Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 06:31, 16 March 2022

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 10:02, 9 September 2013 (UTC) .

Whaam!

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

• Featured article candidates/Whaam!/archive1
• Featured article candidates/Whaam!/archive2

Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 17:37, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Reiterating the opening paragraph from Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Whaam!/archive1 (henceforth FAC1): 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.

FAC1 was a very controversial nomination with 221,314 bytes plus 132,512 bytes archived to the talk page for a total of 353,826 bytes of content (call it 354KB) after 4 weeks. It had 2 supports (Curly Turkey and Binksternet) and 2 opposes (Modernist and John). John's oppose was on a 2-week-old version of the article. Modernist had wavered between oppose and support in the discussion and his oppose was an hour and a half old when the discussion closed. However, the reason for his most recent opposition stance had been reverted. At closure, several active discussants were undecided (Bus stop, Masem and Ewulp). Other undecided discussants with notable contributions to the discussion were Hiding and to a lesser extent Theramin who was an active editor of the article. Mr Stephen also made several edits to the article during its prior candidacy, but did not engage in the discussion. At one point, GrahamColm moved 97,268 bytes of Bus stop's comments (and responses by others) to the FAC1 talk page with the edit summary "I see this as peripheral to FAC criteria". Other discussants noted Bus stop's tireless and tiresome discussion style. Curly Turkey described it at various times as a filibuster and treadmilling. Masem, the most neutral of discussants on several issues, stated "Bus Stop's complaints are trivial and nuanced at best"

The prior discussion was contentious because WP:COMICS discussants (Curly Turkey and Hiding) wanted more detailed explanation of topics that WP:WPVA discussants (Bus stop and Modernist) felt were out of scope for this article. More specifically, COMICS folks have lots of negative commentary against Lichtenstein and this work is considered the prime example of their general arguments. The issue is how much of that criticism actually belongs in this article. For WPVA I have 6 (3 paintings and 3 sculptures) of the 56 FA-Class visual arts articles and 25 of the 112 GA-Class visual arts articles including my first GA and first FA, Campbell's Soup Cans. However, many of these crossed over into COMICS since June 2012 and I now have 2 of the 31 FA-Class Comics articles and 8 of the 159 GA-Class Comics articles. I have attempted to both be impartial and use my longstanding relationships with WPVA members to move the discussion forward. Due to the possibility of a 50th anniversary TFA and the unusual nature of the 354KB controversial nomination, a delegate has granted permission for a relisting after only 48 hours. Hopefully, four weeks from now we have reached a resolution of this discussion rather than accumulated 100s of KB of more contentious debate.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 17:37, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support. My concerns were addressed at the first FAC, that the comics aspect should be given proper weight, naming the writers/editors/artists of the comic book which inspired Lichtenstein. My support is contingent on this material remaining in the article. If someone were to argue successfully that very little about comics was to be in the article then I would oppose the FAC. Binksternet (talk) 19:08, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

• Weak weak opposeSupport with changes in BG section. Most of what I had issue with was dealt with in the first FAC (in removing much about the appropriation aspects to other articles, keeping this focused on Whaam!) This still leaves me with the "Background" section that needs improvement, as I find it too disjointed towards guiding the reader to understand why Litchenstein went to create this. It currently is focused too much on Litchenstein's past (Which should be in Litchenstein's article) and little on the pop art movement at the time. It should flow from the pop art state to Litchenstein's work to Whaam. This is easily fixed though I don't feel I have the knowledge to be able to do it justice. It's a simple barrier to get over. --MASEM (t) 19:23, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I am not sure how to respond to this concern. The section now has 4 paragraphs. The first explains that he had a military background that included pilot training. The second says that he transitioned into comics-based works. Paragraph three says that this was unusual subject matter, but Lichtenstein enjoyed it. Paragraph four discusses the themes of Lichtenstein's work at the time and their relation to this image. Where would you like to see pop art added?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 20:09, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Also, I am not sure what is requested. Are you requesting content similar to the first half of Roy_Lichtenstein#Rise_to_prominence?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 20:14, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
    • It should be less a bio about Litchenstein, and more about the pop art movement at the time when Whaam was conceived and created, which likely includes Litchenstein's contribution. Yes, the fact he was in the military and that he transitioned to comic book works is important, but we don't need as much details about him here, and are lacking details about the art world at the time. --MASEM (t) 21:27, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

• FWIW at the time Lichtenstein painted and exhibited Whaam! Pop art was still in its infancy; the movement was in the process of becoming a movement; the artworld in the early 60s was in a state of transition as abstract expressionism and realism was on the wane and color field painting, geometric abstraction, minimal art, and pop art were beginning to attract more and more artists. In my opinion we don't really need to include any of this as context and I prefer the focus being on Lichtenstein's history...Modernist (talk) 12:13, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

• See, there you go, stating pop art was at its infancy. That's good to add, that gives the reader the idea this was early in the period. The problem with it now is that the focus on Litchenstein's past is that we have a whole article dedicated to him, so if someone really needs to know the detailed bio, they can go there, as it is out of context for the painting. There are elements of his bio that are needed here, that he's ex-military, that he never had a love of comic books but saw them as a challenge, and a few other things, but not as much as there is now. --MASEM (t) 12:27, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

• I disagree. I think good context for Whaam! should include what Lichtenstein had been doing, and what the art world had been up to, and how comics were viewed. Binksternet (talk) 14:01, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not saying those details aren't appropriate either, but right now the section weighs far too heavy on Litchenstein's detailed background (which is already at his personal article) and very little on the state of the art world at the time. We don't need his military record, but just to know he was in the military as to understand his fascination with that topic area. Similarly, pointing out that he wasn't a fan of comics but saw the use of comic-based work for his art as a challenge is an appropriate statement. But the lack of discussion to place where the state of the art world, and specifically pop art, is what this should start off at as to guide the reader to understand Litchenstein's desires better. --MASEM (t) 14:08, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Binksternet—you are asking "how comics were viewed". I think the answer to that is simple: comic books were viewed as being part of "popular culture". That is why their imagery was drawn upon by artists seeking to represent the imagery of "popular culture" in their paintings. Bus stop (talk) 14:20, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Masem is raising a good point but responding to it in our article would hinge upon the availability of sources addressing the question of how Lichtenstein's employment of imagery closely related to comic books fits into the pop artists' more general employment of a wider variety of images culled from what is commonly referred to as "popular culture". Masem says "This still leaves me with the "Background" section that needs improvement, as I find it too disjointed towards guiding the reader to understand why Litchenstein went to create this. It currently is focused too much on Litchenstein's past (Which should be in Litchenstein's article) and little on the pop art movement at the time. It should flow from the pop art state to Litchenstein's work to Whaam. This is easily fixed though I don't feel I have the knowledge to be able to do it justice." I don't think anyone has "the knowledge". Unless you find a source assigning significance to Lichtenstein's embrace of the comic book form seen in for instance the Whaam! painting, the Drowning Girl painting, and others, I think there is no way to fit Lichtenstein's choice of imagery in such paintings, into the more general category of images relating to "popular culture". Lichtenstein, in other paintings, certainly does avail himself of other types of images aside from those relating to comic books. I did find one comment in a source which I think slightly sheds light on the distinction that his comic-book-related images have which sets them apart from pop art imagery generally. In this article in The Telegraph, Alastair Smart says the following: "It’s his narrative scenes, though, for which Lichtenstein is best known: inspired not by the Bible or classical myth, but by comic books. In 1963’s diptych Whaam! – reworked from an American war comic and enlarged to mimic a huge Ab Ex canvas – a fighter pilot blasts an enemy into flaming oblivion." I think that in that comment Alastair Smart is distinguishing between the comic-book-related paintings that Lichtenstein has made, and just about all other works of pop art produced either by Lichtenstein or any other pop artist. Rather than try to paraphrase what Alastair Smart says I think we should just place his quote into our article: "It’s his narrative scenes, though, for which Lichtenstein is best known: inspired not by the Bible or classical myth, but by comic books. In 1963’s diptych Whaam! – reworked from an American war comic and enlarged to mimic a huge Ab Ex canvas – a fighter pilot blasts an enemy into flaming oblivion." Bus stop (talk) 13:56, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Context

• Lichtenstein on comics and the art world - 1966 BBC Interview with David Sylvester ...Modernist (talk) 14:35, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I hope you are saying this is context to understand the subject better and not suggesting that these contain things that would add context to our article. This is 1966. By then, he wasn't even really doing comic-based work anymore. This could be useful at the bio.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 04:56, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Precisely - this is just for us...Modernist (talk) 11:17, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
• A view of comic books in the 1950s - Dr. Fredric Wertham's 1954 condemnation of comic books Seduction of the Innocent...Modernist (talk) 14:35, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I added this here just for us...Modernist (talk) 11:17, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

• • Wertham's book is about the alleged contribution comic books (particularly crime and horror) made on juvenile delinquency. It contributed in a big way to the 1954 Senate hearings, but it wasn't about "high culture" vs "low culture", which is the relevent context for 1963—comic books were no longer seen as "dangerous" things, but as low-culture trash. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:29, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Educational subject. Doesn't point to anything relevant for the article, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 04:56, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Images

At FAC1, there was last-minute controversy around the images. GermanJoe, had approved all the images except for File:Drawing for Whaam!.jpg. After I removed the image, Modernist opposed because he felt that the image review suggested that more content was needed related to the image rather than the image be removed. I have since added content related to the image. GermanJoe, suggested that I now request Masem's opinion on the images based on his intimacy with the topic.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 20:52, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

If we start on the assumption that File:Drawing_for_'Whaam!'_cropped.JPG is a free image - which shows good detail of how Litchenstein would have proceeded to paint the painting from his sketch, then File:Drawing for Whaam!.jpg is extranous non-free as we basically currently have 4 drawings of the same "thing" in the photo, but the details provided by the cropped version do just as an effective job to help explain Litchenstein's creation process.

I will however state my concern that the cropped drawing being called free. I know I doubted the text balloon crop as being a free image before but was demonstrated wrong at Commons, a rationale I understand, but I think the cropped is far more than just text (more than the text balloon) and hard to argue as ineligible for copyright. I would recommend getting commons experts to review the image there. If they say its free , then my above statement stands. If it is not free, the full sketch is reasonable to remain behind, since the user can manually zoom in to see the coloring guide detail. --MASEM (t) 21:47, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

When you say "more than just text" do you mean something like a notable quotation. I wouldn't oppose removing the cropped text balloon, if we can keep the cropped drawing as free. I just need one free image for the main page in case of being eliigible for a WP:TFAR.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 00:14, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

One image of the sketch is sufficient to show, in line with the text, how he did a "paint-by-numbers" type approach to the sketch prior to projecting and painting it. The non-free, full sketch image is sufficient resolution to be able to see that in the WHAAM letters, so we don't need the higher resolution. However, if the cropped version manages to be free, then that image should be used. Basically, we don't need the sketch to show the layout of the art for the 3rd/4th time, but to show the paint-by-numbers scheme, so a finer detail that would happen to be free would be just as appropriate and better than a non-free full version. --MASEM (t) 00:27, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

You feel that even with the additional content the full drawing is redundant with the crop? Keep in mind we don't have the image at a high resolution for zooming. IIRC, when i ran my first FA, Campbell's Soup Cans, at WP:TFA, they allowed me to crop one can for the main page. That is sort of what I am doing here. In the long run the article may be better with the full image than the crop.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 00:14, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Calling Modernist: Since you opposed the removal of the full image of the drawing, you may want to comment here.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 00:16, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Given that Campbell's Soup Cans was a TFA back in 2007, prior to the adoption of our current non-free content policy, I suspect that what could go on TFA was not as rigorous as it is now (though looking at the talk page of that, it does appear that no image was allowed on Main Page, and the blurb page has no image period, so I don't know what exactly happened). Today, zero non-free can be on the front page (there was even a recent discussion about this a few months ago) Now, as explained at commons, the speech balloon crop is free so that's at least something because it is just text - for all purposes. Here, you actually have elements of the flames and the like behind WHAAM, meaning it is more than just text, and ergo is more a possible problem that there are still copyrightable elements in the crop, hence why I would get commons to review if that crop is tight enough to leave something uncopyrightable. --MASEM (t) 00:27, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

And just to note, I do see that there was an image called "Campbells_Soup_Cans_MOMA_reduced_80%25.jpg" used in a May 5, 2007 version of the Soup Cans blurb, but given that with my admin powers I don't see it here, I suspect was since deleted at Commons, meaning that it was not considered free later. Your speech balloon crop is clearly okay for a TFA front page, since commons says that crop is sufficient for ineligible copyright, so you have something. I just feel that you can't call the crop that you have around the WHAAM in the draft image includes too much that is beyond lettering to be ineligible for copyright, which is why I suggest a call over to commons to help review. --MASEM (t) 00:36, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

To help out, I posed the question at commons: . --MASEM (t) 00:42, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I think we should keep the full image - it shows that he actually drew the entire picture not just the blown up crop depiction of Whaam with numbers - it's somewhat deceptive. Frankly we can dump the text balloon - which is really gratuitous and keep the full drawing and if possible the cropped drawing too...Modernist (talk) 01:11, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

• The complete drawing in the article with the painting makes the article - gives it quality; clarity and power. The full drawing belongs and aids in understanding how the painting was made it must be kept...Modernist (talk) 01:15, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

• Sorry, there's nothing in the text to support the full drawing if the cropped version around WHAAM is free. You have the final piece of art which doesn't vary significantly, so there's little comparison to be made there; the more interesting comparisons are between the original comic panels and the final art, and the final art and the parody work. You do want one of the two images of the sketch to show the mechanics Litchenstein used, but you don't need both, and if the cropped version is free, the full version has to go under NFCC#1. But if the cropped version is not, then the full version is fine (and then to meet TFA, you need the text balloon crop as the free image). --MASEM (t) 01:21, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
• The full drawing belongs and aids in understanding how the painting was made and the cropped version really should go - hopefully it isn't free (and one of these days you guys should change those rules so common sense dictates)...Modernist (talk) 01:30, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

• Sorry, but we have a mandate from the Foundation to reduce non-frees and encourage free content creation. The (possible) free image shows the process in as much depth as necessary that the sourcing in the text provides as the large one does, and there's nothing that demands the reader to see the large image to understand the processes any better than the cropped version does. --MASEM (t) 01:37, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

• I am more than willing to go to the mat to buff up the content related to the drawing to show its relevance, but I do not have sources supporting such. Is there a chance that with additional sources providing greater relevance to the drawing that it might be kept. There is already significant amount of text in the article discussing the differences between the original conception and the drawing and then the drawing and the original. It is not clear that this alone is not sufficient justification to present the entire Drawing.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 01:47, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

• The issue here is that we are looking at NFCC#8, second part, that the reader's understanding of the topic of Whaam! would be harms if we removed the non-free, full sketch. As we have the final colored art and the original work it was based on, composition elements are visually shown, so this aspect is not lost to the reader, nor am I seeing anything in text that describes major changes in placement between the draft sketch and the final art to a degree that needs visual imagery (There is the factor of how the plane and explosion were moved closer together in the final image, but that's something easily described in text). I do agree that seeing the paint-by-numbers approach is helpful and removal would be harmful, and thus if we do have to resort to a non-free image (the full drawing) to show this, that's fine. But there's a potential for free content to show the same thing and if that can be used (per the commons discussion) then we are required to do so and forego the full size draft image. If more can be found that describes the critical importance of the draft image (as a whole, or more on the copyrighted elements) on the final art, then that would lead to justifying the full non-free draft image, but I'm not reading that at this time. --MASEM (t) 02:47, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Alternatively, we could do some not linear cropping out of elements to preserve only the WHAAM text in the drawing.---TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 01:49, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

There are probably other ways to crop the image to show the same essence (the paint-by-numbers approach) while increasing the likelihood of copyright ineligibility, but let's wait on commons input on the current crop. I certainly think this is the right way to go, I just want to make sure its clear. --MASEM (t) 02:47, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Follow along at Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Drawing for 'Whaam!' cropped.JPG.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 03:38, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I commented there...Modernist (talk) 10:19, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

• FYI, I have posted at Misplaced Pages:Graphics Lab/Illustration workshop‎ regarding alternate portions for PD-ineligibility.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 06:43, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I replaced File:Drawing for 'Whaam!' cropped.JPG with File:Drawing for 'Whaam!' cropped 2.JPG. It was done by the Graphics Lab and removes most of the other stray artistic elements of the original crop.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 14:38, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

New images

• Modernist and Masem, let's revisit our images.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 08:40, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

• IMO they are sufficiently altered to allow Drawing for 'Whaam!' to remain...Modernist (talk) 10:08, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not crazy about the yellow Whaam!, I think it's gratuitous...Modernist (talk) 12:08, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

• I agree the yellow Whaam is extraneous here but keep that around for your TFA, since that's much more obvious than the text balloon snippet as representing the painting. I would almost argue that as long as these are free (they are at commons and not leaving there) that you also don't need the zoom of the text balloon (it will remain at commons), since the reason you had that to start was for the TFA image, but I think the yellow Whaam is much better. --MASEM (t) 14:10, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

• I guess the question is whether the zoom of the text balloon is truly free or just something that they were going to let slide for a potential TFA. If it is truly free, I don't think it is so gratuitous that we need to get rid of it. However, if it was marginally free and they were letting me keep it for the potential TFA, then I understand we should get rid of it.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 14:24, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
• How about some advice for WP:CAPTIONs of the Onomatopoeia.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 14:24, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

• I'm only evaluating the yellow Whaam and the text balloon images as free and whether they are really necessary, and not in an NFC light (where the inclusion would be a lot more rigorous). I'm working on the assumption based on my previous questions on the text balloon zoom that the text balloom image, the close-up of the sketch, and the simulated render (yellow Whaam) are all free, established by the reasoning from the text balloon discussion. --MASEM (t) 14:31, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

• Masem, I guess I would say that the discussions with you have been beneficial in the sense of being forced to think about eliminating the artistic background from the Onomatopoeic lettering. I'll wait for the image review. I was contemplating calling for it now, but with support–oppose 5–2, I was kind of hoping to overcome your oppose first. How am I doing on this front?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 14:52, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
• Any thoughts on the Onomatopoeia captions?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 14:52, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

• I don't think I have an oppose on the images at this point, as long as we have affirmation from Commons that the cropped version of the sketch page is copyright-ineligible, though I leave the question about the need for the colored Whaam and the text balloon images as being necessary. On the caption "Cropped and edited portion of Drawing for 'Whaam!' (1963). Color notations (w for white) can be seen in the titular letters.", I would reword it as such "Cropped and edited portion of Drawing for 'Whaam!' (1963). Litchenstein marked sections of Drawing with color notations when creating the final work, such as the "w" for white in the above titular letters". If the rendered Whaam is NOT kept, then its caption can be merged above. Also, please feel free to link - either as a reference or EL - this Tate page for Drawing as while we shouldn't include the non-free image, we have no limitations against linking to it by the museum. --MASEM (t) 15:15, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Personally, I don't the the images serve much purpose in the article. Why not just save them for the TFA? At the very least drop the redundant "Cropped and edited portion of Drawing for 'Whaam!' (1963)." Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:19, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I believe TFA can only use images hosted in the article. (In fact it may be a main page rule). I think I am just going to let an image reviewer give us rulings on all current content. I will probably request a review in the next 24 hours. Don't know when it will come.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 23:40, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Image check

Image check - all OK. 1 image should be removed (Done). I'll focus on the "problematic" images, all other images have been discussed already in previous reviews. Thanks to Masem for the valuable input and analysis.

