired works with very little specificity on Whaam! outside a few name-drop examples) that makes this article unfocused - failing WP:WIAFA#4 on length (regarding focus). Those sections should of course not be lost but brought into the article on Ray himself, and this article can call out (even with {{see also}} links) to the appropriate sections and a brief 2-3 paragraph about how Whaam! falls into these comic works and issues around them (necessary info to understand the "Description" section). The article without these sections still is a quality article, and far from in danger of being non-notable, but it shouldn't be considered Featured if it has these two bulky sections that are not specific to the picture. --MASEM (t) 22:23, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Very good to have a strong opinion about the content from a non-WP:WPVA and non-WP:COMICS person.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 23:29, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Masem: The "General context" section wasn't what Bus Stop objected to—he couldn't have, as almost none of it was there during the discussion that has been archived. What he objected to was including anything to do with attribution issues—which he characterized as "out of left field" (a direct quote).
It appears, Masem, that you actually support my position: culling the ugly beast that the "General context" section has bloated into, and summarizing the attribution issues (you say 2–3 paragraphs; I actually thought a couple of sentences would suffice). By supporting this position, you are positioning yourself in opposition to Bus Stop's position.
Modernist's postition? I have no idea. All I see is non sequiturs and refusals to answer direct questions. Feel free to support that if you wish. Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:01, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Funny thing is - you don't have to understand my position. Just as long as Tony does...Modernist (talk) 01:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Funny thing is, you continue to make comments that contribute nothing to the improvement of the article. Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:26, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
That's your opinion...Modernist (talk) 02:55, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Okay, I read through the past (moved Bus Stop discussion) to some extent but didn't realize that bloated the article. I agree trimming it down to introduce the broader concepts of Ray's attribution and broader issues, in light of being able to discuss Whaam!. I oppose the current version (to wit, what I see here), and believe that it can be trimmed to focus on Whaam! and bringing in the key issues (and I do agree maybe 2-3 para is too much even, but you get my point). I think the way I got confused was due to how Bus Stop posed this on the VPP for attention. --MASEM (t) 01:08, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
To be clear I object to the general content section. I also object to the way Bus Stop has been bullied. Let's be clear - this is Tony's nomination by the way; I clearly stated my objection is to the redundant referrals to comic book art in general that do not specifically address the painting Whaam!...Modernist (talk) 01:39, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Bullying? Check out the browbeating (on the talk page) Bus Stop gave Tony for soliciting editor feedback from Peer Review, which he then proceeded to take to an unrelated ANI (where he calls Peer Review "outsourcing" editing, and tries to make look like some giant crime). Even after being told by an admin it had nothing to do with the open ANI, he continued the browbeating. Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:10, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Material for inclusion in this article ideally should be sourced to the painting that this article is about. Bus stop (talk) 01:45, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Editors should "ideally" not pretend that sources don't exist when multiple sources have not only been pointed out several times by several other editors but have been extensively quoted (many of the quotes are now archived on the talk page with the rest of Bus Stop's filibuster). Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:10, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
We should ideally be including material in this article that is supported by sources that mention by name the painting Whaam!. Bus stop (talk) 02:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
The problem is, the sources being used are broad strokes about Ray's work, using Whaam as the example. We can put some details out from those to discuss here in light of Whaam, but the broader issues should be on Ray's article to keep this article focused on Whaam! and not a larger critical nature of Ray's work. --MASEM (t) 02:54, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Which is why we summarize the issues. Which is what I've proposed repeatedly, but Bus Stop was hardline opposed to it, while claiming the sources cited didn't exist. Curly Turkey (gobble) 03:04, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
I think this edit removed some of another editor's post, or maybe two editors posted at the same time. I don't know. Bus stop (talk) 01:49, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Looks like a poorly resolved edit conflict to me. On that note, in these discussions is it not proper to strike out comments when we change our minds rather than rewrite them? Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:21, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't think anyone has really responded to me about what to do with the General Context section other than Modernist who says to axe the whole thing. Others above are discussing 2-3 paragraphs or 2-3 sentences. I have cut it to 2 paragraphs. Have a look.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 02:12, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
I have a couple of different ideas. One is that the two paragraphs could be moved to the "Reception" section, which I'd rename to "Reception and legacy" to accommodate it. Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:41, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
I got EC'd but this is my suggestion too. I think Ray's article needs reorg to highlight these issues there (possibly a separation section on his overall criticism, including one on appropriation) but that's not an issue for this article to proceed, just that we know we can broadly talk those issues on the artist's page. --MASEM (t) 02:44, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
I agree Tony, move the entire section to Roy's biography it doesn't belong in this article...Modernist (talk) 02:49, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Did you read the section again? It's already been gutted. You're not seriously suggesting moving the paragraph on Novick and Lichtenstein in the army out of the article are you? Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:54, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