• File:Drawing_for_'Whaam!'_cropped_2.JPG and File:Just_whaam_no_bg.svg => OK. Editors at GraphicLab did their best to make those crops as "trivial" as possible. IANAL, but both seem simple enough to be kept. Technically they are derivatives, but compared with the size and details of the original work, they don't infringe on that copyright beyond de minimis.
• File:Drawing_for_Whaam!.jpg => OK (close call). It shows a) the initial separation of two panels, b) the sketch style of the artist for the final work c) the truncation of the left panel (all mentioned in the article) and probably more tiny details, that may be interesting for an expert. Note: a simple 1:1 sketch of the final work without notable details would not meet fair-use.
• File:Whaam!_text_balloon.jpg => not OK, suggest removal (Removed) for several reasons:

• The depicted text can be easily formatted and replaced as quote box. The graphical elements are not needed.
• The complete text bubble is more significant than a single word, thus more likely to infringe on the artist's rights.
• Cropping trivial elements out of copyrighted works is already a slippery slope and would benefit from a thorough discussion at Commons. It should be restricted to the most trivial cases - if the crop is not needed or not trivial enough, such usages should be avoided to stay within the spirit of our copyright policies.

A final note to clarify, image checks are no unilateral decision - everyone can oppose/support based on their own analysis of the image situation or request a second and third opinion from other editors. GermanJoe (talk) 15:25, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

• Problematic image removed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:54, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

• Updated status accordingly, thanks. Not really an easy decision, but it looks like an acceptable compromise. GermanJoe (talk) 15:11, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Squeamish Ossifrage

Prose:

• In Description: "One of Lichtenstein's series of war images, it combines "brilliant color and narrative situation"." Do we need to use a direct quote for this sort of observation, which doesn't appear to require much in the way of analysis. If so, shouldn't it be attributed in the text?
  • Changed to "vibrant colors with a narrative expression"--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 04:10, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
• "These dots, which were invented by Benjamin Day to "recreate gradations of shading", were considered Lichtenstein's "signature method"." Dots are not a method, but perhaps their use is?
  • Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 04:18, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
• The image caption "Whaam!'s text balloon was likely written by Robert Kanigher." can be interpreted to imply that Kanigher actually did the lettering in Lichtenstein's work. Is there a better way to word this? Perhaps calling Kaniger "likely the original author" of the text or something along those lines?
  • How is it now?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 04:25, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Still seems awkward to me. Kanigher (probably) wrote the words used in Lichtenstein's text balloon, but the image caption suggests it is depicting Kanigher's caption (that is, the one from All-American Men of War, when it's actually the appropriated version. Let me think on this. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:16, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
      • I am not understanding your point. The text balloon in All-American Men of War and the text balloon in Whaam! have the same words.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 23:02, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
        • Curly Turkey's change (this -> a) makes this caption read more naturally and satisfies my concerns. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:05, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
• In Reception: "According to Douglas Coupland, the World Book Encyclopedia had pictures of Warhol's Monroes and Whaam! in the Pop art entry for illustration." Do we need to cite someone citing the illustrations in an encyclopedia entry? Can't we just reference the encyclopedia, since there's no interpretation required to judge what images illustrate the article?
  • I don't have the World Book Encyclopedia from Mr. Coupland's youth. Mr. Coupland is not the author of the text. Thus, I am not sure what alternate presentation of this content would be accurate. Would you like me to just remove the "According to Douglas Coupland" bit?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 04:38, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Well, without access to the source in question, we have to rely on what Coupland says about it. Ideally, someone would have access to the encyclopedia edition in question, but in the meantime, this probably has to stand as it is. That's not ideal, but it's mostly a "would be nice" rather than an actionable objection. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:16, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
• "One view is that...". Whose view?
  • attributed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 05:39, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
• "It has been observed that the "simplicity and outdatedness were ripe for being mocked"." This is cited to a Paul Gravett source; are those his words? There's no direct attribution of the quote, and "It has been observed" is a weak construction in general. I've actually noted several of these, and I'm going to stop doing so at this point; in general, I'm not extremely fond of direct quotes that don't identify the speaker, doubly so if it seems that we could get the point across without directly quoting.
  • Instance fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 05:46, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
• In general, the Reception section seems to wander a bit, with several short paragraphs that don't flow together in a particularly recognizable manner. I'm not even sure all of this is strictly under the right heading. The bit from Bradford Collins (and a few other parts, bit that especially) feels more like analysis than reception, and it's not immediately evident why his opinion matters to begin with (he's not wikilinked, and the claim seems ... odd to me, as an outside reader).
  • Can you explain to me what the difference is between analysis and either reception or description. I would be glad to split out another section if I understood what it was.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 11:23, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Formerly, I had reception split as positive and negative, but someone reorganized it to be more chronological.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 11:33, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Obviously, I've been away on vacation, and changed have been made while I've been away. I think this split is more logical; reception is how people reacted to it at the time, which is not necessarily the same as later analysis and consideration. I'm still shaky about the last sentence in "Analysis and Interpretation". Can we cite the Guernica comparisons to anyone other than Collins? Likewise, what makes Collins's opinion about the piece as a metaphor for marital discontent, which doesn't seem to have gotten much attention elsewhere, relevant? Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:16, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
      • Although I have not seen other sources saying his war comics images were in any way inspired by his declining marriage, Drowning Girl is another comics based work which documents sources that point to such inspiration for his romance comics-based works.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 23:46, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
      • Regarding Guernica, I have not come upon a WP:RS in english, but there seems to be a lot linking them in spanish. Also found one less than RS that talks about "experience of aerial aggression and terror as in Picasso’s Guernica, or Rosenquist’s F111 or Lichtenstein’s Whaam".--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 00:12, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
      • This non-RS links the two as among the all-time great depictions of violence along with Goya's The Disasters of War.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 00:18, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
      • Once I get a few pages deep in the search results I am mostly finding Art and War class syllabi that cover both works.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 00:22, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
        • I'd still love to see some sort of source independent of Collins for the comparison. It's an interesting comparison, and I'd like to see it remain in the article, but citing it exclusively to a source that presents the arguments solely to knock it down doesn't seem ideal, especially as it forces the "is sometimes said" construction, which isn't really ideal prose. Even if we have to go to Spanish-language sources for RS on the idea, that's not a barrier. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:42, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
          • I did not even investigate whether the Spanish language search results actually support our text. We should see if the WPVA guys like Modernist, Ceoil or Bus stop have any sources that can relate Guernica and Whaam!.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:12, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Images:

• I'm stridently unconvinced that File:Drawing for 'Whaam!' cropped.JPG and File:Whaam! text balloon.jpg are PD-ineligible, no matter what the FFDs for those two images did or didn't conclude previously.
  • Can you provide separate concerns for each so that I can understand what the matter is.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 22:30, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Personally, I think the former is more likely to survive a PD assessment than the latter. I really only need one of these to survive so that I can have an image for the desired WP:TFA. I created the latter before learning about the source from which the former is cropped. I would sacrifice one easily, especially if it is the latter.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 22:40, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
    • I remain uncertain of the claim that an identifiable cropped excerpt from an unquestionably copyrighted work can itself be considered in the public domain. I am aware that Commons has accepted this (and several other images) under the theory that a crop from a copyrighted work performed such that the only visible elements would fail to meet the standard for creative expression in and of themselves, does not possess any of the copyright protections of the parent work, even when the use of that crop is directly in the context of the original work. A cursory search hasn't provided me with any case law that's directly informative, and given the state of current copyright law, there may not be a firm "correct" answer here. Let me dig a little further on the topic. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:16, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
      • This nomination will not close without a separate image review for WP:NFCC concerns. It is my belief that alphabetic characters, basic fonts, basic colors, and basic shapes are not copyrightable. This the onomatopoeia is very likely PD without any of the artistic shapes. I don't know if you noticed that the sketch crop previously had some background flames and such. This review has a separate "unofficial" image review section. The prose may have some greater copyright level and the text balloon is less likely to remain. I may remove it before the official image review begins.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 23:11, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Reference formatting:

• You do not use a consistent format for the display of secondary authors. "Horace Clifford Westermann" in Note 2 versus "Boswell, John" in Note 41. There are multiple examples of each, so I'm not sure what standard is 'right' here.
  • Some people filled in {{cite book}} with parameters I don't usually use that made the secondary authors format differently.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 07:13, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
• Sometimes you wikilink publishers, sometimes not. I can't discern any criteria that determines whether you do or not, which means it probably needs looked at.
  • That did need some attention.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 23:34, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
• All of your notes citing Waldman specify "War Comics, 1962–64"; is there a reason you cite this (chapter, presumably) in the notes, but not in the reference since you don't use anything else from that source?
  • Added to full citation.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 22:49, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
    • The notes to Waldman still aren't formatted like the others that point at the specifically set-aside references. Compare 25 with 34. Is there a reason not to have it read "Waldman 1993, p. 104." with the author/date wikilinked to the reference? Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:16, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
      • I have made the suggested change. I believe this marks the last actionable item for me to respond to. I hope you can consider supporting now.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:01, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
• You have three notes pointing to the Bader reference. Notes 25 and 29 fully cite the book, while Note 49 uses an abbreviated format due to the work being included in the references below.
  • Made consistent.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 15:23, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
• From Note 44: "(2013-05-13 (Spring 2013))". Since we have a specific publication date, is the season necessary? Basically, I'm looking for a way to avoid nesting parentheses like that.
  • I think what is happening is that we have an internet publication date for a Spring 2013 print issue. However, I have removed the parenthetical.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 22:59, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
• Note 53, should circa be abbreviated?
  • Done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 22:43, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
• Note 54: is the 3rd edition revising author relevant to the 4th edition? I don't know how the book lists the authorship, so maybe. In any case, there's a comma in Prather's parenthetical note, but not in Wheeler's. Regardless, edition should probably be abbreviated, as it is in the other edition notes. And at least some databases seem to use commas in the title instead of bullets; cover design notwithstanding, is the book officially titled with bullets?
  • It does seem odd to credit the third edition author in the fourth edition, but that is how the book did it. It must mean that a lot of the third edition's content survived even though the credited author changed. I am only relaying the information presented in the book itself. Admittedly most 4th editions, would not detail authors of prior editions, but this one did for some reason.
    • Weird. I'm always amazed to find new ways that sources make writing citations more difficult! Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:16, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
  • issues addressed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 17:01, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
• In Note 58, I assume the indication that Evans is the editor is merely improperly formatted, rather than the book being authored by a "Mike Ed Evans".
  • See Waterstones and Amazon.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 23:41, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Counterargument: Amazon, Barnes and Noble, both showing Mike Evans (Editor). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:16, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
      • Those sources give us no reason to believe he does not have a middle name and that it is not Ed. The proper counterargument would be to show other more famous people who served as editors on works listed at Waterstone and Amazon UK. Determine if they have Ed listed in the commly used middle name position.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 23:16, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
        • I'm really going to have to insist that Mike Evans is an editor, not an author whose middle name is Ed, regardless of what Amazon UK thinks. As further evidence, consider the book's entry in Singapore's National Library Board NLB Search Plus, the National Library of Australia's Trove database, or the Brooklyn Museum's Brookmuse. Or, frankly, elsewhere on Amazon UK. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:14, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
          • What we have is multiple sources presenting Evans with the middle name Ed, which may be a sort of clerical error. We have a far greater number listing him with no middle name. No source lists him with another middle name or middle initial other than E. Since the majority of sources use no middle name, I will go along. However, I remain unconvinced that his middle name is not Ed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:08, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
            • Mostly what I care about in this regard is whether he's indicated as the author or the editor of the work. Do you have a hard copy at hand? If not, I stand middling-fair chances of being able to take a peek at one in the next couple of days. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:42, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
              • I presently have no text related to this article at hand.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:14, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
• Most periodical sources have their titles linked, but there are some that aren't, such as The Times in Note 66 and The Burlington Magazine in 67. Frankly, Note 66 doesn't seem to match the reference format used elsewhere at all, including date formatting. Perhaps there's some template use differences here? I didn't look at the markup.
  • I have tried to handle this. Note 66 came from another editor though.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 23:48, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
• The Coplans reference is lacking an ISBN, which I believe to be 978-0713907612.
  • Added.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 17:12, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Other:

• Do we need an EL to both the Tate's main page for the work and for its catalog entry? The former links to the latter.
  • Removed the latter.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 22:37, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Leaning oppose at the moment, primarily due to my concerns over the Reception section's overall structure and the use of direct quotes without naming their speakers, but I'm confident the shortcomings can be remedied within the FAC period. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:45, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

• I have just noticed some problems with some of the links introduced in these edits by Werieth (talk · contribs). I have asked him/her to check into these. Not sure if some of your problem is with figuring out links to wrong pages.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 19:30, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
• I have attributed most of the reception section.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 20:03, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Neutral at the moment. There's been a lot of changes during my week vacation, and I want to get a better chance to read through everything anew, but from where we are right now, I'm confident I can at least strike my opposition. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:16, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Curly Turkey

Addressed comments moved to talk page'. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:24, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Support, though I still strongly believe the bit about Hergé is an anachronism in relation to this painting. Curly Turkey (gobble) 03:34, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Bus stop

Scope at one particular paragraph:

The paragraph beginning with the words "Critics have raised concerns over Lichtenstein's perceived improprieties…" which is found in the Reception section of the article is problematic. There is actually only one notable individual raising concerns over the similarity between the imagery that is in the painting Whaam! and the imagery that is found in that painting's comic book sources. That person is Dave Gibbons and his comments can be found here and here. I completely endorse that Dave Gibbons' comments and point of view should be in this article. Yet the name Dave Gibbons does not even appear in the paragraph that I am referencing. That paragraph, problematically, speaks in general terms about unspecified paintings and unspecified comic book imagery. Dave Gibbons, by contrast, speaks specifically about the relationship between the painting Whaam!, which is the subject of this article, and a specific comic book image created by a comic book artist named Irv Novick. This is precisely the sort of commentary that should be in the paragraph to which I am referring and yet it is absent. Instead there is general commentary about unspecified paintings by Lichtenstein and their unspecified comic book counterparts. I feel that all material in this paragraph should relate specifically to the painting Whaam!. This article is not the same as a more general article such as the Roy Lichtenstein article or the Appropriation (art) article. Those kinds of articles have scopes that make them appropriate for discussions of Lichtenstein's imagery generally and its relationship to its source material such as comics. A more full treatment is possible in an article such as the "Roy Lichtenstein" article or the "Appropriation" article and therefore I think there would be a greater likelihood of achieving a neutral point of view in such an article. I think this article should be kept free of general commentary on Lichtenstein's paintings and their relation to source imagery as found for instance in comic books. There are several commentators from the art world who feel that the paintings by Lichtenstein bear little visual similarity to the comics to which they relate. These commentators point this out and explain in concrete terms why they believe this to be the case. Bus stop (talk) 04:00, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

That very paragraph names at least one other person Ernesto Priego. Gravett shares this concern.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 03:47, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

"COMICS folks have lots of negative commentary against Lichtenstein and this work is considered the prime example of their general arguments."

This article is not a playground for editors you refer to as "COMICS folks". We actually have reliably sourced criticism of Lichtenstein's use of comic book imagery in the painting Whaam! and yet it is not in this article. I am referring to only one paragraph in all of my comments here. That is the paragraph in our article beginning with the words "Critics have raised concerns over Lichtenstein's perceived improprieties…". It is at the present time found in the Legacy section of the article. At the top of this page you say:

"The prior discussion was contentious because WP:COMICS discussants (Curly Turkey and Hiding) wanted more detailed explanation of topics that WP:WPVA discussants (Bus stop and Modernist) felt were out of scope for this article. More specifically, COMICS folks have lots of negative commentary against Lichtenstein and this work is considered the prime example of their general arguments. The issue is how much of that criticism actually belongs in this article."

In point of fact there is included in the article virtually no substantiation in sources that there is "impropriety" in Lichtenstein's use of comic book imagery in the painting Whaam!. The sources are available. But they are not used. Instead the article has opted for general criticism of Lichtenstein's use of comic book imagery in an unspecified number of paintings. This is outside of the scope of this article. Please note that this is an article on one painting.

The Ernesto Priego "criticism" that is in this article is actually criticism of "National Periodicals". It is not criticism of Lichtenstein or his use of comic book imagery in Whaam!.

By far the most substantial source of criticism of Lichtenstein's use of comic book imagery in Whaam! is Dave Gibbons.

We have a BBC source written by Alastair Sooke in which Sooke relates Dave Gibbons' comments. Gibbons is quoted as saying "I’m not convinced that it is art"…"A lot of Lichtenstein’s stuff is so close to the original that it actually owes a huge debt to the work of the original artist. But in music, for instance, you can’t just whistle somebody else’s tune no matter how badly without crediting or getting payment to the original artist." Can you please tell me why none of this is included in the article? Is it excluded from the article because it happens to be within the scope of the article?

We have another another source (gravett.com) in which the same individual—Alastair Sooke—asks Dave Gibbons if he feels Lichtenstein is a plagiarist . Gibbons replies "I would say ‘copycat’. In music for instance, you can’t just whistle somebody else’s tune or perform somebody else’s tune, no matter how badly, without somehow crediting and giving payment to the original artist. That’s to say, this is ‘WHAAM! by Roy Lichtenstein, after Irv Novick’." That is genuine criticism that is 100% within the scope of this article. But instead of on-topic material we find generalized criticism of an indefinite number of Lichtenstein paintings that happen to use comic book imagery. Why should't this article remain within its scope and why shouldn't this article be required to remain on topic? Oh, I forgot—the "COMICS folks have lots of negative commentary against Lichtenstein". It doesn't matter if a contingency of editors have a point-of-view to push. We should remain within scope. There are other articles at Misplaced Pages (Roy Lichtenstein, Appropriation (art)). Well-sourced information should be able to find a home on Misplaced Pages.

Instead of including in-scope material, this article has inexplicably opted for including generalizations about wrongdoing applicable to an indefinite number of Lichtenstein paintings. That is a misuse of this article. Again, I am referring to only one paragraph in all of my comments here. That is the paragraph in our article beginning with the words "Critics have raised concerns over Lichtenstein's perceived improprieties…". It is at the present time found in the Legacy section of the article. Bus stop (talk) 19:10, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:TLDR. I am not going to start out by humoring you. You need to make your comments much more brief. Look at everyone else's comments. I will not respond to anything that you post that is longer than 1500 characters.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 19:42, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree with Tony here, Bus Stop. You're repeating yourself, probably for the third or fourth time from the first FAC. You have points that are valid, but no one is going to be able to read through your comments to figure out what is implementable. If you shorten up to get your point out, there's a better chance a solution can be had. --MASEM (t) 19:50, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

TonyTheTiger, Masem—I think a final sentence that should be included, as I've pointed out before, is:

"The process of borrowing images from other sources is called appropriation and was also practiced by Lichtenstein's pop art contemporaries."

This is well-sourced to MoMALearning, which is a Museum of Modern Art web site. We are an encyclopedia. The quality of sources should be considered a significant factor on what information gets included in the article as well as the emphasis it receives. As long as material extraneous to what is strictly the scope of the article is being included willy-nilly, why not include a sentence that includes information that has been vetted by an especially relevant source such as a museum of contemporary art? Bus stop (talk) 20:10, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

We have discussed this very topic in the past. Note that the article already includes the following sentence "Critics have raised concerns over Lichtenstein's perceived improprieties, such as use of appropriation—borrowing of imagery from other sources— in Whaam! and other works of the period." Footnote 77 is the very one that you mention above. It is used to cite the dashed parenthetical explanation of appropriation (borrowing of imagery from other sources). I do appreciate your patience, persistence and attention, but this is fairly strong compromise the way I have incorporated your suggestion.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 22:55, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

TonyTheTiger—why does that sentence say "such as"? Are there any other "perceived improprieties"?

Furthermore, what is there to "compromise" about? You say "I do appreciate your patience, persistence and attention, but this is fairly strong compromise the way I have incorporated your suggestion." If you see an issue, can you please explain that issue to me?

We are talking about perfectly straightforward, factual information. The source is telling us that "Robert Rauschenberg, Claes Oldenburg, Andy Warhol, Tom Wesselman, and Roy Lichtenstein reproduced, juxtaposed, or repeated mundane, everyday images from popular culture".

The first sentence of the very brief article says, "Appropriation is the intentional borrowing, copying, and alteration of preexisting images and objects." Is something unclear about that?

This is an article on a painting. The painting is an example of pop art. There were many pop artists. The ones named utilized what the article is calling "appropriation". Is there some reason that we should not share with the reader that other pop artists utilized "appropriation" too? Bus stop (talk) 23:07, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Bus Stop, Tony's point is you keep repeating yourself at length, even though he believes he has addressed the issue already. You're far too wordy and circle around the issue without saying it. Get to your point, a statement "This article must include a statement on 'blah'", and don't quote endlessly about the issue. Otherwise, your points will be ignored or overlooked. And if you've already made a statement about something, just link back to it. --MASEM (t) 00:26, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Something about the usage of appropriation in the Pop Art movement should be be talked about—not in "Reception", but in the "Background" section, which is ghostly thin on details of the contemporary art world. Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:36, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

We already say he was parodying other artists in the history section. I am open to a paragraph about appropriation in the background. What content would you like to see there? (Bus stop be brief if you choose to respond).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 02:06, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm talking about maybe a short paragraph or so summing up "what the art world had been up to" (as @Binksternet: puts it above). In the last FAC @Modernist: talked about "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". It's not clear if he was recommending adding these things, but I do believe it's exactly the kind of thing Binksternet is calling for (in which case, I agree; I think this may be what @Masem:'s looking for as well). In such a paragraph, a brief explanation of appropriation would fit nicely, especially adjacent to (maybe leading into?) the stuff about comics in the "Background". Curly Turkey (gobble) 05:55, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Regarding "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"- if there are content deficiencies which both the art guys (represented by Modernist) and the comics guys (represented by Curly Turkey) view congruently (and in concurrence with our neutral parties Masem and Binksternet), I am very interested in rectifying them. First, let me repeat that you guys are all more expert than me. I have only learned about art by going to museums for entertainment and to the library for wikipedia. I have never taken a course and have no experience. For a sentiment like this a source would be great. Better yet, since both of you are more expert than me, you can feel free to jump in. Yes let's add some content related to this issue.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 19:51, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I have proposed some content (some of which you've added, some of which I'm awaiting your feedback on), but the artworld stuff is probably best handled by those who've already brought this stuff up. Right now, I see the lack of artworld background as the article's greatest deficiency. Curly Turkey (gobble) 20:24, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

• We are not so much concerned that "Some have denigrated" the painting "Wham!" as "mere copying". We should be told who has denigrated the painting "Wham!".

• We are not so much concerned that "Critics have raised concerns" about the painting "Wham!". We should be told which critics raised the concerns about the painting Whaam! and what specifically were those concerns?

• We are not so much concerned that "Other criticism centers on Lichtenstein's failure to credit the comic book artists" relating to the painting "Wham!" but rather who raised that criticism of the painting Whaam! and what specifically was that criticism?

The general problem that I perceive in that paragraph is a failure to relate specifically and concretely to the painting that is the subject of the article. Bus stop (talk) 11:24, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

• • I believe these statements are inactionable, as long as there is a reliable source behind each that effectively states "there are some that believe X", without stating who that some are. If the article did not source those statements and there was no quote, then I would definitely expect that the statement would have to be followed by explicit examples and quotes/summations from a few of those as to justify it. But the sourcing give for each of the above are equally vague about who explicitly made those statements, but those sources are also reliable (eg BBC), so we are not making the claim of that broad generality but letting the RS make it. Further, in relationship to Whaam, the details of "who" are not so important here and would move away from the topic. --MASEM (t) 13:22, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Masem—this is an article about the painting Whaam! and the only person supporting the sentiments expressed above in relation to the painting Whaam! is the person Dave Gibbons. These are your sources: and . The expressed sentiments should be attributed to Dave Gibbons. The present wording suggests that others share Dave Gibbons' sentiments. If any others do in fact share Dave Gibbons' sentiments, that information can be included and that information too should be supported by sources. We should be articulating specific sentiments attributable to specific individuals concerning specifically Whaam!. Again—this is an article on the painting Whaam!. I don't think that this article should switch into a more general mode in that paragraph. Let us stay on the topic of the painting Whaam!. Bus stop (talk) 14:22, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Except the only person that sources seem to articulate is Gibbons, (BBC's calls him "One of them", referring to the negative critics), and there's a section about Gibbons' parody work in the Legacy section, where his specific commentary on Whaam! is best suited as to understand the rationale behind the parady. The only paragraph in Legacy that seems out of place because it doesn't mention Whaam directly is the one that begins "Comic books were in turn affected by the cultural impact of pop art.", though the statements it has are relevent to the subsequent discussion of Whaam. Again, I think you're issues are inactionable to the level of detail we expect for WP and given available sourcing. --MASEM (t) 14:34, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Masem—the article has a scope. There is no justification (that I know of) for straying outside of the scope. The material is sourced to a specific individual. Are you arguing that we should not say who that individual is? I would argue that not only should we name the individual but we should allow him to speak for himself. Quotes are provided in both of the sources that I mention above of the actual language Dave Gibbons uses in relation to the subject of this article. The subject is a painting. The scope of this article is tied to the painting Whaam!. Bus stop (talk) 14:45, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

You are conflating two issues.

• Issue 1 is of scope. I agree that we should stay focused on Whaam and anything that is broader (about Litchenstein, about pop art, etc.) probably should be discussed in depth in those articles. But it is not a crime to have a brief statement that will lead readers to those other articles in the context of Whaam. Thus, the paragraph that begins "Comic books were in turn affected by the cultural impact of pop art." may be a bit out of scope since Whaam is not directly mentioned but it is a reasonable thing to attach to Whaam if it can be tied in better with the other text around it. Basically, the key is a reading flow to help the reader as much as possible, and if one has to step away from specifics about Whaam! to note this, then that fine. (This is necessary here for the appropriation aspect as without that discussion, Gibbons' parody makes no sense)
• Issue 2 is of opinion attribution. We as WP editors cannot make claims that "some critics felt X" (a statement of OR) without either immediately showing the sources of critics that felt X, or going to a RS that has that statement. As we have the latter case, we don't have to outline who those people were. Gibbons is unique, since he was specifically called out and shown to have done a parody work of Whaam! on the issue of appropriation, so calling him out and his opinion is fine. However, all the other "some critics felt X" statements are those made about the broader issues and not about Whaam! itself, so it makes little sense to go into detail about it here (Issue 1 again), and thus asking to call out the specific critics really doesn't make sense. --MASEM (t) 15:02, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Masem—how many "improprieties" are there? We read "Critics have raised concerns over Lichtenstein's perceived improprieties, such as use of appropriation—borrowing of imagery from other sources—in Whaam! and other works of the period." Isn't there only one potential "impropriety"? Isn't that one possible "impropriety" called "appropriation"? I believe it is. Shouldn't we add a sentence to the end of that paragraph reading: "The process of borrowing images from other sources is called appropriation and was also practiced by Lichtenstein's pop art contemporaries." If not, why not? Bus stop (talk) 17:16, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

If you've got such a bug up your bum about the word "improprieties", then maybe you should stop ignoring the wording I kept proposing to you. Curly Turkey (gobble) 19:18, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Appropriation is already linked in the article, and unnecessary to link again. --MASEM (t) 18:50, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Indopug

Inclined to oppose

The organisation of information is a little all-over-the-place, a problem arising from large and unwieldy sections. Either create more sections or sub-section the existing ones. Then you need rearrange stuff logically for better flow and less redundancy. Take the last para of History: it begins with the 1966 Tate purchase (info that is repeated in Reception), moves to Drawing, jumps to its 2006 acquisition, a 2012-13 retrospective (which is mentioned again, twice, in Reception), before returning to a justification for what happened in 1966.

Reception is also highly disorganised: I suggest going about it chronologically. Start with 1960s reception, and then come to the present (maybe in another, Legacy?, section). The section is also a confusing mix of critical reception of the painting itself, and the influence the painting had in the art world. There's stuff that should be in other sections: 'Lichtenstein's procedure entailed "the enlargement and unification of his source material...' (Description) and 'The Tate Gallery controversially bought...' (History).

The Background section also talks of too many distinct things: (a) what RL was doing before Whaam!, (b) the status of comic books at the time and (c) a summary of RL's comic-inspired work.

Prose: watch out for wordiness and repetitiveness. "Lichtenstein", for eg, features in pretty much every sentence of the article.—indopug (talk) 08:59, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I'll be quite honest. At the FA level, my organizational skills are kind of week. Probably about a third of my FA credits benefited from reorganization by another editor. I am fairly certain that I will not ba able to sufficiently rearrange the content in a satisfactory way. I had tried to divide the reception into positive and negative subsections, but these were removed in favor of chronological reception. I don't know how else to subdivide things. I have put in a request with a veteran WP:WPVA editor to help me organize this. He has helped me organize a recent successful FA Look Mickey that was also by Lichtenstein. I am not sure how interested he might be in helping on this one because the WPVA people seem to have some issues with the content.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 03:57, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Indopug, did the reorganization by Ewulp suffice?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 19:39, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

This may get a makeover. It seems that Ceoil (talk · contribs) has graced us with his magic hands. He is one of the best WP:WPVA copyeditors out there.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 22:24, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Ewulp

I agree with much of what Indopug says; "Reception" was for me the least satisfactory section; I hope I've made it a bit more digestible. Some more adjustment may be needed: possibly some of the details of comic-book history could move to the "History" section. After Ben Day dots are described in paragraph 2 of "Description", there needn't be a second detailed description in the section's last paragraph—something should be trimmed there. Ewulp (talk) 06:14, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Reception is copy-edited a bit more. Ceoil (talk) 20:01, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support I think it's there.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ewulp (talk • contribs) 05:27, 18 August 2013

Comments by Modernist

• leaning Support it's beginning to look a lot like a featured article...Modernist (talk) 11:19, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Above, (in the Bus stop section), Curly Turkey said that he thinks the article could benefit from a little more art history in the background. Can you help out with a paragraph on the topic mentioned above.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 06:41, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Done...Modernist (talk) 13:00, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
      • The newly added material will need some copyediting formatting—especially those bare-URL refs. Once that's done, I think I'm pretty much ready to support.
        This won't affect whether or not I'll support, but, Tony, have you ever looked into BUNDLING your refs? Curly Turkey (gobble) 13:10, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
        • Don't use bundling. Have never noticed it on WP, especially at WP:FAC.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 16:05, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
          • Oh, they're definitely used in FACs—that's where I picked them up—but you likely won't see them if you're not looking for them (which is part of the point). There is at least one besides mine for How a Mosquito Operates on the FAC page right now. Again, I'm not saying you should use them, just that they're an option when your paragraphs start getting thick with inline cites. Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:34, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
        • I'll add that that new para on art history is what I was looking for in the background section (as above), but I do think that should be the first para of the section. That alongside the copyedit should clear that issue up for me completely, too. --MASEM (t) 13:29, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

• We don't need them...Modernist (talk) 16:06, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

• Can you clarify.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 16:07, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

• Minimalism, Hard-edge painting, Fluxus, Neo-Dada and Pop art are all referenced. I'll look for the Alloway page, although it isn't crucial...Modernist (talk) 16:30, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

• Also we need a page number for the Alloway.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 16:07, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
• Additionally, Piero_Scaruffi is a borderline WP:RS. I see how many books he has authored that appear at amazon.com and think he is O.K., but check out this ongoing discussion for his album reviews: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums#Piero_Scaruffi.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 16:31, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

• IMO we're ok; seems RS to me, if not the MoMA ref is good...Modernist (talk) 13:51, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Alloway pp are 37-39...Modernist (talk) 16:42, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Question

Is the WP URL for ref 72 supposed to be present? --Another Believer _(Talk) 06:25, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Stray text removed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 16:21, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Great, thanks! --Another Believer _(Talk) 03:13, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Leaning support: I'm getting happier with the prose. My impression is that the bones of a fine article lay here, but its a few copy past edits from it yet re a re-org. - Only. I am very impressed with Tony's work on this so far. He has responed well, and I think should be allowed now time to move sections about and then come back to people. It should be appreciated that he took on an FAC on a very difficult and tangled work of modern art, one that a lot of us have strong feeling about. But it can be done. Ceoil (talk) 06:47, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

In ways, it seems that the article has tried to skirt around the fact that ther images are...couching...borrowed. Rewording to make this more explicit. The work is what it is, take it or leave it, that's beside the point here. It can only be said so many times...thats the whole point, he was out to aggrivate. Its pop art for FS. This should not impact on its suitability for FAC. I'm dissapointed that the artice has not been taken on its own mertits, but instead has been drawn in to a broader argument. Ceoil (talk) 08:12, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Ceoil—the article is reading "Critics have raised concerns over Lichtenstein's appropriation…" Are there any bona fide critics raising such concerns? I think "critic" is being misapplied. Or perhaps one is stretching the meaning of the term "critic" to include a wider group of people than is usually intended by the term? Shouldn't this require sourcing—either in the form of several examples of "critics" raising these concerns, or in the form of a reliable source telling us this? One problem here is that the term "critic" in the context of a work of art may imply art critic. I think very few "art critics" raise the "concerns" referred to. If some do, than that should be offset by inclusion of the opinions of those who argue the opposite. Many responsible and genuine art critics writing for publications with for instance the imprimatur of the Museum of Modern Art state quite clearly that the painting is visually quite distinct from sources in comic book imagery. I will try to locate some opinions in this regard expressed by art critics, as they offer opinions that differ sharply from mere concerns with superficial similarity between painting and comic book imagery. Now that I think of it—one immediately comes to mind: "Comparing the source for Whaam! with the finished painting banishes the hoary idea that Lichtenstein profited on the back of the creativity of others. Lichtenstein transformed Novick’s artwork in a number of subtle but crucial ways." That is by Alastair Sooke. But there are several others that I have encountered. The gist of what they say is that elements of the painting decisively set it apart from comic book imagery, but some provide specific, concrete details on the visual factors that set the painting apart from the comic book imagery. (Alastair Sooke's quote lacks these concrete details.) Bus stop (talk) 11:23, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

We've already addressed this point, Bus Stop. As long as the RS's use do a hand-wave around "critics" or other details, it is not required for our article to resolve that or go beyond that, as there's no OR going on. --MASEM (t) 13:31, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Busstop: adressing, but my feeling is that you are raising a more general point, unfairly, in the context of this specific FAC. Ceoil (talk) 14:04, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

IMO MASEM is right about this. You are trying to raise a meta issue that is perhalps out of scope here. Ceoil (talk) 14:19, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Ceoil—the paragraph beginning with the words "Critics have raised concerns over Lichtenstein's appropriation…" is problematic. It is condemnatory of Lichtenstein. It doesn't even point out that most if not all of Lichtenstein's fellow pop artists were also engaging in the appropriation of imagery that they found in "popular culture". We learn from MoMALearning that Robert Rauschenberg, Claes Oldenburg, Andy Warhol, Tom Wesselman, and Roy Lichtenstein engaged in the taking of imagery from preexisting sources in "popular culture". Our article is failing to point out that the borrowing of preexisting imagery was standard operating procedure for pop artists. When we read that "Critics have raised concerns over Lichtenstein's..." we assume this is a problem particular to Lichtenstein. But it is obviously not a problem particular to Lichtenstein, but rather a practice that was used by pop artists in general. The paragraph is basically in violation of WP:NPOV. The paragraph is mostly condemnatory of Lichtenstein. Furthermore the notion that "Critics have raised concerns over Lichtenstein's appropriation" is also largely untrue because many if not most art critics do not raise such concerns and many argue quite the opposite. Consider the following. This is from a book published by the Museum of Modern Art:

"Many in Lichtenstein's audience of the early 1960s considered the subjects of his paintings to have been no more tampered with than Duchamp's store-bought objects—images lifted almost intact from their commercial sources. It was a reaction the artist was looking for: "The closer my work is to the original, the more threatening and critical the content." But, he added, "I think my paintings are critically transformed." Girl with Ball's deviations from its ready-made inspiration amply bear out Lichtenstein's assessment. On the most obvious level, a shift in scale from a one-column newspaper advertisement to a life-size image, combined with a transition from black-and-white printed reproduction on newspaper stock to Mondrian-like harmonies of red, yellow, and blue on canvas, necessarily produces an intensity of mood beyond the reach or ambition of its source. Aside from these elemental changes, the artist manipulated the girl's figure to endow the painting with something of the visual impact of hard-edge abstract painting. To paraphrase Lichtenstein, he was at the time aiming at "anti-Cubist" composition, defined by him as the isolation of an "object on a blank ground," thus defying "the major direction of art since the early Renaissance, which has more and more symbolized the integration of 'figure' with 'ground."