That's exactly what I am saying - it adds nothing of value to this article which is about the painting done and exhibited in the early 60s; it's nasty and is irrelevant and can be moved to the biography, if needed at all....Modernist (talk) 03:01, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
It's about the source of this specific painting, not about Lichtenstein's work in general. Curly Turkey (gobble) 03:04, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
You also want to remove the Gibbons stuff, even though it's specifically about this painting, and was quoted in multiple RSes, including the BBC? Curly Turkey (gobble) 03:07, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
It's not that it isn't about this painting, but it is about this painting as a demonstration of Lichtenstein's larger body of work. This doesn't mean the source or info from it doesn't belong here, but we shouldn't be going on a tangent talking about Lichtensteins' overall reception on this article about one specific article. The way to read those sources is that they are "name dropping" Whaam as an example, but that doesn't mean the article is dedicated to Whaam. We have to balance what that source is trying to do with what its purpose is here. --MASEM (t) 03:46, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
I disagree. A quick summary of the work's reception as a part of the artist's overall oeuvre is exactly what I would expect to see as part of the article. Further, this particular painting is "namedropped" precisely because it is such a prominent painting—it plays a central in the artist's overall reception. I'd also dispute that, say, Priego's piece is merely "namedropping" Whaam! when it talks about the attribution issues. Gibbons followed up his criticism with another reimagining of the same panel—that's too remarkably specific Gibbons' criticism to be considered a "namedrop". Curly Turkey (gobble) 04:29, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
It's innuendo and basically irrelevant, that just takes up space, it is not needed...Modernist (talk) 03:10, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Gibbons is "innuendo"? In what way? Curly Turkey (gobble) 03:15, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Anyways, the Novick stuff is quoted by two authors in three academic sources (not the popular press), so I think they carry more weight than your opinion. Curly Turkey (gobble) 03:18, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
This is not your article, nor have you nominated it here for FA, and in my opinion the information is not needed in the article...Modernist (talk) 03:30, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
The onus is on you to demonstrate to the multiple editors who support having it that multiply-sourced information should be removed, not to strong oppose because YOUDONTLIKEIT. Curly Turkey (gobble) 04:17, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Guys lets try to keep a level head. Lichtenstein painted for about 50 years. From 1962-64, he did war comics and for a slightly longer period he did romance comics. For a reader of any specific war comic to understand its context some perspective on this period must be presented. We do not expect the reader of this article to be an expert on Lichtenstein and know how to contextualize this work in regards to Lichtenstein's career. We need to explain to the reader the things about this period in his career that will help him understand this work through context. Although all of the formerly 4 paragraph general context may belong in Lichtenstein, a summary of those concerns should be presented here to add breadth to the understanding of this work in the context of Lichtenstein's career. I am seeing remaining context that relates to Whaam! and am fairly certain some of it should stay. I think people are viewing this as deleting/keeping content is a win for one side. These two paragraphs both mention Whaam! and I would like some help winnowing out the most germane elements of the remaining content.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 04:19, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Modernist, I think you are quite riled up right now to the point where you will tell me to delete anything the COMICS guys want and Curly you are antagonizing him. As I look at the first of the two paragraphs in general context I see content that says "Lichtenstein's works were somewhat frowned upon in some circles for specific reasons and Whaam! is a prime example of this." That is my interpretation of the first paragraph. What I need is help from the two of you to distill this element of that content. You two having a verbal paintball war at this discussion does not help me.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 04:43, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
    • This is a balance issue, we're not talking about wiping out sections wholesale. I agree the reader needs to understand that Whaam! is a result of Lichtenstein's '62-64 period. However, much of what is in "Background" is at a level of detail appropriate for the Lichtenstein article. We have blue-links for a reason so that if a reader needs to learn more they can click through. So we can reduce "Background" to a paragraph that leads off the "History" section, with the paragraph focused tightly on this work being from that period. The stuff about being in the Army, or the stuff about comics as art, is extraneous here, but perfectly suited to the main artist article. Similarly with the General Context stuff. It's not about deleting it, but balancing it given this article is about the specific piece of art and not the artist in general. --MASEM (t) 04:46, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
        • "we're not talking about wiping out sections wholesale"—actually, that's exactly what Bus Stop and now Modernist are suggesting. Quote (Modernist): "That's exactly what I am saying - it adds nothing of value to this article ..." We were making a lot of progress with this article until this pair decided they wanted certain portions of it censored. Balance is not what they are striving for. Curly Turkey (gobble) 05:16, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