The main point in the above is that Lichtenstein images are not"lifted almost intact" from "their commercial sources." For instance there is "an intensity of mood beyond the reach or ambition of its source." Our paragraph which begins with the words "Critics have raised concerns over Lichtenstein's appropriation" is perpetuating a debunked myth. Certainly there are some people who say that Lichtenstein merely copied comic book artists. But that opinion should be balanced out in our article by strong sources stating otherwise. MoMA is an especially reliable source on points such as these. Bus stop (talk) 16:05, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

The very paragraph you are talking about goes to lengths to debunk myths you are concerned about. Curly Turkey (gobble) 20:52, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Curly Turkey—we don't say that "Critics have raised concerns over Lichtenstein's appropriation, in that he directly references imagery from other sources in Whaam! and other works of the period" because that is what appropriation is, in essence. Appropriation is the direct referencing of imagery from other sources. Bus stop (talk) 21:18, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Bus Stop—we've long established that we all know what appropriation is. We've also long established that people still have issues with it. Christ, man, life ain't black and white. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:49, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Without trying to analyze what is wrong with it, this is not good writing: "Critics have raised concerns over Lichtenstein's appropriation, in that he directly references imagery from other sources in Whaam! and other works of the period." There is also a problem in that paragraph in that it fails to mention the relevant point that it was not only Lichtenstein who practiced appropriation at that time. It was probably all Pop artists. This little source confirms for us that many well-known names in Pop art working at the same time as Lichtenstein were also involved in indulging in "appropriation". Bus stop (talk) 22:13, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Out of interest, how widely realised actually was it at the start by the art world, just how closely Lichtenstein was working from underlying sources? Was this something that was commonly known from the outset (but might or might not have been considered of much interest), or was Lichtenstein merely considered to be working in the style of comic-books, until the detailed analysis of his sources was presented by afficionados of the original works? Jheald (talk) 22:23, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't know. User:Modernist would probably know more about that. My guess would be that it was known though perhaps imperfectly. Modernist posted this above. It might be relevant to the question you raise, although it is from 1966, which may be a few years after his first comic book style paintings. Bus stop (talk) 22:54, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

(ec)By the 1963, Lichtenstein was in heated debates with the artistic community on what constituted original work. In 1962, he did Portrait of Madame Cézanne which was quite controversial (although not comics-based). By the time of this work, he was being debated as a copycat or artist in leading publications.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 23:05, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Masem (background section)

The background section is still disjointed, and I really don't understand why there's a split here. I'm reading it carefully and its still focusing far too much on Litchenstein's detailed past that can be summarized to lead to the work better. Below is a rough attempt to reword it for this:

By the late 1950s and early 1960s the American art world had grown accustomed to and tired of the subjective angst and "hot" look of abstract expressionism. A new generation of artists emerged with a more objective "cool" approach characterized by the art movements known today as minimalism, hard-edge painting, color field painting, the neo-Dada movement, Fluxus, and pop art (which along with neo-Dada re-introduced and changed the use of imagery) re-defining the avant-garde contemporary art of the time.

Lichtenstein was considered one of the initiators of the pop art movement in the 1960s. Many of his works in the late 1950s and early 1960s were derived from comic books, which at the time were considered "the lowest commercial and intellectual kind", according to Mark Thistlethwaite of the Modern Art Museum of Fort Worth due to the perceived connection between comic books and juvenile delinquency. Litchenstein's works would take small source panel images from comics and enlarge them, use techniques he learned during his non-combative career as a draftman for the U.S. Army. Litchenstein himself was not a comic book enthusiast but enticed as an artist by the challenge of creating art based on a subject remote from the typical "artistic image"; Litchenstein had stated that "I was very excited about, and very interested in, the highly emotional content yet detached impersonal handling of love, hate, war, etc., in these cartoon images."

His earlier comic-based works were based on popular animated characters such as Look Mickey. By 1963, the year of Whaam's creation, he had become more reflective and started to work with comic imagery from romantic or war-related situations, drawing from his past military career and interest in aeronautical themes. These works took heroic subjects from small source panels and monumentalized them. Litchenstein considered "the heroes depicted in comic books are fascist types, but I don't take them seriously in these paintings—maybe there is a point in not taking them seriously, a political point. I use them for purely formal reasons."

(Please note, I would expect a good copyedit of this for wording; also I didn't leave in some references but what ones should be used should be the same). My point is how this keeps it from pop art to Litchenstein's comic book art and then to his specific military-themed comic art. Just enough of his bg is necessarily give to understand that he was in the Army and where he learned to enlarge works. --MASEM (t) 14:02, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Can other people chime in on this proposed restructuring.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 18:18, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

• This sentence Lichtenstein was considered one of the initiators of the pop art movement in the 1960s. should remain where it is.
• This seems too simplistic and basically inaccurate: Many of his works in the late 1950s and early 1960s were derived from comic books, which at the time were considered "the lowest commercial and intellectual kind", according to Mark Thistlethwaite of the Modern Art Museum of Fort Worth due to the perceived connection between comic books and juvenile delinquency.
• I prefer leaving things be...Modernist (talk) 18:44, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

As an aside just saying, - Initially Lichtenstein claimed to take a bubble gum wrapper as his first commercial art source for a painting; in a spirit of absurdity - anything goes - and then he sourced commercial art; and then he got onto comic book art...Modernist (talk) 14:27, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion a good comment specific to Lichtenstein's "comic book art" is the one made by "Alastair Smart" in The Telegraph: "It’s his narrative scenes, though, for which Lichtenstein is best known: inspired not by the Bible or classical myth, but by comic books. In 1963’s diptych Whaam! – reworked from an American war comic and enlarged to mimic a huge Ab Ex canvas – a fighter pilot blasts an enemy into flaming oblivion." This is a comment directly about Whaam!, directly about "comic book art", and the observation I think has applicability to both Lichtenstein's "war-themed" and "romance-themed" "comic book art" paintings. It is not a bad comment/observation. I think it should be placed in the article intact. I think it would be pointless to try to paraphrase it or to only use part of it. Bus stop (talk) 17:39, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I do not mind this addition, but Masem seems to be trying to shorten this section.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 17:57, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

It's not so much shorten, but focus. Much of Litchenstein's past is not directly related to Whaam, hence the refocus. --MASEM (t) 18:04, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I think Masem's only talking about compressing the first paragraph of the "Biographical context" section. I agree it could be cut down without anything important being lost. Things like "After entering training programs for languages, engineering, and piloting, all of which were canceled" for instance are pretty tangential. Also: why was the Background section divided into Art world and Biographical sections? The section wasn't nearly long enough to warrant this. Curly Turkey (gobble) 20:56, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Reply (mostly to Curly and Masem): Pilot training shaped his career. Be careful what you say to cut. Also, keep in mind that everything in the WP:LEAD is a summary of the main text. I.E., the main text has more detail than the LEAD. Don't cut things out in the main body without cutting them from the LEAD. No one seems to be complaining about the LEAD that makes it seem that his military training greatly influenced his career.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 22:14, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Of course, his pilot training should remain, but overall, a lot of this material can easily be compressed without losing anything of substance to the article. Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:15, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

This is note that what Curly says above is true - There are some parts of Litchenstein's bg that are directly relevant, but much of the rest of that one specific para about his bio is not really well fitting here but should at least be in Litchenstein's article. --MASEM (t) 14:06, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Just to comment that I believe I am satisfied with the background section as it stands now. Its not exactly how I'd write it but the flow/concept approach is much better now, and I have no opposes to it at this stage. --MASEM (t) 13:14, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrary removal of relevant material

TonyTheTiger—you say in this edit summary: "Legacy: rv User:Bus stop's change here. Not so concerned about other artists in this article". Nor am I "concerned about other artists in this article". The concern is purely with Lichtenstein. He is not the only Pop artist using appropriation at the time. Lichtenstein is a member of the "Pop art" movement and virtually all of the members of the movement employed appropriation. Reliable sources tell us this, such as the one I provided from the Museum of Modern Art. We don't just make arbitrary decisions that exclude information for no reason at all. The paragraph that we are discussing says explicitly or implies certain negative qualities associated with Lichtenstein, all of which are associated with the practice of "appropriation" in his artwork. We read for instance in that paragraph, and entirely related to "appropriation" that "Critics have raised concerns of impropriety". We also read within that paragraph that "Some have denigrated it as mere copying". This is obviously a reference to "appropriation". The term "plagiarism" is invoked, and we also read in that paragraph that "Other criticism centers on Lichtenstein's failure to credit the original artists of his sources". This is all related to Lichtenstein's use of "appropriation". Yet nowhere in the paragraph is it mentioned that virtually all of the biggest names in Pop art used the same technique. The paragraph is heaping wrongdoing on Lichtenstein without allowing the reader to know how widespread the practice was within the "art movement" in which Lichtenstein operated. If you disagree with the MoMA source that I provided then please provide a source displaying a differing opinion. Please replace the material in that paragraph that allows the reader to see the art historical context in which Lichtenstein "appropriated" the comic book imagery. I find it a contrived limitation on well-sourced, and educational, and relevant material to arbitrarily decide that the reader cannot know that "appropriating" images from popular culture was standard operating procedure within the art movement in which Lichtenstein operated. Thank you. Bus stop (talk) 00:48, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I am pretty sure this is longer than the 1500 KB upper bound of what I said I would respond to. However, I'll give you a minute. Basically, if you can get WPVA guys like Modernist or Ceoil to agree that this is an important change without causing Curly Turkey to protest, then you can make the change.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 04:11, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

• I've already stated that I think it does belong—in the Background section. Not as a POV rebuttal in a paragraph already chock full of rebuttals.
• The word "impropriety" has already disappeared from the article. Curly Turkey (gobble) 04:22, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

• Curly, if you two opponents agree it should be incorporated in a section that is currently quite contentious (it has its own section of this FAC). Why don't you work it in to the article as you see fit. Given the amount of attention that the background is getting right now and Masem's interest in making it more focussed (keep in mind Masem is one of the dissents in the current 5–2 vote), either directly add your preference to the article or post a propose exact wording in the discussion section above where that section is being debated.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 16:29, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

TonyTheTiger—I am not an "opponent" of anyone. Nor can you derive that something is contentious from its having "its own section of this FAC." The first two sentences in the paragraph that we are discussing are sourced to two different sources—bbc.com and paulgravett.com. But the assertions in both sentences are really being attributed to Dave Gibbons. We are supposed to write about contemporary art from a relatively enlightened point of view. We can allow for the representation of countervailing views in our article. But multiple problems are initiated when you overrepresent minority points of view and also fundamentally go outside of the scope of the article by for instance discussing many other Lichtenstein paintings besides the one that is the title of the article. This paragraph is not only discussing Lichtenstein's paintings in general but it is giving undue weight to a minority view about those paintings. Bus stop (talk) 18:15, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

What I mean is that since you two frequently disagree, it is good that you agree on necessary content. However, you seem to want to add it to a section where people seem to agree that we should be shortening. Additionally, with a current 5–2 vote, you should note the primary proponent of shortening is one of the dissenters.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 19:47, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

It's not that people are looking to shorten that section, it's that some of the biographical information has no bearing on this article (the fact that he studied languages?) We want to see the fat trimmed, but I don't think anyone is averse to adding material that will enrich the article.

I think the line "which along with neo-Dada re-introduced and changed the use of imagery" should be replaced with a clearer statement about appropriation—the meaning of the line will be totally opaque to most readers.

How about:

"By the late 1950s and early 1960s the American art world had grown accustomed to and tired of the subjective angst and "hot" look of abstract expressionism. A new generation of artists emerged with a more objective "cool" approach characterized by the art movements known today as minimalism, hard-edge painting, color field painting, the neo-Dada movement, Fluxus, and pop art, re-defining the avant-garde contemporary art of the time. Pop art and neo-Dada frequently used Appropriation, a technique in which images from other sources were borrowed and altered. Lichtenstein achieved international recognition during the 1960s as one of the initiators of the pop art movement in America."

I'd wait to hear from the someone like @Modernist: or @Ceoil: before making this change, though. Obviously subtleties in the wording can be contentious. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:36, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion it's inappropriate to stick that in the middle of the paragraph. If this Pop art and neo-Dada frequently used Appropriation, a technique in which images from other sources were borrowed and altered. is used at all it begins a new paragraph and basically a new subject. Appropriation art is more a late 70s-80s issue, certainly not crystallized at the time Whaam! was painted...Modernist (talk) 23:46, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

So "which along with neo-Dada re-introduced and changed the use of imagery" is not about appropriation then? What is it about? Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:22, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

By the late 50s - early 60s abstraction had dominated the art world in the US and in Europe; imagery and realism were out of fashion; simply the notion that anything can be made subject or be used as an image in a work of art became interesting again - especially if used in new ways. Chamberlain crushed cars, Rauschenberg made a painting using his bed, Johns replicated beer cans and the flag; Thiebaud painted pies and cakes, Oldenburg made plaster replicas of hamburgers and other things, Dine made color charts, Indiana made LOVE symbols, Wesselmann added TV sets to his work, Warhol replicated Brillo boxes and soup cans and Lichtenstein began painting commercial objects and imagery was back. Appropriation grew out of this period; but wasn't really discussed until much later. ...Modernist (talk)

Do you think many readers will understand thay's what "which along with neo-Dada re-introduced and changed the use of imagery" was supposed to mean? Do you have some objection to briefly explaining appropriation in the Background section? Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:33, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

As I said above discuss appropriation in a separate sentence or paragraph following the background context of the art scene in the late 50s early 60s and keep it direct and simple...Modernist (talk) 22:31, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Do you think you could do that? Also, do you think you could clarify "which along with neo-Dada re-introduced and changed the use of imagery" for the readers? As written, it'll be opaque to the majority of readers. Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:45, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

• I would prefer Bus Stop to make that addition re appropriation and imagery using the MoMA ref ...Modernist (talk) 11:57, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't get the impression Bus Stop is interested. Curly Turkey (gobble) 12:35, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

The reader should be afforded the opportunity to see the context in which Lichtenstein engages in the "wrongdoing" that Dave Gibbons alleges. This is made possible by apprising the reader that the quoting of "commercial" imagery was fairly standard practice among pop artists. We have a source supporting this. Mention can be made in more than one section of our article that material is visually "quoted" in pop art paintings. In differing sections of our article differing emphasis can be found, with variations on the kind of information presented. In my opinion this is not a zero sum situation. There is room for flexibility. There is enough commentary in sources that the information itself can differ depending where in the article this topic is found. We don't have to decide on one place in the article to mention this topic because variations on this topic can be found in more than one part of our article. If an editorial objection is raised after that material is in place we can address it at that time. Bus stop (talk) 11:47, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Back on the treadmill again:

1. The BBC article takes it as a given that the "wrongdoings" have been both brought up and addressed throughout the time since the painting first appeared. The fact that the BBC article doesn't name names is indicative of nothing more than that it's taken as a given. Tony below brings up the point that the "accusations" have haunted Lichtenstein since before Whaam!, and also outside of the context of his appropriations of commercial art.
2. The paragraph as is counters every accusation made already. What you want to add is unbalanced POV bloat.
3. Gibbons has gotten extra exposure because (a) he happens to be a celebrity as he drew one of the best-selling graphic novels in the English language (b) that best-seller has recently been made into a movie, and (c) he drew his criticism just in time for a big Lichtenstein exhibition. If this article were written last year, all the criticism would remain the same minus Gibbons. Highlighting Gibbons is bloat and dilution (trying to make it look like only cartoonists have these issues). Curly Turkey (gobble) 12:35, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Curly Turkey—no one is trying to make it look like "only cartoonists have these issues". Dave Gibbons is virtually the only person on record expressing a certain view on Lichtenstein or the painting Whaam!. He is expressing a distinctly minor view. This one individual. Is there a second individual expressing thoughts anything like these? Bus stop (talk) 15:56, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

No, Bus Stop, we have Alistair Sooke on record telling us these claims are widespread and go back decades. We also have Tony telling us below that the criticism preceded this painting and context. We've also had you trying to eliminate or distort this information since day one. The paragraph as it stands is well-balanced and represents its sources. You've wasted an inordinate amount of time on your POV filibustering. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:16, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

You still have not cited any sources and we are still left with only the two sources—gravett.com and bbc.com—that only cite Dave Gibbons. Again—the problem with Gibbons is that his views are very minor. They deserve only a slight mention in our article. Mainstream views are virtually the opposite of those of Gibbons. A person involved in arts education has this to say: "Appropriation artists deliberately copy images to take possession of them in their art. They are not stealing or plagiarizing. They are not passing off these images as their very own. Not at all." I would contend that is just about the opposite view on the use of preexisting images in artwork as that put forth by Gibbons. I think Gibbons only warrants minor representation in our article. A brief mention is all that is called for. I think I have correctly cut down that viewpoint from two sentences to one sentence. And I think I am correctly adding that according to as reliable source as the Museum of Modern Art, the deliberate copying of images was practiced not only by Lichtenstein but some of the most recognizable names in 1960s pop art. We are writing an article intended to be educational. This source would support an assertion in our article that Lichtenstein was hardly alone in copying preexisting images. In this regard he was in the company of Rauschenberg, Oldenburg, Warhol, and Wesselman. We are permitted to cautiously use sources. I have presented a suggested version for one paragraph in this post. Please comment or offer your own counterproposal. Bus stop (talk) 22:28, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Bus Stop - As soon as the BBC (a very reliable source) says "Some critics...", that means there's more than just Gibbons that share that view, and we don't have to prove that any further, unless you want to put the reliability of the BBC into doubt. Just because they only cite Gibbons doesn't mean Gibbons has a minority view here, but because they don't cite others, we can't name others, but its not required for this claim. So this is pretty much inactionable. --MASEM (t) 23:07, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Masem—I think what you are saying is almost entirely consistent with the wording I am suggesting for our article. Please note my suggested wording here: "Some such as Dave Gibbons have characterized Lichtenstein as a 'copycat'." Aren't you saying pretty much the same thing I am saying when you use the wording "Some critics"? Is our difference of opinion simply whether we should say "Some" or "Some critics"? I will reluctantly agree to "Some critics". Bus stop (talk) 12:42, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

No, you just said you think Gibbons point is minor because you claim he is the only one with that point, I'm saying that the BBC, an RS, says "some critics" and later explicitly Gibbons with that viewpoint, so the viewpoint is not minor as you claim. Just because we don't have other names doesn't make it minor given the claim that the BBC has set forth for us. You're arguing on extreme trivalities that would easily fall into the realm of WP:LAME if this were an edit war, and hence much is inactionable. --MASEM (t) 12:54, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I have not argued for inserting anything in our article implying that Dave Gibbons' view is "minor". Here again is the wording I suggested for inclusion in our article. There is absolutely no implication in my suggested wording that Gibbons' view is minor.

In my personal opinion is Dave Gibbons' view "minor"? Yes. Why do I feel that way? Alastair Sooke is described at the The Daily Telegraph website as an "art critic" who "also reports for The Culture Show on BBC Two". Sooke is actually refuting Gibbons. Sooke says "Comparing the source for Whaam! with the finished painting banishes the hoary idea that Lichtenstein profited on the back of the creativity of others. Lichtenstein transformed Novick’s artwork in a number of subtle but crucial ways." Bus stop (talk) 13:20, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Bus Stop—you're just going back to arguing ad nauseam the same points you've made over two long, long FACs. These points have been refuted time and again, and still you're no closer to consensus. I don't believe for a nonosecond that there's a counterproposal you'll actually agree to. Tony has enough real, actionable concerns to deal with. Could you please drop this horse manure now? (Yes, yes, I know, your response is a 22kb "no"). Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:36, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Modernist—can I ask you your opinion of a new version I have posted below at 13:38, 20 August 2013 (UTC)? Thanks. Bus stop (talk) 13:45, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Curly Turkey—there are two problems with the paragraph beginning with the words "Critics have raised concerns." One problem is that Lichtenstein paintings besides Whaam! are being considered. This is outside of the scope of this article. The other problem is that the view being discussed is minor. Dave Gibbons doesn't represent a major view. Bus stop (talk) 01:16, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Which is obviously why you want to dilute the paragraph by highlighting Gibbons. Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:40, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Curly Turkey—no more weight should be given to Gibbons than what sources support. We have the words of Gibbons in two sources. The first sentence of our article reads "Critics have raised concerns over Lichtenstein's appropriation, in that he directly references imagery from other sources in Whaam! and other works of the period." That is sourced to paulgravett.com. Only Gibbons articulates the views that support that first sentence. The second sentence of our article reads "Some have denigrated it as mere copying, to which others have countered that Lichtenstein altered his sources in significant, creative ways." That is sourced to bbc.com/Alastair Sooke. Only Gibbons articulates the views that support that second sentence. Only Gibbons expresses any view remotely approximating this: "A lot of Lichtenstein’s stuff is so close to the original that it actually owes a huge debt to the work of the original artist. But in music, for instance, you can’t just whistle somebody else’s tune no matter how badly without crediting or getting payment to the original artist." That is from bbc.com/Alastair Sooke. And only Gibbons expresses any view remotely approximating this: "I would say ‘copycat’. In music for instance, you can’t just whistle somebody else’s tune or perform somebody else’s tune, no matter how badly, without somehow crediting and giving payment to the original artist. That’s to say, this is ‘WHAAM! by Roy Lichtenstein, after Irv Novick’." That is from paulgravett.com. Gibbons represents a minor view. Those two sentences can probably be consolidated into one sentence, and the "view" should basically just be attributed to Gibbons, because nowhere else do we hear Gibbons' view expressed. Bus stop (talk) 02:47, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Bus Stop, I need to remind you again to stop repeating everything verbatim. You are running around in circles on the same point and muddling it by requoting and restating every cite. Which source is which is pretty obvious (if you say "BBC" we know its the Sooke article, for example). Keep your responses short and to the point, and explain exactly what you want, don't be passive about it or otherwise it will be considered inactionable. --MASEM (t) 02:56, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Masem—did you see my post immediately below, at 22:49, 19 August 2013 (UTC)? I have suggested wording for the paragraph under discussion. Obviously you can weigh in with an opinion on my suggested wording. Bus stop (talk) 03:25, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

How is this:

Some such as Dave Gibbons have characterized Lichtenstein as a "copycat". In response to claims of plagiarism, the Roy Lichtenstein Foundation has noted that publishers have never sued for copyright infringement, and that they never raised the issue when Lichtenstein's comics-derived work first gained attention in the 1960s. Other criticism centers on Lichtenstein's failure to credit the original artists of his sources; Ernesto Priego implicates National Periodicals in the case of Whaam!, as the artists were never credited in the original comic books. The process of borrowing images from other sources is called appropriation and was also practiced by Lichtenstein's pop art contemporaries. Bus stop (talk) 22:49, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

No, the Sooke article that accusations of being a mere copyist are long-standing, and that Gibbons' is only the latest: "And there are still people who believe that Lichtenstein – the so-called architect of pop art celebrated for his distinctive cartoon style – was a copycat, not an artist." Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:09, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Curly Turkey—This is not a bad web page of commentary on the subject we are talking about. Note that the author teaches art history. Would that not imply that her views are fairly mainstream? Do we see accusations of "copycat"? Of course not. The mainstream view is expressed in a few sentences such as these: "They are not stealing or plagiarizing. They are not passing off these images as their very own. Not at all. Appropriation artists want the viewer to recognize the images they copy…" Contrast this with the views put forth by Dave Gibbons. This is why I say that Gibbons' view represents a minority view. Consequently only brief mention should be made of it in this article. Bus stop (talk) 10:35, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Let me throw out there for consideration yet another version of the paragraph we are discussing:

"Some such as Dave Gibbons have characterized Lichtenstein as a "copycat". In response to claims of plagiarism, the Roy Lichtenstein Foundation has noted that publishers have never sued for copyright infringement, and that they never raised the issue when Lichtenstein's comics-derived work first gained attention in the 1960s. Other criticism centers on Lichtenstein's failure to credit the original artists of his sources; Ernesto Priego implicates National Periodicals in the case of Whaam!, as the artists were never credited in the original comic books. Other Pop artists aside from Lichtenstein derived imagery for paintings from sources that preexisted in popular culture. In the visual arts this has sometimes been referred to as "appropriation"."

I removed what was the last sentence and replaced it with two new final sentences. My aim with this change is to place less emphasis on any strict definition of "appropriation" that might exist. Bus stop (talk) 13:38, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Seems ok to me - keep it simple...Modernist (talk) 14:02, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

It was already simple. What is the motivation behind bloating it? Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:29, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Where are Curly Turkey and Masem on this proposed change?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:58, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not seeing why appropriation is being pushed to the end since this is the key idea of this paragraph. "Whaam! and other works from Litchenstein and other pop artists at the time are considered a form of "appropriation", deriving new works from sources that preexisted in popular culture." as the first sentence, continue from "Some such..." as Bus Stop has abvoe, and nix his last two sentences. --MASEM (t) 15:14, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Masem—"the key idea of this paragraph" are the accusations or insinuations that Lichtenstein engaged in wrongdoing by quoting images found in whole or in part in comic books. The person leveling those charges is Dave Gibbons. But Lichtenstein wasn't the only pop artist in the 1960s quoting images from other sources. A source lists Robert Rauschenberg, Claes Oldenburg, Andy Warhol, Tom Wesselman, and Roy Lichtenstein as engaging in related practices regarding sourcing of images for artwork. In the context of the accusations of wrongdoing we should apprise the reader of the widespread use of similar practices by other pop artists. Bus stop (talk) 01:04, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Bus Stop—out of seven (!) citations in that paragraph, only two include Gibbons' comments, and neither focus exclusively on Gibbons.

"A source lists Robert Rauschenberg, Claes Oldenburg, Andy Warhol, Tom Wesselman, and Roy Lichtenstein as engaging in related practices regarding sourcing of images for artwork."—Again, this belongs in Background, not as extra padding to protect poor Lichtenstein from his detractors in a paragraph that already refutes every claim made against him. Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:31, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

1. Same opinion as before: if what Lichtenstein did was appropriation, then that needs to go in the background section. What is the argument against that?
2. I see no sense in foregrounding only the latest critic (Gibbons, in 2013) when the article makes it clear that such critoicism goes all the way back to the 1960s ("Roy Lichtenstein’s critics said he was a plagiarist, not an artist."; Fifty years later "there are still people who believe that Lichtenstein ... was a copycat, not an artist."; "“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."; "Surely, in 2013, it is time we stopped accusing Lichtenstein of plagiarism once and for all."), and Gibbons' criticism has already been made elsewhere in the article. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:27, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Curly Turkey—all of your references in the BBC article are to anonymous people. The only exception is Dave Gibbons. My suggested wording, a few posts up, at 13:38, 20 August 2013 (UTC) is: "Some such as Dave Gibbons have characterized Lichtenstein as a "copycat"." The word "some" refers to anonymous or unnamed people.

Also, in the BBC article Alastair Sooke says: "Comparing the source for Whaam! with the finished painting banishes the hoary idea that Lichtenstein profited on the back of the creativity of others." Should that be in our article?

Also, you are saying "Gibbons' criticism has already been made elsewhere in the article". This is on an unrelated topic. Gibbons' criticism "elsewhere in the article" is not on the topic of plagiarism, wrongdoing, impropriety, copying. Gibbons says elsewhere in the article: ""This to me looks flat and abstracted, to the point of view that to my eyes it's confusing. Whereas the original has got a three-dimensional quality to it, it's got a spontaneity to it, it's got an excitement to it, and a way of involving the viewer that this one lacks."" He is simply saying the painting doesn't appeal to his sense of taste. That is unrelated to accusations of wrongdoing. Bus stop (talk) 00:00, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

• "Gibbons' criticism "elsewhere in the article" is not on the topic of plagiarism, wrongdoing, impropriety, copying...That is unrelated to accusations of wrongdoing"—so why foreground Gibbons in a paragraph that is about those issues?
• "all of your references in the BBC article are to anonymous people"—they are not my references, they are the BBC's. I'm certainly going to take the word of the BBC over that of Bus Stop.
• "Comparing the source for Whaam! with the finished painting banishes the hoary idea that Lichtenstein profited on the back of the creativity of others." "Should that be in our article?"—Sure, or a paraphrase, if it's not already redundant. Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:42, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

You ask "so why foreground Gibbons in a paragraph that is about those issues?" Dave Gibbons is a major proponent of a minor view. Is there someone else that you feel should be forefronted instead of Dave Gibbons?

When I used the term "references" I either misused the term or was using the term loosely. There aren't BBC "references" to anyone named—except for Dave Gibbons. Anonymous "references" cannot be pinpointed in any way, hence I've suggested the wording: "Some such as Dave Gibbons have characterized Lichtenstein as a 'copycat'." But if you have alternative wording please suggest it. Bus stop (talk) 10:50, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I disagree that appropriation is a Background element. In relation to Whaam, these claims could only happen after Whaam was publically displayed, so the specifics of appropriation w.r.t. Whaam chronologically follow. (A question to others: when did characters of appropriation against Litchenstein actually start? Was he already accused of it before he started drawing Whaam? - if this was the case, then maybe there's an element to this but as I read it, not sure...) --MASEM (t) 21:30, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand your argument—you seem to interpret "appropriation" as negative criticism, rather than a legitimate art technique. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:37, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not trying to say it is negative or positive, just what it was called, setting the framework then others like Gibbons specifically called out Litchenstein on Whaam (and other works) for "stealing" despite being part of this practice. --MASEM (t) 01:20, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

If it's an art technique (which it is, with a long history) then chronology doesn't play into it. Criticism of its usage is a different matter, but introduce the technique in the context of criticism is jumbling up the issues. The technique and the critique are orthogonal to each other, and should be treated separately. Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:32, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

• I'd say yes, briefly, as part of the Background section talking about appropriation in Pop art, whenever someone gets around to writing it. Curly Turkey (gobble) 12:38, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
  • If is the case that appropriation (and criticism of it) was not new by the time of Whaam, then yes, explaining that in the BG section is appropriate, and splitting off the specific criticism of Whaam (eg Gibbons complains) should be in the Reception. --MASEM (t) 21:19, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
    • I don't understand why it would go in "Reception", when Gibbons' commentary happened fifty years after the painting was first exhibited. The "Reception" section is short enough that I don't think it would hurt to merge with "Legacy" into a "Reception and legacy" section, so we wouldn't have to argue the grey areas. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:30, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
      • You're right, it's probably a legacy issue. That said, to simply the factors: "appropriation" (whether that's a term used for better or worse) should be brought up in the Background section in context of what pop art was doing at this time. But there is also something (whether legacy or reception) involving specifically Whaam's appropriation, which leads to Gibbon's statements. All the info is there, it's just organization. --MASEM (t) 23:42, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
        • Sounds good to me. Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:32, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

We are addressing in that paragraph the use of imagery to which others might have ownership rights. The reference in that paragraph to "copying" is a reference to the possible use of imagery to which others might have ownership rights. The reference in that paragraph to "plagiarism" is a reference to the possible use of imagery to which others might have ownership rights. The reference in that paragraph to "failure to credit the original artists" is a reference to the possible use of imagery to which others might have ownership rights. We should not deliberately withhold relevant information. Therefore after mentioning possible wrongdoings such as "copying", "plagiarism", and "failure to credit the original artists", we should add that these potential blemishes are not unique to Lichtenstein. The way we accomplish that is by adding that Lichtenstein's contemporaries in the Pop art movement also used imagery to which others might have ownership rights.

One version:

Critics have raised concerns over Lichtenstein's appropriation, in that he directly references imagery from other sources in Whaam! and other works of the period. Some have denigrated it as mere copying, to which others have countered that Lichtenstein altered his sources in significant, creative ways. In response to claims of plagiarism, the Roy Lichtenstein Foundation has noted that publishers have never sued for copyright infringement, and that they never raised the issue when Lichtenstein's comics-derived work first gained attention in the 1960s. Other criticism centers on Lichtenstein's failure to credit the original artists of his sources; Ernesto Priego implicates National Periodicals in the case of Whaam!, as the artists were never credited in the original comic books.

Another version:

Critics have raised concerns of impropriety with Whaam! and other Lichtenstein works of the period. Some have denigrated it as mere copying, to which others have countered that Lichtenstein altered his sources in significant, creative ways. In response to claims of plagiarism, the Roy Lichtenstein Foundation has noted that publishers have never sued for copyright infringement, and that they never raised the issue when Lichtenstein's comics-derived work first gained attention in the 1960s. Other criticism centers on Lichtenstein's failure to credit the original artists of his sources; Ernesto Priego implicates National Periodicals in the case of Whaam!, as the artists were never credited in the original comic books. The process of borrowing images from other sources is called appropriation and was also practiced by Lichtenstein's pop art contemporaries. Bus stop (talk) 11:52, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

• I'll be honest. I don't really want to tinker with the article now that it has 5 support, 1 neutral and 1 oppose, unless the 4 active discussants really agree on something. I believe I am hearing that there is agreement to add something to the BG about the point raised above that by the time of Whaam! Lichtenstein was already being widely discussed regarding his use of original sources. Then there is much less agreement about other refinements related to appropriation. Can I get you guys to draft and agree on a sentence or two that should be added to the BG while you continue to entertain each other debating the other refinements.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:26, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Modernist made this edit, which I think covers it decently, though there's no mention of the word appropriation (put it back in "See also, where it was before?). I think the Madame Cézanne bit would be a beneficial addition, but I wouldn't fight for it. Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:40, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

• I added those links for appropriation & Mme. Cezanne here - ...Modernist (talk) 02:14, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

• That was such an WP:EASTEREGG that I revised it. Also, I am not sure it clarifies the above point of curiosity about the appropriation as to whether it was a controversy at the time Lichtenstein was doing Whaam! Look above where I Mention Portrait of Madame Cézanne and think about whether you have really clarified that reader's curiosity.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:20, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

• O.K. I see that it has been totally removed. What is going on?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:27, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

A very long and confusing run-on sentence needed fixing; in context the Mme Cézanne bit seemed unneeded. The background section already says pop artists appropriated images from commercial art, consumer objects, and popular culture. What does the mere mention of this work add to the reader's understanding of the background of Whaam!? If the intention is that the reader will click the link and learn more about the accusations of plagiarism leveled at Lichtenstein, maybe work it into the legacy section where this controversy is discussed? Alternatively, if you prefer this matter to be in the background section, add a line there that says, more or less, "Lichtenstein's Portrait of Madame Cézanne (1962) had already provoked accusations of plagiarism", and add a source. The internal llink to Portrait of Madame Cézanne absent any explanation of the related plagiarism issue was not adequate, and was useless to any reader who doesn't click the link. Ewulp (talk) 07:21, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

There is more to the question of "copying" than just that "Lichtenstein altered his sources in significant, creative ways", as our article presently says. I think I find the following in a reliable source:

"Copying from another’s artist’s work had been out of style for a good part of the twentieth century; the avant-garde had increasingly set store by invention. In resorting to old-fashioned copying (and of such “unartistic” models), Lichtenstein did something characteristic: he made it so obvious that he was copying that everyone knew it. In effect he threw down the gauntlet, challenging the notion of originality as it prevailed at that time."