          • I understand that if WPVA had their way the article would omit COMICS' viewpoint. However, we have to get you two talking sensibly. We may never get to a point where WPVA says a featured article on this topic can include COMICS viewpoints, you need to tone down your approach. His "it adds nothing of value" surely was in part spurred on by your attitude. He also said it was "nasty and irrelevant". If this has any chance of getting through it will be with cogent discourse. I have dialogued with Modernist on many occasions. We have him at the table. I am interpretting his strong oppose as more of an objection to the treatment of Bus stop who has been well mannered enough not to knee-jerk oppose himself. As lengthy and almost tedious as Bus stops comments were they were in very good faith, which is quite commendable. Even when his comments got wiped away, he did not retaliate with an oppose. He is trying to be heard and Modernist is now carrying that torch. Modernist is more concise, which for me is better and I have a history with him. Reading Modernist's commentary now makes me feel I must get a better dialogue going. He is almost always quite precise and I don't feel "nasty and irrelevant" would have come from him if he were not spurred. We have a long way to go, but the best chance to get the WPVA approval is with them at the table, but not wearing others down. I am busy tomorrow morning, but hope that we can begin to make progress.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 06:07, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
      • Masem, do you agree with my one sentence interpretation of the first paragraph in the general context section ("Lichtenstein's works were somewhat frowned upon in some circles for specific reasons and Whaam! is a prime example of this."). What should we present to the reader to convey this information?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 04:49, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
      • Modernist, in general you are suppose to present favorable and unfavorable content for proper breadth. In order for this to ever get to FA, you are going to have to relent that COMICS folks have a lot of bad stuff to say about Lichtenstein (much of which they feel this painting exemplifies) and its entirety can not be excised. You need to help me figure out what bad COMICS stuff is most important to broaden the high art perspective rather than saying just axe all the COMICS stuff.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 04:59, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
        • Assuming we can link to a more detailed discussion on Lichtenstein's article, I would consider that a reasonable summary, though language-wise, I'd flip it to the Whaam angle than Lichtenstein: (read: putting it into context of the painting as the article subject instead of approaching it from the Lichtenstein angle). That is, that first para of General Context can be summariezed as a sentence in "Negative" "Reception", along the lines of "Whaam! is considered a prime example of Lichtenstein's works that borrow elements from other copyrighted worked to which is claimed that Lichtenstein did not credit, pay royalties, or seek permission from the original artists.", and linking to the reader to a more detailed discussion of this concept. --MASEM (t) 07:15, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
          • Now we are making progress. I am going offline for a bit. I will come back to this.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 07:46, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
            • This is something I've had in the back of my mind, but have been waiting for the "issues" to die down first, but since it's come up: I think it would be best to drop the "Negative" and "Positive" subsections. They're a little too artifical and black-and white. Dropping the subsection titles would allow for a number of improvements:
              1. contrasting views could be presented together, which would make the issues clearer and be more interesting reading.
              2. It would give more editorial leeway in organizing the information.
              3. Certain issues such as attribution are not necessarily "Negative"—raising concerns about such issues is not a negative comment on the artwork per se, but on the artist (although Gibbons condemns both, they're not the same thing).
              4. It wouldn't unduly attract attention to the "Negative" side of the argument.
                ——— Curly Turkey (gobble) 08:57, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
This is outside of the scope of this article: "Although Lichtenstein's comic-based work is now widely accepted, concerns are still expressed by critics who say Lichtenstein did not credit, pay any royalties to, or seek permission from the original artists or copyright holders." Similarly this in the lead is outside of the scope of this article: "Lichtenstein has drawn criticism for not giving credit or compensation to the artists from whose works the painting's composition was derived. Despite controversy surrounding its artistic merit, originality and ethical propriety, Lichtenstein's comics-based work has since become popular with collectors and is now widely accepted as high art." This does not belong in this article. This is not an article about Lichtenstein's work in general. This is an article about an individual painting. I suggest removing those two blocks of text. Bus stop (talk) 10:59, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
I am going to be brief because I have an appointment in just over an hour. Here is the rub. The COMICS guys have a lot of bad stuff to say about Lichtenstein in general. These are both general comments. However, the COMICS guys think (as I understand it) that Whaam! is almost the definitive example of these general ideas. Think about it. What painting did Gibbons parody? Where did the BBC4 interview take place? The WPVA guys are not hearing the COMICS guys who are saying "These are our general thoughts on Lichtenstein and this is our case in point" WPVA guys, please think about that. I repeat again. "These are our general thoughts on Lichtenstein and this is our case in point" You can not eliminate these very general thoughts in this situation. General thoughts yes, but probably appropriate in this article for that reason.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 12:46, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Far from being "outside of the scope of this article", I would consider the information in the first sentence (not necessarily this wording) to be part of the minimum context necessary to understand the work. If this article is to be a TFA (Tony's aiming for the upcoming 50th anniversary), one cannot assume the readers will have any knowledge of Lichtenstein. I don't understand this resistance to providing sufficient context. An "article about an individual painting" requires context. Curly Turkey (gobble) 12:02, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't disagree that one needs a brief intro for who Lichtenstein is, but checking other FA articles on artwork, the details should be laser-guided focused on how that background (not just artist but any art movement at the time) impacted the work so that the reader is being guided right towards the "History" section on how this artwork came about. As how "Background" reads presently, it is very meandering and feels like more a bio than anything else, which is why it feels clunky. (Contrast this to Drowning Girl's Background which I feel is a much more readable section). I