Our article, in addition to explaining that "Lichtenstein altered his sources in significant, creative ways", should explain that he challenged the notion of originality as it prevailed at that time.

The paragraph presently beginning with the words "Critics have raised concerns", found presently in the Whaam!#Legacy section of the article, is addressing issues relating to originality. We should include reference to what at least this one source is telling us is the intentionality behind this aspect of his work. If anyone has a copy of "The Drawings of Roy Lichtenstein", by Bernice Rose, 1987, the Museum of Modern Art, New York, we can confirm the quoted wording, as I am only getting that wording from this web site. Bus stop (talk) 13:47, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Bus stop, this is an example of why each of your points should be limited to 1500 characters. You are wearing down other weary discussants.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:24, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

TonyTheTiger—we are not trying to convince the reader of the obvious. It is more a part of our purpose to provide the reader with insights into what might not be obvious. We should especially be interested in the light that can be shed on less than obvious aspects of the painting by especially noteworthy sources. In this case a book published by the Museum of Modern Art specifically referencing Lichtenstein might be of importance to us. It is very obvious that many of Lichtenstein's paintings bear a very strong resemblance to source material such as comics. A brief mention of that in our article is all that is called for. After briefly mentioning that the Lichtenstein painting is very much like its source material, we should want to provide for the reader the most relevant commentary from the best quality sources relating to the very curious similarity of image in both painting and source material. The Bernice Rose commentary above would seem to me to be important because by her explanation the "copying" under question in the paragraph was purposeful. Her explanation is that Lichtenstein wished to challenge the notion of originality as it prevailed at that time. If you disagree with the inclusion of Rose's point in the article, please tell me the basis for your disagreement. Bus stop (talk) 14:55, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

"Whaam! as well as other works by Lichtenstein has engendered its share of negative responses. Those speaking from the perspective of comic book artists have seen the copying of imagery as somewhat dishonest. Lichtenstein has never been sued for copyright infringement. Ernesto Priego implicates National Periodicals in the case of Whaam!, as the artists were never credited in the original comic books. Other Pop artists aside from Lichtenstein derived imagery for paintings from sources that preexisted in commercial sources or popular culture in general. Bernice Rose writes that Lichtenstein was interested in "challenging the notion of originality as it prevailed at that time.""

Can we consider the above wording? Note that Dave Gibbons is not mentioned as had been requested. "Dishonest" happens to be a term used by Gibbons. He's sourced at gravett.com as saying "I find there’s something slightly dishonest about it". "Appropriation" is not mentioned, as had been requested, but it is alluded to indirectly. An additional idea added to the paragraph would be the last sentence quoting Bernice Rose. It would be sourced to "Bernice Rose, "The Drawings of Roy Lichtenstein", Museum of Modern Art, 1987." Bernice Rose is writing under the imprimatur of the MoMA. Therefore I think her view is worth mentioning. Bus stop (talk) 12:48, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I've made this edit. I've rewritten the paragraph because there was too much emphasis on wrongdoing and too little emphasis on explanations for what appears to be copying from preexisting works of art—in this case comic books. The relationship between comic book imagery and the painting is very obvious to every viewer. But what was missing were explanations found at good quality sources for why an artist like Lichtenstein seems to be merely copying from comic books. The Bernice Rose commentary provides the sort of explanation that I think an average reader would be looking for. Bus stop (talk) 01:57, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Lots of problems with this:

• There's no consensus for it, and it's clear it's a controversial edit.
• "Those speaking from the perspective of comic book artists"—the BBC makes it clear that it is not only from the perspective of comics folk.
• "Lichtenstein has never been sued for copyright infringement."—Far too blunt, and far inferior to the way it was handled in the pre-edit.
• "Ernesto Priego implicates National Periodicals in the case of Whaam!, as the artists were never credited in the original comic books"—implicates National Periodicals in what? The pre-edit version makes it clear that not giving attribution was what Priego was implicating NAtional Periodicals for. This sentence is gibberish.
• "Other Pop artists aside from Lichtenstein derived imagery for paintings from sources that preexisted in commercial sources or popular culture in general."—Again (and again and again) this belongs in Background, not here.
• "Bernice Rose writes that Lichtenstein was interested in "challenging the notion of originality as it prevailed at that time."—Interesting, but a non sequitur. Why does this belong here?

Bus Stop, you've made gibberish of this paragraph. Please revert. Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:16, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I also think the previous version was better. Among other things, the new edit suggests that the only complaints about Lichtenstein's appropriations came from the comics world. But didn't art historian Erle Loran file a lawsuit against Lichtenstein over Portrait of Madame Cézanne (1962)? Ewulp (talk) 02:52, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I reverted this controversial edit.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:49, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

You might want to check out his follow up edit. Curly Turkey (gobble) 13:58, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Got that one too. PLEASE STOP MAKING EDITS THAT ARE UNSUPPORTED BY CONSENSUS. We don't want this FA to fail due to lack of stability.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:40, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

TonyTheTiger—you are removing relevant material from the article. In this edit you remove a statement saying that "Bernice Rose writes that Lichtenstein was interested in challenging the notion of originality as it prevailed at that time." It is sourced to a MoMA publication. I believe I have the support of User:Modernist in this edit. I have discussed this with him on his Talk page. Bus stop (talk) 15:32, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Curly Turkey—you point out that "The word "impropriety" has already disappeared form the article." This may be so. But the paragraph under discussion is a paragraph on "impropriety". That is a fair topic for inclusion in our article. Some feel that there is an element of wrongdoing in the activities of Lichtenstein. This is the subject of our paragraph. Is everything pointing to wrongdoing? Of course not. We have explanations from the Museum of Modern Art saying that many of the most important artists within the Pop art movement working alongside Lichtenstein were stealing images from the world around them. Does this excuse Lichtenstein? It is not for us to say. But we are writing about art and peripherally we are writing about an art movement. This article has been expanded way beyond its proper scope. I've resisted that. But as long as this article is addressing material beyond its scope, it has to do so in a balanced way. Exculpatory material has to be added. We can't be content to say that Lichtenstein was dishonest or that he was a copycat (as Dave Gibbons says) and leave it at that. There is an art historical context which may help to put the subject of the article into perspective. What were the aims of the Pop art movement? What were Lichtenstein's aims? What do reliable sources have to say about Lichtenstein's aims? We have the Museum of Modern Art in the person of Bernice Rose explaining a moment in art history:

"Copying from another artist’s work had been out of style for a good part of the twentieth century; the avant-garde had increasingly set store by invention. In resorting to old-fashioned copying (and of such “unartistic” models), Lichtenstein did something characteristic: he made it so obvious that he was copying that everyone knew it. In effect he threw down the gauntlet, challenging the notion of originality as it prevailed at that time."

Does she suggest any wrongdoing or impropriety? No, she does not. She is referring to copying. Dave Gibbons calls Lichtenstein a "copycat". She is explaining why Lichtenstein would steal artwork from a comic book artist. The reader can be left to reach their own conclusions as concerns any possible impropriety. Our job is to present relevant information in a balanced way. The scope of this article has been expanded way beyond its proper bounds. Nevertheless we have to maintain balance. Bus stop (talk) 11:46, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

The paragraph needs a rewrite in my opinion. As a start, the comment of Bernice Rose should be re-added. I believe I have the support of Modernist concerning the comment of Bernice Rose. I have therefore made this edit. Bus stop (talk) 12:01, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

You don't seriously think I'm going to re-re-reply to your neverending broken record, do you? Bernice Rose may have an interesting point, maybe even worth including, but you insist on placing it in an inappropriate place—in a single paragraph you are obsessed with distorting in some way. You don't understand balance, you don't understand NPOV, you don't understand context, you don't understand consensus, and you don't understand communication. Curly Turkey (gobble) 12:33, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Curly Turkey—Bernice Rose is writing for the Museum of Modern Art. She is providing us with her evaluation of the underlying reason that Lichtenstein virtually stole imagery from comic book artists. Information in an article goes where it is needed. We should not be writing a one-sided, condemnatory paragraph. If we have the evaluation of appropriation in the case of Lichtenstein presented in a non-condemnatory fashion, by a good quality source, we should include that evaluation. Furthermore, information can be presented in different ways at different parts of an article. You are single-mindedly arguing that certain information may not be included in this paragraph. This is information that tends to excuse Lichtenstein for what some might regard as apparent wrongdoing. This information is part of a balanced presentation to the reader and is therefore in keeping with WP:NPOV. Bus stop (talk) 13:13, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

"a one-sided, condemnatory paragraph"—good luck getting anyone to take you seriously when you spout baldfaced horeshit like that one, that's been refuted down to the smallest details ad nauseam. Here's that "one-sided, condemnatory paragraph", folx:

Critics have raised concerns over Lichtenstein's appropriation, in that he directly references imagery from other sources in Whaam! and other works of the period. Some have denigrated it as mere copying, to which others have countered that Lichtenstein altered his sources in significant, creative ways. In response to claims of plagiarism, the Roy Lichtenstein Foundation has noted that publishers have never sued for copyright infringement, and that they never raised the issue when Lichtenstein's comics-derived work first gained attention in the 1960s. Other criticism centers on Lichtenstein's failure to credit the original artists of his sources; Ernesto Priego implicates National Periodicals in the case of Whaam!, as the artists were never credited in the original comic books.

Keep your distance, gentle artlovers! Such bile could eat a hole right through your heart!

(Har! Har! Har! Ain't I hilarious?! I'm using the plural when there's only one other editor with the foolish persistence still to wade through this ocean of repetitive kBs!)Curly Turkey (gobble) 13:31, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Curly Turkey—you are not even addressing the issue of whether or not Bernice Rose's commentary should be included in this paragraph. She is explaining, from a very informed point of view, that Lichtenstein was, or may have been, trying to challenge notions of originality. I realize this sounds like arcane jargony stuff that could only be found in the world of contemporary art, but what would be your reason for leaving this material out of this paragraph? Bus stop (talk) 13:39, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Bus Stop—you are not even trying to comprehend the words that are before your face. Try to absorb what people have been saying before you flood the page with more repetitious "arguments". Curly Turkey (gobble) 13:46, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

P. S.—I have addressed "the issue of whether or not Bernice Rose's commentary should be included in this paragraph". You neither bothered to read it nor comprehend it. Curly Turkey (gobble) 13:48, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Curly Turkey—When the Museum of Modern Art, in the person of Bernice Rose, provides commentary on a subject, it should be included at the point(s) in an article at which it is relevant. Bus stop (talk) 14:12, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Curly Turkey—Bernice Rose puts into context the appropriation of images found elsewhere—images that arguably "belong" to other artists. The theme of this paragraph is propriety. In this paragraph we are addressing the propriety and/or impropriety of Lichtenstein's use of images potentially belonging to other artists. Rose's commentary sheds light on why Lichtenstein chose to copy material which arguably belonged to other artists, albeit comic book artists. Incidentally, we also have it from another MoMA source that the "appropriation" of images in this way, was a common or even standard practice of many Pop artists working contemporaneously with Lichtenstein. We should be putting this into context. The alternative is a one-sided paragraph that misleads the reader. Art movements have aims. That is why they are coherent as "movements". An "art movement" is not a ragtag group of artists who happen to live in the same vicinity and/or make art at the same time. Lichtenstein was an exponent, by means of his artwork, of a point of view that was expressed by the Pop artists. This should be expressed in our paragraph. That is why we should include Rose's comment. Bus stop (talk) 15:22, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

• Bus stop, I got your message in response to my recent reversion. The content is not supported by consensus here. Please refrain from making controversial edits to the article at this point in the review. I don't want it to b failed due to instability.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:08, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

TonyTheTiger—what is your point of view? Should this edit, which I made, be included in the article? You removed the added material with this edit. The wording that I placed in the article in this edit is relevant to the paragraph in which it is place and it is well-sourced—being sourced to the Museum of Modern Art. At this point the only User:Curly Turkey is weighing in specifically in opposition to the inclusion of the comment by Bernice Rose. User:Ewulp did not express opposition to specifically this, and User:Modernist seems to support this, based on conversation on his Talk page. You have not weighed in with a position on this. In my opinion you might consider articulating a reasoned response on the (Bernice Rose) material under consideration. You are not just an impartial editor. Bus stop (talk) 16:44, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

How about we refrain from making edits to the article without obtaining consensus here until this review is over.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:49, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

TonyTheTiger—why did you remove the observation made by Bernice Rose that Lichtenstein threw down the gauntlet, challenging the notion of originality as it prevailed at that time? Do you feel that this is not relevant in a paragraph addressing the propriety/impropriety of using material that is not original? The original images were made by comic book artists. Rose supplies a reason for Lichtenstein's use of such images. Do you somehow feel this is not relevant? The book in which she writes this is published by the Museum of Modern Art. You are not explaining your removal of material which adds balance to the paragraph. Rose is providing an explanation for Lichtenstein's actions. Her explanation represents new information in the paragraph. Whereas others may see Lichtenstein's actions as dishonest or as mere copying, Rose is saying something different. Rose is saying that the appropriation is for the purpose of "challenging the notion of originality". I am wondering on what basis you feel this doesn't belong in the paragraph. Bus stop (talk) 19:08, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Because there is no consensus to include it.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:49, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Bernice Rose is an important curator at MoMA and her comment is probably one of the most interesting things that I've ever read about Lichtenstein - I re-added it and it stays because it's both intelligent and valid...Modernist (talk) 21:46, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

• Editwarring is inexcusable at the best of times, much less during an unreasonably long-drawn-out FAC.
• The Bernice Rose comment is in a totally inappropriate place. If its "one of the most interesting things" you have read, then why bury it in the article? We don't just throw quotes willy-nllly into articles. We use our heads and find the most appropriate places for them. Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:08, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

• That's fine - I'd prefer it in a different place; I'll move it...Modernist (talk) 22:37, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I didn't understand that Curly Turkey's only complaint was with location. I hope everyone agrees with the placement of the new content.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:49, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
• Done...Modernist (talk) 22:54, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Looks fine to me. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:11, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

"Copying from another artist’s work had been out of style for a good part of the twentieth century; the avant-garde had increasingly set store by invention. In resorting to old-fashioned copying (and of such “unartistic” models), Lichtenstein did something characteristic: he made it so obvious that he was copying that everyone knew it. In effect he threw down the gauntlet, challenging the notion of originality as it prevailed at that time."

The above should be set aside in a quotebox. I used a brief section of the quote because it responded directly to the material that was above it in its paragraph. In its original location it had relevancy. Certainly it can have relevancy at other parts of the article too. But without the context of the paragraph that it was in, it must provide its own context, hence the need for the quote above.

Lichtenstein elicited the responses from people like Dave Gibbons by challenging the notions of originality. But without the "Dave Gibbons"-type comments in immediate proximity, the significance of challenging the notions of originality becomes less clear. More context in the form of the total quote above restores significance that is lost by moving the quoted material away from the comments by people such as Dave Gibbons. Bus stop (talk) 23:32, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

• I don't think you need the whole quote - in context now where it is the idea of using imagery from 'commercial art' is mentioned and which leads into the Rose quote; less is fine. Add the whole quote to the bio page...Modernist (talk) 00:03, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

OK. Bus stop (talk) 00:31, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Or you could condense and paraphrase the whole thing:

"The once-common practice of copying had fallen out of favour by the mid-20th century; Lichtenstein challenged the contemporary avant-garde emphasis on originality and invention by making his copying impossible to ignore."

—Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:34, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I would say the whole quote should be included in this article. This article has gone way far outside of its scope. As such, the Bernice Rose quote should be included in its entirety:

"Copying from another artist’s work had been out of style for a good part of the twentieth century; the avant-garde had increasingly set store by invention. In resorting to old-fashioned copying (and of such “unartistic” models), Lichtenstein did something characteristic: he made it so obvious that he was copying that everyone knew it. In effect he threw down the gauntlet, challenging the notion of originality as it prevailed at that time."

The above is outside of the scope of this article. It is not commentary that is particular to the painting that is the title of this article. But since much of the material in this article is outside of the scope of this article I see little reason that the above quote should not be included in its entirety. Bus stop (talk) 02:49, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

There is zero reason for paraphrasing. The whole quote can be put in the article if putting the whole quote in the article seems warranted. Or the whole quote can be left out of the article. What is of inarguable importance is putting the implications of the quote in the article. Those implications can find applicability at more than one point in our article. I'm striking through my above post and I am considering my revised thinking on this point to be reflected in this post. Bus stop (talk) 22:41, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

An all-or-nothing kinda guy, ain'tcha, Bus Stop? "What is of inarguable importance is putting the implications of the quote in the article": in what way is this an argument against a paraphrase? Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:29, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

1. Nobody has agreed with you that the article is out of scope, and several of us have disagreed with you at length. You seem to have no appreciation for context.
2. If the quote is out of scope, then exact quoting the whole thing would be the opposite of what you would want to do. So why not drop it entirely?
3. You have not even provided an argument as to why quoting should be preferred to paraphrasing.
4. Please stop quoting in full what you have already quoted verbatim multiple times. The previous full verbatim quote is still visible on the screen.

—Curly Turkey (gobble) 05:11, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

We have another good quality source (Bernice Rose, "The Drawings of Roy Lichtenstein", Museum of Modern Art) telling us: "Copying from another artist’s work had been out of style for a good part of the twentieth century; the avant-garde had increasingly set store by invention. In resorting to old-fashioned copying (and of such 'unartistic' models), Lichtenstein did something characteristic: he made it so obvious that he was copying that everyone knew it. In effect he threw down the gauntlet, challenging the notion of originality as it prevailed at that time."