will note that that "General COntext" section in "Drowning Girl" suffers the same problem here - all that should be a section in Lichtenstein's own article, and the reception section should briefly summarize it while pointing the reader to it. I will note that no single Wikiproject necessarily has any more weight over others in terms of what content needs to be present and consensus (like this) is used to resolve when there are irreconcilable differences between the two projects. --MASEM (t) 13:45, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Masem—you say "I will note that no single Wikiproject necessarily has any more weight over others in terms of what content needs to be present". It is not so much a matter of Wikiprojects but rather logical significance. Lichtenstein was a fine artist. That is first and foremost. He worked in an abstract expressionistic vein in his early endeavors. The target audience for his output were gallery goers, art museum attendees, and art collectors. The primary orientation of this article therefore should be to the world of fine art. Were there a copyright infringement lawsuit, that would be worth noting. But there is little justification for more than a cursory representation of the supposed complaints emanating from a hypothetical comic book crowd. Dave Gibbons is represented in our article. He gets to say that "this is 'WHAAM! by Roy Lichtenstein, after Irv Novick'." It has to be pointed out how unenlightening that comment is. Does it shed light on this painting? I can't see how it does. But it is technically within the scope of this article, so it can be included. But there is nothing special about that comment. There are hallmarks of the origins of imagery. Appropriation preserves those hallmarks; it doesn't try to hide them. Dave Gibbons is stating the obvious. Contrast that with comments by art historian Richard Morphet. He writes: "Perhaps the immediate impact of Whaam! makes some viewers equate instantaneity with superficiality, as if there is nothing more to the work than what can be taken in at a glance. In fact, though, its very boldness is an ingredient of its complexity." Morphet goes on to say: "Lichtenstein’s image was striking in terms of its grandeur, its composition, and its colour." And Morphet continues: "It seemed to address at the same time history painting, Baroque extravagance, and the quotidian phenomenon of mass-circulation comic strips." These are insightful comments from the correct orientation. The painting fits most logically into the world of art. Bus stop (talk) 16:03, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Bus stop, keep in mind that Masem, represents the common reader here. He is not a comics person. His reading of the comics side seems to be that something is there.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 16:14, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
TonyTheTiger—you say "Bus stop, keep in mind that Masem, represents the common reader here. He is not a comics person. His reading of the comics side seems to be that something is there." What is "the comics side", and can you please quote from Masem his supposed representation of "the comics side"? Bus stop (talk) 16:32, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
I have only a passing interest in comics, and absolutely no interest in MILHIST or the art projects; my interest in this article only extends from a possible non-free issue aspect that has been amicably resolved. --MASEM (t) 17:31, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Tony, I think you're forgetting Binksternet's contributions. He makes no mention of comics on his userpage, and isn't listed at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Comics/Participants. He's gone as far as finding multiple new sources for the article. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:33, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes Binksternet is also not affiliated with either WPVA or COMICS, AFAIK.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 02:06, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Curly, We have a starting point for summarizing paragraph 1 of the general context section as "Whaam! is considered a prime example of Lichtenstein's works that borrow elements from other copyrighted worked to which is claimed that Lichtenstein did not credit, pay royalties, or seek permission from the original artists." Can you comment.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 16:14, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I think it comes off worded fairly strongly. The accusations of plagiarism need to be balanced: Sooke's points were good, as is Priego's point about the original artists' anonymity. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:16, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
From the Sooke article: "“I continue to be astonished that people in the ‘60s thought – as some still do – that there is no difference between Lichtenstein’s source image and the finished painting,” art historian Richard Morphet tells me." So such accusations are not limited to the "comics people", nor are they recent. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:22, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Same article: "Fifty years ago, in the same year that Lichtenstein painted Whaam!, an art historian called Erle Loran attacked him in an article headlined “Pop Artists or Copy Cats?” Surely, in 2013, it is time we stopped accusing Lichtenstein of plagiarism once and for all." So can we stop characterizing this stuff as recentism or limited to the comics crowd. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:24, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
TonyTheTiger—this is out of the scope of this article. This article is not about "other copyrighted worked to which is claimed that Lichtenstein did not credit, pay royalties, or seek permission from the original artists." Assertions made in this article should be sourced to the painting named in the title of this article. Bus stop (talk) 16:43, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, there are some who allege that there is impropriety in the sourcing of imagery in Whaam, but there is the complete absence of any lawsuit for copyright infringement. See this edit. Bus stop (talk) 23:18, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Read Gibbons' comments. Never does he accuse Lichtenstein of plagiarism (a legal problem), but of not crediting the artist he "swiped" from (an ethical problem). An "absence of any lawsuit" is a red herring. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:26, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Though the BBC article brings up "plagiarism", it's not characterized as coming from the comics crowd. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:28, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't think I have ever mentioned a "comics crowd". This is just an article on a painting. But the question is: What is a painting? It is an object of fine art. This doesn't mean that a comic book artist can't have an opinion to express. But I think we exercise editorial discretion as to how extensively we cover the comments from various quarters. I feel that the world of fine art might be able to provide worthwhile commentary. I'm not saying that a comic book artist is incapable of providing commentary on a painting that fits into the world of art galleries, art museums, and art collections, but just that we should judge all commentary for its value to the article. This is simply editorial discretion. Bus stop (talk) 00:19, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
  • "What is a painting? It is an object of fine art." A vacuous, black-and-white statement. Of course there is no lack of paintings that fail the criteria to be "fine art" by any definition. Of course there are paintings meant to be commercial art with no fine art aspirations. Of course there are works that straddle the line between high & low, and that people will vigorously debate about long after our great-gradnchildren have passed on.
  • Please familiarize yourself with the Featured article criteria, particularly 1(b): "comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context;" (bold in the original). A work has a context: what was the cultural situation out of which it sprang? What were the short- and long-term reactions to it? What is its significance in its subculture, and in the culture at large? A work does not exist in a vacuum.
  • If you "feel that the world of fine art might be able to provide worthwhile commentary", then the solution is to track down the sources and add them, not to remove material that you personally don't like.
——— Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:42, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
You are entitled to your opinion, and the art world is full of a lot of strange stuff, and those interested in art certainly do not always agree with one another. We try to write good quality articles, and this remains in the final analysis an article about a work of art that has been displayed in art galleries and museums. It has aroused a lot of controversy from various quarters and this has produced commentary—some illuminating, and some less so. The complaint that the painting Whaam! looks like a comic book, while an apt observation, does not provide insight. It is just my opinion that the average reader perusing this article has questions, such as how does this painting relate to the history of art? That sort of information is likely to come from someone steeped in the world of fine art. It could come from a comic book artist. I'm just saying that insightful commentary is more likely to come from for instance those who habitually write about art. Bus stop (talk) 01:58, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
  • You're really struggling with the whole idea of comprehensiveness, aren't you?
  • "The complaint that the painting Whaam! looks like a comic book" Who "complained" that the painting "looks like a comic book"?
  • "average reader perusing this article has questions, such as how does this painting relate to the history of art" and how it relates to the culture outside of the world of art. A work of art has a historical and cultural context, and cannot be comprehended outside of that context. Context contributes significantly, often overwhelmingly, to an artwork's meaning.
  • Not everything in the article should be strictly about the meaning of the painting. Its impact on the culture around it is an important part of the painting. Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:20, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Bus Stop, there is no requirement for what you are looking for, those you are right that going too far into the broader claims about Lichtenstein's so-called appropriation is inappropriate for this article. But, it is clear from the sourcing (my read of them) that talking about Whaam! and not at least dropping a line (with a blue link to Lichtenstein's article on the appropriation claims) is missing out on an important facet of Whaam!. To not mention in one sentence how Whaam! is treated as the prime example of this claimed appropriation is not fully covering Whaam! But more than a sentence or two, and we're beyond scope. There's a median solution here that I'm easily seeing, not any "must be in" or "must not be covered" extreme. --MASEM (t) 23:32, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Masem—have you seen this edit? I am saying in that edit that some allege impropriety of image sourcing. Isn't that what the allegations are? Is there alternative language that is preferable? Bus stop (talk) 23:57, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
That's a bad edit. It's more than just a copyright issue or whether it was legally tried, but even attribution (as I understand the sources). The prior statement accurately covered all the facets of this concept of appropriation by Lichtenstein and appears appropriately sourced. --MASEM (t) 00:33, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
It's also the solution I first proposed to Bus Stop, all those moons ago. He still claims these "sources" you speak of don't actually exist. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:36, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Curly Turkey—what is this edit summary in reference to? Bus stop (talk) 23:47, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Bus Stop—it means you made an edit favourable to your POV while we were in the middle of discussing it. You did the same once before, and were reverted for it then, too. Plaese wait until consensus has been reached before making edits that you are fully aware are contentious and are under active discussion. Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:43, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
No, I have not been "told" anything of the sort, and you are not linking to anything confirming your assertion. Again, this is your edit summary: "(Undid revision 566643248 by Bus stop (talk) Bus Stop, you've been told before to cut this behaviour out.)" Bus stop (talk) 01:22, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Here is the previous contentious edit you made, and here is Tony reverting you with the edit comment: "Undid revision 566291072 by Bus stop (talk) You are currently being disputed by other FAC respondents such as User:Hiding, User:Curly Turkey and myself". Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:28, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Curly Turkey—in the future please don't leave edit summaries which mention me and mislead or misconstrue. This is a question of common courtesy. Bus stop (talk) 01:42, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Bus Stop—I didn't, and I don't. In the future, please refrain from being distruptive. Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:03, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Gibbons image