We have a paragraph beginning with the words: "Critics have raised concerns" in the Legacy section of our article. That paragraph explores Lichtenstein's use of preexisting images to which he is not necessarily entitled. We are asking ourselves in this paragraph if this practice is proper, and what motivations prompt Lichtenstein to do this. Both of the above sources, which happen to be Museum of Modern Art sources, are supplying us with possible answers to these questions. To use these sources to address these questions I would add the following wording to our paragraph:

"Lichtenstein was not the only artist directly referencing images from other sources. Many other prominent artists in the Pop art movement made use of imagery found in popular culture. Bernice Rose, a curator at the Museum of Modern Art, expresses the opinion that Lichtenstein quoted preexisting sources in an obvious way in order to challenge the notion of "originality." Bus stop (talk) 15:56, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Bus Stop, please stop repeating those quotes in every single one of your replies. You are being pointlessly wordy and you are not making any direct arguments. We well know those quotes exist, it doesn't help in any bit to keep repeating them. --MASEM (t) 16:02, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Masem—I am aware of our policies such as WP:BECONCISE. I think I am being very considerate of everybody having to read my posts. Consider the fact that there is no virtue in being cryptic, in that too short a post may not succeed in clearly communicating. We also should be aware of those who may be just joining the thread—if a few more words helps that newcomer quickly get up to speed on what the rest of us are discussing, the tradeoff may be worthwhile. Bus stop (talk) 16:31, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Is there any hope when an editor has been told to "Please stop quoting in full what have already quoted verbatim multiple times" replies by quoting in full what he has already quoted verbatim multiple times? We've tried ceasing to respond to this guy. He reacts to the silence by making contentious edits directly to the article. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:21, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Curly Turkey—I have suggested wording for inclusion in the paragraph in our article that begins with the wording "Critics have raised concerns". My suggested wording is found a few posts up, at 15:56, 29 August 2013 (UTC). Respond if you wish to. Bus stop (talk) 21:51, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

And it's been rejected by several editors. Put the stick down and walk away from the dead horse. Similarly, there is no reason to include the full quote because it doesn't say anything profound that can be paraphrased (as CT did a bit earlier with The once-common practice of copying...) with citing that source for it. It's not a profound statement of opinion by the author which is generally the only situations where quoting is really important. (If we had a direct Litchenstein quote that said along the same lines, that would be different). --MASEM (t) 23:20, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Curly Turkey, Masem—let me revise my thinking on this yet again. I think we can distill down one very simple sentence from our two MoMA sources. That sentence would be:

"Lichtenstein like many other Pop artists were challenging traditional notions of originality."

This should be added to the end of the paragraph we have been discussing. Any comments? Bus stop (talk) 01:55, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

• Gramatically that should be "Lichtenstein, like many other Pop artists, was challenging traditional notions of originality."
• However, this has gotten distilled a bit much for me. Is there anything that might be agreeable that would also explicitly name Portrait of Madame Cézanne as an example of how overt some of Lichtenstein's copying was in this period.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:31, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

• Surely you see the problem with "traditional"—the stigma against borrowing & copying in the arts is largely a 20th-century thang.
• Further, the sentence lacks sufficient context: what "traditional notions of originality"? The idea that originality is important? The idea that recontextualizing didn't constitute originality? The idea that changing and mixing sources didn't constitute sufficient originality? Something else, technical, political, or cultural?
• Lastly, I hope "the paragraph we have been discussing" isn't the one you keep trying to distort. Placed there, it is a non sequitir. If it's important enough to place in the article, then it belongs in the Background, as it is background information.

———Curly Turkey (gobble) 03:33, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

"Pop artists absorbed and borrowed from popular culture, challenging notions of originality and what it means to be an artist."

"Today, appropriating, remixing, and sampling images and media is common practice for visual, media, and performance artists, yet such strategies continue to challenge traditional notions of originality and test the boundaries of what it means to be an artist."

"Pop artists like Robert Rauschenberg, Claes Oldenburg, Andy Warhol, Tom Wesselman, and Roy Lichtenstein reproduced, juxtaposed, or repeated…"

And finally from a separate source we have Bernice Rose: "challenging the notion of originality as it prevailed at that time".

I have added the bolding in all of the above quotes. Based on the above quotes we have support for the following sentence:

"Lichtenstein like many other Pop artists was challenging conventional notions of originality."

This should be added to the end of the paragraph under discussion. The sentence I am suggesting is adequately supported by sources. Both sources should be provided. Bernice Rose is of course speaking specifically about Lichtenstein. The other MoMA source is speaking about Pop artists in general but it specifically mentions Lichtenstein among them. Bus stop (talk) 04:12, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

An even shorter version would be: "Lichtenstein, like many Pop artists, was challenging notions of originality." I think this provides informative context. The paragraph contains within it for instance: "Some have denigrated it as mere copying…" There is nothing wrong with that as it represents a valid area for exploration. But there are relevant factors that are at this time left out of that paragraph. One such factor is that Lichtenstein, as most Pop artists, was appropriating imagery as a means of challenging notions of originality in fine art. Bus stop (talk) 04:29, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Bus Stop, the issue is not sourcing, it's communication. Please reread what I wrote above, because you obviously didn't the first time. Curly Turkey (gobble) 04:48, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

To clarify: you don't need to explain these things to me, Bus Stop, but to make them clear to the reader. Curly Turkey (gobble) 04:51, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Curly Turkey—we are abiding by the findings of sources. We know sufficiently well what "originality" refers to. We have two sources using that term. Both of those are sources connected to the Museum of Modern Art. I personally find no difficulty relating to the term "originality". You say we have to "make them clear to the reader". I don't think the reader will encounter any difficulty understanding the sentence that I suggested. The paragraph in our article that we are discussing makes reference to the concepts of "copying" ("Some have denigrated it as mere copying…") and "plagiarism" ("In response to claims of plagiarism…"). "Copying" and "plagiarism" are concepts inextricably linked to the concept of "originality". Bus stop (talk) 05:07, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

No, Bus Stop, the meaning of that sentence is opaque. I am astounded that you cannot see why. Even more so since there is no consensus to put it where you want—the info's in the Background section where it belongs, and you have the support of no other editor to have it moved. This particular thread of the discussion started off by discussing whether or not the info should be quoted in part, in full, or paraphrased, but you and you alone are trying to bulldoze it back into that one paragraph that you are single-mindedly obsessed with. Meanwhile, the 50th anniversary will come and go, and you still won't be pleased with anything but the total distortion or outright elimination of that one paragraph. I'd love to just ignore your horseshit, but you've made it abundantly clear that ignoring you just means you'll resort to editwarring the actual article. Curly Turkey (gobble) 08:20, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Curly Turkey—please look at the paragraph beginning with the words "Critics have raised concerns" found in the Legacy section. It has a theme. It has an underlying subject. That theme is the curious relationship between the imagery found in commercial art sources and the imagery found in what is called fine art. The question is largely one of propriety, as well as one of meaning, or significance. Does an artist have a right to usurp ownership of an image arguably belonging to another artist, albeit often a "commercial artist"? Reliable sources come down on both sides of this question with various points and observations. For instance we read in our paragraph that "Some have denigrated it as mere copying, to which others have countered that Lichtenstein altered his sources in significant, creative ways." That sentence, already in our article, presents one view in the first half of that sentence and a different view in the second half. We are permitted to include in this paragraph material that is both reliably sourced and relevant to the subject of the paragraph. The MoMA weighs in on exactly the subject of this paragraph. I have presented above, two sources, both of which are related to the MoMA. Those sources support that the use of imagery in this way was common practice among Pop artists and that there was a reason that Pop artists used imagery in this way. That reason was that they wanted to challenge notions of originality. Both of the sources in fact mention Lichtenstein. One of the sources only speaks about Lichtenstein. The MoMA sources are providing us with information relevant to the subject of this paragraph. Therefore that information should be included in this paragraph. I have suggested that a brief sentence be added, referenced to both MoMA sources, indicating that the intention of Pop artists in general and Lichtenstein in particular was to challenge the concept of "originality". There is nothing unclear about the word "originality". We are not using it in a technical way. Two MoMA sources are using the term. It is not "opaque". Furthermore, our paragraph already references concepts such as "copying" and "plagiarism". The idea of "originality" is crucial to those concepts. We don't have to define something to the umpteenth degree. We are merely talking about interpretations of a painting. The MoMA is an eminently valid source for this sort of an observation. Bus stop (talk) 12:55, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Bus Stop, you are trying to push a POV here. The combination of sources to get there is in SYNTH territory now. There is no requirement that WP articles need to include every source and concept from those sources in a topic, we just need to be comprehensive. The entire idea of appropriation - whether around pop art or Litchenstein's works - is already explored in depth in other articles and it only has to be touched on here to 1) set up the stage of what was happened in pop art/Litchenstine's work at the time of the creation of Whaam, and 2) the obvious nature of this and subsequent criticism by some specifically tied to Whaam (eg Gibbons stuff). The details provided in the current article do that job without veering into excess. You're trying to get them to add more to fit this specific view that you have, and I really don't see how that's going to improve the article, since both sides of the appropriation issue are already discussed. --MASEM (t) 13:08, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Masem—on the contrary I am not "trying to push a POV". Nor is there any semblance of a violation of WP:SYNTH. Whaam! resembles a panel from a comic book. Obviously, comic book artists made that panel. Why is Lichtenstein brazenly stealing another artist's work and presenting it as fine art? This is the subject of the paragraph. MoMA weighs in with an opinion on this. MoMA says that the Pop artists and Lichtenstein in particular were concerned with "challenging notions of originality". Why should that be excluded from the paragraph? Bus stop (talk) 14:33, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Because "challenging notions of originality" is a fascinating insight into the thought processes that motivated the painting, not an after-the-fact defence against its detracters. Curly Turkey (gobble) 14:59, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Curly Turkey—the paragraph already contains what you would probably call after-the-fact defenses against its detractors. Aready included in the paragraph is the assertion that "…others have countered that Lichtenstein altered his sources in significant, creative ways." Yet you are not objecting to that assertion. Our obligation to the reader is to present that information that is relevant to the subject and reliably sourced. The MoMA sources are completely aware of the scandalous implications of fine artists brazenly usurping images belonging to other artists. The MoMA sources are providing us with an explanation for the practices that are under examination in this paragraph. Bus stop (talk) 15:46, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

?!?!? You desparately need to reread what I wrote. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:34, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I reread your post. It says: "Because "challenging notions of originality" is a fascinating insight into the thought processes that motivated the painting, not an after-the-fact defence against its detractors." The MoMA observations contain no defenses against detractors. The MoMA is not disagreeing with anything Dave Gibbons for instance says. The MoMA does not for instance say that Lichtenstein is not a "copycat". Gibbons characterizes Lichtenstein as a "copycat". The MoMA does not for instance deny that Lichtenstein is "dishonest". Gibbons characterizes Lichtenstein as "dishonest". The MoMA is weighing in with an observation about originality. I think the primary theme of the paragraph is originality. The MoMA sources are telling us that one of the concerns of the Pop art movement was the challenging of prevailing concepts of originality. The MoMA sources tell us this about the Pop artists in general and about Lichtenstein in particular. This is the context in which any charges relating to any degree of plagiarism should be seen. Bus stop (talk) 05:43, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

And again, you misread CT's point - it's about where the information is best placed, not what the articles say. The MOMA source has zero to do in any specificality to Whaam. As such, the aspects of appropriation it talks about are best suited to the Background (pre-Whaam's creation) section, and not for the reception on Whaam, whereas Gibbons' complaints are specifically on Whaam, and thus talked in detail in the reception. And because the Background already discusses appropriation, there's no need to detail it more. --MASEM (t) 05:54, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Because it is not a defense against the painting's detractors it does not belong in that paragraph—it belongs in the "Background", as it gives insight into Lichtenstein's creative process. See: WP:SYNTHESIS. And, no, the paragraph is not about "originality" as a concept. Curly Turkey (gobble) 05:59, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Masem: I do think the appropriation stuff could be explained in a more elegant, elightening, and clear manner, though. I made an attempt above, but it looks like everyone's too pooped at this point to give it any thought. Curly Turkey (gobble) 06:01, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I did say I think what you paraphrased it to was ok, but at the same time, it's also reiterating what's effectively said. --MASEM (t) 06:03, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't matter—I "supported" long ago—but normally these would be the kinds of fine details that would get discussed in an FAC. It would be nice to see a this as TFA that represented the best a Misplaced Pages article could be, rather than something that just manages to cross the threshold. But, no, I have no intention of holding up this FAC any further with something like this. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:22, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Masem; Curly Turkey—related pieces of information should be in proximity to one another. Why would we not tell the reader in the same paragraph in which we are enumerating complaints about wrongdoing concerning the use of imagery belonging to others, that according to some sources, the artist may have done this intentionally and that any resulting impropriety was deliberate and precisely the point of taking the imagery that belonged to other artists? There is no justification for omitting from this paragraph, on-topic material derived from the MoMA sources I've presented. We have one source—the book "The Drawings of Roy Lichtenstein", published by MoMA and written by Bernice Rose, a curator at MoMA—telling us that: "...Lichtenstein did something characteristic: he made it so obvious that he was copying that everyone knew it. In effect he threw down the gauntlet, challenging the notion of originality as it prevailed at that time." It is ludicrous to think that in the same paragraph that complaints are being lodged against the artist for improperly accessing imagery that didn't belong to him, that we would not apprise the reader that, at least in the opinion of two MoMA sources, he did this intentionally to challenge the notion of originality. Bus stop (talk) 18:15, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Bus Stop{{subst:emdah}}"related pieces of information should be in proximity to one another": they are only "related" because you've made them related through WP:SYNTHESIS, and are unfortunately trying to downgrade an interesting insight to the status of mere rebuttal. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:19, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Curly Turkey—WP:SYN involves the use of more than one source. You say "they are only "related" because you've made them related through WP:SYNTHESIS". Even if we look at only one source we can see that the material in that source is related to the subject of the paragraph. Let us consider the source which is a book published by MoMA and authored by a curator at MoMA named Bernice Rose. She writes: "...Lichtenstein did something characteristic: he made it so obvious that he was copying that everyone knew it. In effect he threw down the gauntlet, challenging the notion of originality as it prevailed at that time." Now compare that to the paragraph that begins with the words "Critics have raised concerns", which is the fourth paragraph in the Legacy section. We find in that paragraph "some have denigrated it as mere copying". The topic is exceptionally closely related to the topic that Bernice Rose is addressing, and there is obviously no WP:SYN violation because only one source is being considered. WP:SYN exists when two or more sources are used to "reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." The important point in our discussion has nothing to do with WP:SYN or any other kind of WP:OR. Bernice Rose is saying that in her opinion the "copying" that is already at this time addressed in our paragraph was done brazenly by Lichtenstein. Bernice Rose is saying that Lichtenstein wanted it to be known that he ripped off the comic book artists. Bernice Rose is saying that he did this to "challenge the notion of originality as it prevailed at that time." The paragraph is lopsided without the inclusion of this commentary. This is commentary from a prominent curator of contemporary art addressing a topic under discussion in a paragraph in our article. The commentary is saying that what may appear to be an unexplainable "theft" may instead be a principled stand worth taking note of. Bus stop (talk) 01:49, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Synthesis (against NOR) can occur even using the same source, if the two facts are not explicitly connected. And for the love of Pete, please stop requoting the sources ad nauseum in your replies. We know what they say by now. --MASEM (t) 02:05, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Bus Stop—I could just rehash my arguments as you rehash yours, but I think its time for some comics (from a master who has had things to say about Lichtenstein—so it's all on topic, right?). Curly Turkey (gobble) 06:17, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Curly Turkey—thanks for that comic relief. We are discussing the relevance, if any, of the above Bernice Rose comment, to that material which is already in the paragraph under discussion. Let us not mince words. By speaking in stark terms perhaps we can better see what is under discussion. Let us therefore substitute a word like "stealing" for a term like "copying". Wouldn't we have to ask ourselves why Lichtenstein would "steal"? My question is one of "why". I think this is a serious question that as editors, we cannot sweep under the rug—not if we have reliable sources responding to that question. Our paragraph is saying that he "directly references imagery from other sources". But is our paragraph offering any possible reason "why"? No, it is not. Our paragraph is suggesting that "ome have denigrated it as mere copying". But is our paragraph suggesting any possible "reason" that Lichtenstein would be "copying"? Do you see the point that I am making? Bernice Rose, in her commentary, is offering a reason why he would "steal". According to her, he is not "stealing" for pointless reasons. On the contrary, according to Rose, he is stealing to make a point. The point, according to Rose, is a direct assault on prevailing notions of originality. This is material that is on-topic. In fact this is material that is very important to the topic of that paragraph. No, don't tell me that this is WP:SYNTHESIS, because I am not suggesting putting my above reasoning into the article. What we should probably simply do is provide a quote from Bernice Rose at the end of that paragraph. Bus stop (talk) 07:12, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I disagree for all the reasons I've already stated above. Curly Turkey (gobble) 07:20, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you disagree with. Do you doubt that Bernice Rose is offering a possible reason, or explanation, for Lichtenstein's stealing? I think it is obvious that she is saying that Lichtenstein's "stealing" is anything but pointless. Bus stop (talk) 07:25, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

If you read what I wrote you'd see plain as day that I never made anything like a claim along the lines of "Lichtenstein's 'stealing' is pointless"—in fact, I said the exact opposite: that Ms Rose's statement is so revealing and insightful that the article would greatly benefit from the ideas it contains being explicated in the "Background" section. Curly Turkey (gobble) 07:41, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

A source can be used to support material at more than one point in an article. The material supported by that source, appearing at each point in the article, need not be identical, therefore repetition need not be a problem. And even if there is repetition, that may be tolerable (in my opinion). There is reason to mention this in the paragraph in the "Background" section. I don't argue for its removal from the paragraph it is presently in. But there is ample reason to mention this in a paragraph such as the one we are discussing. Perceived impropriety may not be due to the simple "stealing" of imagery from other artists, such as comic book artists, but may instead be a deliberate and perhaps provocative act calculated to achieve a certain response in the viewer, which may include the response of indignation. It is possible that some of us may see in these works a so-called fine artist ripping-off the work of mere comic book artists, and that may provoke a response of indignation. Bernice Rose is providing us with an explanation for an impropriety that at least exists in our perception. The paragraph we are discussing, in the "Legacy" section, is the location in the article at which we are expounding on the negative responses that some have expressed. It is therefore the location in the article at which we should supply the reader with the ideas articulated by Bernice Rose. Importantly, she is saying that this is deliberate; she is saying that "he made it so obvious that he was copying that everyone knew it." Bus stop (talk) 13:10, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

You're basically asking for the information to be repeated in the latter section which is not necessary at all. That's why discussion of the general trend in the BG section sets the stage to jump into immediately the issues around Whaam in the Legacy section. You're asking for pointless duplication. --MASEM (t) 18:51, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't think repetition is the issue. The information itself simply is not a rebuttal to criticism, but an explanation of Lichtenstein's motivation. Not by the any stretch of the imagination does that qualify as "Legacy". Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:09, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Masem—if any explanations or important commentary on Lichtenstein's "copying" or "plagiarism" are available, they should be found in this paragraph. Related pieces of information should be found in proximity to one another. You are presenting an untenable argument when you say that relevant material has to be omitted from this paragraph. Bernice Rose is the author of a book on Lichtenstein. That book is published by the MoMA, where she is a curator. She is commenting on the topic of the paragraph. Our paragraph is saying that "ome have denigrated it as mere copying". Bernice Rose has informative commentary: " made it so obvious that he was copying that everyone knew it." That comment is within the topic of the paragraph. What she is saying is that he did not do this surreptitiously. She is saying that he did this in a way in which it would be obvious that he was copying. This paragraph should not simply be implying that Lichtenstein failed to be original. That would be a misleading point, in light of Bernice Rose's commentary on the subject. Bus stop (talk) 21:06, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

"explanations or important commentary on Lichtenstein's "copying" or "plagiarism" are available, they should be found in this paragraph"—no, they shouldn't. The paragraph is not about copying or plagiarism per se, but about the criticisms of those who disagree with it (and the direct rebuttals of those criticisms). If the paragraph were indeed about "copying" or "plagiarism" per se, it would belong in the "Background" section, not the "Legacy" section.