I could've sworn we removed the image because the article was already filled up with FU images, and since it didn't contribute directly to the understanding of the painting, it fell outside of the Non-free use rationale guideline. Given that there are those who think Gibbons' view is overrepresented already, this seems like a pretty contentious thing to do.

If it's going to be kept, there are a few more things to keep in mind:

  • According to MOS:IMAGELOCATION: "Avoid placing images on the left at the start of any section or subsection, because it makes it harder for readers to find the beginning of the text. Images on the left are best placed somewhere after the first paragraph." It appears the image has been moved.
  • The image should be placed along with the text on Gibbons, rather than just at a convenient location in the section.
  • Many editors frown upon forcing the image size, as it overrides user settings.

——— Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:24, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Bus Stop's disruptive editing

Check out this, in which Bus Stop changes:

Daily Telegraph critic Alastair Smart wrote a disparaging review in which he characterized Whaam! as an attempt to mimic abstract expressionism. Smart said the work was neither a positive commentary on the fighting American spirit nor a critique, but was notable for marking "Lichtenstein's incendiary impact on the US art scene"

to:

Alastair Smart, critic for the Daily Telegraph, observes that Lichtenstein is best known for "narrative scenes". Smart notes that while Whaam! is derived from "an American war comic", its size rivals that of the large paintings common to Abstract expressionism. Smart claims that the painting may be notable for marking "Lichtenstein's incendiary impact on the US art scene".

Here's the actual Smart review. In particular, Bus Stop has reworded the passage to make "Lichtenstein's incendiary impact on the US art scene" was intended as a positive statement, when it's clear in the original that it was meant disparagingly.

Bus stop has been told twice before to quit this self-serving style of editing, reverted by TonyTheTiger here and by myself here.

——— Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:56, 1 August 2013 (UTC)


Curly Turkey—why are you reverting me here? Bus stop (talk) 03:22, 1 August 2013 (UTC)