Curly Turkey—the comic book artists created panels for publications that sold for relatively low prices in formats that were relatively small and which used production methods that were relatively low quality. Lichtenstein usurped these images and made them his own by enlarging them considerably, rendering them in good quality materials using good quality techniques, and sold them in fine art galleries for considerably higher prices than the comic books sold for. Dave Gibbons is expressing a valid view when he says that there is something dishonest about Whaam! or that Lichtenstein is a copycat. Representatives of the MoMA are not unaware of this criticism. Their understanding is that they consider such actions to be a challenging of notions of originality. Should the reader be apprised that a curator at the MoMA maintains this view? I think so. Why shouldn't the reader be afforded a glimpse of the thinking of those steeped in the relatively arcane world of contemporary visual art on the question of Lichtenstein's "stealing" of imagery? Bus stop (talk) 00:23, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

"Should the reader be apprised that a curator at the MoMA maintains this view?": Of course they should—in the "Background" section, as this is a background concern, having to do with Lichtenstein's purported motivation. Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:25, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

The subject of the paragraph is not criticism and rebuttal. The subject of the paragraph is originality as it applies to Lichtenstein paintings. Lichtenstein paintings are unusual in that the source material is very conspicuous. Some are indignant about this. Yes, we created a paragraph to document the criticism articulated by those who are indignant that Lichtenstein paintings appear to be ripping off comic book artists. But the subject of the paragraph is not the criticism of those who are indignant that Lichtenstein paintings appear to be ripping off comic book artists. The subject of the paragraph is the originality or the absence of originality in Lichtenstein paintings. If there is reliably sourced commentary on the originality or absence of originality in Lichtenstein paintings, such commentary can be considered for inclusion in this paragraph. Bus stop (talk) 04:27, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

"The subject of the paragraph is originality as it applies to Lichtenstein paintings.": The subject of the paragraph is no such thing. The subject of the paragraph is those who have issues with Lichtenstein's borrowing, e.g. the ethics of borrowing without attribution. We don't have to agree or disagree with any of it, only to report on those who have so criticized the painting, and those who have refuted those criticisms. The paragraph is not about "originality" as a concept, which would be grotesquely out of place in the "Legacy" section of a painting whose "point" was to challenge contemporary conceptions of "originality". Curly Turkey (gobble) 06:02, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Curly Turkey—you say "The subject of the paragraph is those who have issues with Lichtenstein's borrowing, e.g. the ethics of borrowing without attribution. We don't have to agree or disagree with any of it, only to report on those who have so criticized the painting, and those who have refuted those criticisms."

If that is the case, why isn't Dave Gibbons mentioned in the paragraph? And where do you see refutation in the paragraph? Allegations of wrongdoing are a serious matter. I don't think we refute allegations of wrongdoing by merely stating that "others have countered". If we wish to refute we could include Alastair Sooke: "Comparing the source for Whaam! with the finished painting banishes the hoary idea that Lichtenstein profited on the back of the creativity of others." The topic of the paragraph we are discussing is the derivative nature of Lichtenstein paintings. Most sophisticated commentators do not take issue with these paintings on the basis of originality. Alastair Sooke is an art critic. Bernice Rose is a curator at MoMA and the author of a book published by MoMA on Roy Lichtenstein. Bus stop (talk) 15:36, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Point of note: Curly Turkey has been blocked from editing for edit warring unrelated to this FAC for 24hr --MASEM (t) 18:04, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. I won't be responding anymore unless Bus Stop attacks the article itself again. Curly Turkey (gobble) 19:00, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Curly Turkey—our purpose in formulating wording for a paragraph on the originality or lack of originality in the painting Whaam! and similar paintings should be to present the reader with a rough approximation of the views on this topic found in reliable sources. You have been calling for "rebuttal". Alastair Sooke provides rebuttal: "Comparing the source for Whaam! with the finished painting banishes the hoary idea that Lichtenstein profited on the back of the creativity of others." Bus stop (talk) 19:52, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Can we have some feedback on a possible version such as that which I'm posting below? Note that Dave Gibbons is mentioned by name and quoted. Also Alastair Sooke is mentioned by name and quoted. I would be amenable to lengthier quotes from Dave Gibbons if that is a concern of some. I happen to think that what I have included is sufficient. But alternative wording may be just as acceptable. Please consider the following and please provide feedback:

"Some have expressed displeasure with Lichtenstein's drawing upon the imagery of others to create Whaam!. Dave Gibbons, a comic book artist, characterizes Lichtenstein as a "copycat" and the painting Whaam! as "dishonest". Others counter that Whaam! differs from the images found in the original comic book panels. Alastair Sooke, an art critic, writes that "Comparing the source for Whaam! with the finished painting banishes the hoary idea that Lichtenstein profited on the back of the creativity of others." In response to claims of plagiarism, the Roy Lichtenstein Foundation has noted that publishers have never sued for copyright infringement, and that they never raised the issue when Lichtenstein's comics-derived work first gained attention in the 1960s. Other criticism centers on Lichtenstein's failure to credit the original artists of his sources; Ernesto Priego implicates National Periodicals in the case of Whaam!, as the artists were never credited in the original comic books." Bus stop (talk) 21:38, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Adding another voice—that of Rian Hughes:

Some have expressed displeasure with Lichtenstein's drawing upon the imagery of others to create Whaam!. Dave Gibbons, a comic book artist, characterizes Lichtenstein as a "copycat" and the painting Whaam! as "dishonest". Graphic designer Rian Hughes says "Almost every painting ever did was appropriated without asking permission or paying royalties. If he was a musician, he would be facing a copyright lawsuit". But others such as Alastair Sooke, an art critic, writes that "Comparing the source for Whaam! with the finished painting banishes the hoary idea that Lichtenstein profited on the back of the creativity of others." In response to claims of plagiarism, the Roy Lichtenstein Foundation has noted that publishers have never sued for copyright infringement, and that they never raised the issue when Lichtenstein's comics-derived work first gained attention in the 1960s. As concerns criticism that Lichtenstein failed to credit the original artists of his sources, Ernesto Priego implicates National Periodicals in the case of Whaam!, as the artists were never credited in the original comic books.

I think the advantage to the above version is that it is a sampling of actual commentary on the subject of the paragraph. Bus stop (talk) 23:14, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Bus stop, I almost reverted your change today out of principal. We are almost ready to be promoted. Please don't disrupt the delicate balance of the article. Unless you can get both one COMICS guy and one WPVA guy to agree with your change or two of the neutral guys, just leave things alone. The last time I looked at text involving Hughes, the important elements were actually said by his interviewer. Don't change without support.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:30, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

TonyTheTiger—why do you say "The last time I looked at text involving Hughes, the important elements were actually said by his interviewer"? I'm finding sources attributing the quote to Rian Hughes here, here, here, and here. Bus stop (talk) 01:37, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Bus stop, you are extremely particular and I am grateful that Curly Turkey expended so much energy considering the validity of each of your points on this FAC and to Hiding for doing so on the early discussions. At this point have driven away both of the COMICS guys by your voluminous considerations. I am trying not to take either of their places. So I again encourage you to either limit yourself to compact enough considerations that one of them will evaluate or get the neutral guys like Masem to consider your arguments. You have wasted enough of everyone's time with your incessant nitpickings. In regards to Hughes, maybe this time you have good sources. If so build consensus among the other discussants and I will make the change after you do so. Right now, I have nearly unanimous support and I don't think it is a good idea to risk rocking that boat, given that most of your past suggestions have been hotly contested by others.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:20, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

TonyTheTiger—Comment on content, not on the contributor. Bus stop (talk) 09:58, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Comments

• Spelling of painter's name: "Lichtenstein" or "Litchenstein"? Both appear in the current version, the latter a typo, I assume, but probably better if the author rather than a flying visitor changes it.
  • Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:26, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
• As most of the article is, very properly, in American spelling I was surprised to see two incidences of "centimetre". But perhaps both the European and the American spellings are permitted by US dictionaries, in which case please ignore this comment.
  • That was the {{convert}} template. I didn't know about the sp=us parameter. It is odd that this has never come up before.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:35, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
• Happy to do spot checks if required, as I live close to the British Library where I have a reader's ticket.
  • I think this is still in Paris on tour.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:35, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

An enjoyable and comprehensive article. I have noticed the picture at the Tate but assumed it was one of several, and am interested to read its history, very nicely set out here. Tim riley (talk) 18:32, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

• Feel free to formally support the nomination.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:35, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I think it's too soon for that. It may be best if he waits a few weeks first. I'm sorry, that was supposed to be a joke. I'm sleepy and cranky. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:25, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Source review

• spotchecks not done, no comment on source comprehensiveness
• Why the difference in dimension presentation between the infobox and article?
  • {{Infobox Painting}} has dimension parameters that format differently by default than {{convert}}, which prevails in the article. Added |abbr=on parameter to convert for consistency.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:42, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
• Was Gibbons' work a parody or a satire, according to the source?
  • The source describes a witty appropriation, which I think we can paraphrase as a parady.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:51, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
    • This is inconsistent between the text and the caption, which describes it as satire. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:11, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
      • Got it.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:00, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
• OAO should be italicized, and what is its date? Also, formatting doesn't match other sources
  • I can't actually find any details about this Oxford Art Online source on the internet. I am going to have to dig through the edit history to see if anyone lays claim to this that can correct the detail. Possibly Modernist was the contributor, but I am not sure.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:26, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
  • That source came from Ewulp. Hopefully, Ewulp can fill in some detail on this ill-formed ref.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:34, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Citation templates aren't my forte but here's the data from the site, which is dated with copyright date 2007-2013: Ernst A. Busche. "Lichtenstein, Roy." Grove Art Online. Oxford Art Online. Oxford University Press. Web. 6 Sep. 2013. <http://www.oxfordartonline.com/subscriber/article/grove/art/T050915>. Ewulp (talk) 06:05, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
      • Using your information, I have filled this in to the best of my abilities.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:24, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
• What makes Scaruffi a high-quality RS?
  • Scaruffi has previously been questioned as a reference. The FAC for Song of Innocence questioned the ref but it was defended as notable and ultimately kept for the FA listing. Same thing happened at Burger's Daughter with the same result. A more recent discussion at WikiProject Albums had a much less positive result, though difficult to parse. Binksternet (talk) 03:58, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Those reviews supported Scaruffi's expertise in the areas of popular music and literature - what about in the area of visual art? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:11, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
      • This appeared to be a backup ref. I have removed it.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:08, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
• Don't mix templated and untemplated citations
  • What am I suppose to do? Can you provide an example?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:36, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Take a look at the Rose source, for example - its formatting differs significantly from similar templated citations. You should either convert such citations to templates, or at least endeavor to format similar citations similarly. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:11, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
      • From what I can tell, that is the only untemplated one. I did a search on <ref> and everthing else was followed by some sort of {{cite xxx template.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:19, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
• Be consistent in how you format short citations
  • I am not seeing the inconsistency.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:39, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
• FN65: page?
  • That incomplete citation again comes from Ewulp.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:00, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
    • O'Doherty was section 2, p. 21. Ewulp (talk) 06:13, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
      • I have fixed this citation to the best of my ability as well.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:31, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
• Be consistent in whether you abbreviate page ranges
  • Are you talking about "pp. 4–8, 16–17."? would you rather "pp. 4–17."?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:05, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
    • No, it means sometimes it's like ref71 (pp. 107-108) and sometimes like ref72 (161-64). Curly Turkey (gobble) 06:19, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
      • but 72 also has pp. in front of it and I don't see any refs missing that.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:35, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
        • She means use either "(pp. 107-108) and (pp. 161-164)" or "(pp. 107-08) and (pp. 161-64)", not mixing the two. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:16, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
          • I think you are saying that there is a difference in the WP:DASHes, but I am just seeing spaces follwing numbers like 1 & 2 and almost connectedness with fatter numbers.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:54, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
            • Another editor has helped with this edit.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:57, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
              • There are still similar inconsistencies in some of the FNs. - SchroCat (talk) 08:22, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
                • I could not see the original problem. So I am hoping someone who sees this will fix it.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 10:01, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
                  • (moved comment to the right thread) Curly Turkey (gobble) 10:32, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
                    • This one isn't about the Harv errors (that's the Bader problem below) this is about the formatting of numbers. for some references you have 100–101 (ie. three figures–three figures). For others you have 100–01 (ie three figures to two figures). Neither format is preferred by the MOS, but you should have one consistent style throughout. - SchroCat (talk) 10:09, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
                      • comment Got em, I think. Ewulp (talk) 10:33, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
• Bader ref has harv error message. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:20, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't understand the issue.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:39, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
    • You have it in your bibliography but are not citing it with short footnotes, so (with the right script) the error message shows up. Solution: Remove Bader.
      • Another editor has helped with this edit.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:57, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
        • Harv errors are nigh-impossible to spot when there are a lot of endnotes. Do you use scripts? If you do, User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js is awesome. Curly Turkey (gobble) 10:05, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
• Also, side note: FN 14 (Museum of Modern Art, Appropriation/Pop Art) is a bare URL and needs formatting. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:19, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:20, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Comment - fixed the Bader ref (had to create an artificial harv anchor). The basic problem is using "cite book" as short ref and as full biblio entry at the same time, a regular harv ID can't handle that. GermanJoe (talk) 07:25, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

• Done. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:21, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Whammy on the Whaam! 50th anniversary drive

My apologies to all the editors (especially those from WP:WPVA and WP:COMICS) who have been intimately involved in the vast improvement in Whaam! since the June 15 inception of its 50th anniversary drive for a September 28 WP:TFA appearance that was announced at Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Whaam!/archive1 and Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Whaam!. I thank you for the interest, concern and expertise expressed through over 650KB of discussion at those two initial discussions and Talk:Whaam!, Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Whaam!/archive1, Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article candidates/Whaam!/archive1, Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article candidates/Whaam!/archive2 and here at Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Whaam!/archive2 in the last 12 weeks. There is some mystery (or possibly some gamesmanship) going on at WP:FAC where since attaining consensus support for the nominee I requested a source review at WT:FAC on 16:09, 20 August 2013 (UTC) (over 19 days ago) and again at 14:53, 1 September 2013 (UTC) (over a week ago). Although Whaam! seems like it would be a five-point article by the TFA scoring system, there is apparently a two-point article seeking the same date (125th birthday of H. C. McNeile). Through the very mysterious FAC review process, this article has plodded at a curiously slow pace in its pursuit of timely promotion in order to compete with the two-pointer. I have been assured by Crisco 1492 that the slow process has nothing to do with the personal discord between he and I and his extensive involvement at FAC. Also, TFAR scheduler Bencherlite has stated that the seeming impending promotion of the potential 5-point article would not sway him to delay him from scheduling the 2-point article or any other article he sees fit for the September 28 date a week or two in advance even if it means your 650KB of interest and effort in perfecting the 5-point candidate in this 12-week drive is all for naught. Actually, exact quote "I will schedule as and when I am ready to do so - I'm not going to hold off scheduling for late September as and when I get there...just because you say you want to compete for the Sept 28 slot" At User talk:Bencherlite#September 28 and elsewhere, he has reminded me that although Whaam! may appear to be a 5-point article waiting in the wings, it is a zero-point article unless it can make it through the mysterious process that is FAC in time to be a nominee. I am very grateful that Nikkimaria has initiated this complicated source review at 03:20, 6 September 2013 (UTC) and for the assistance from no less than six other editors in addressing her concerns to improve the article so promptly and thoroughly in the subsequent 7.5 hours. As I have watched Nikkimaria's repeated visits to WP in the days since the responses to her source review concerns, I continue to hope that at some point soon, she will be able to make time to reconsider our efforts. I apologize to those six prompt respndents and many others who have contributed to the 650KB meeting of the minds on this subject who are still interested in the prompt promotion of this article. The FAC process is such a mystery that I am at a loss for how to get Whaam! promoted any more quickly and the point at which the die will be cast is fast approaching.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:09, 8 September 2013 (UTC)