Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Whaam!/archive1

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/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:01, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

Comments from Bus Stop

The article places outsized importance on whatever derivative status applies to the painting. One comes away from the article with the misimpression that credit has not been properly given to the "original" artist who created the first version in comic book form. This is simply a misplacing of emphasis, or in Wikipedia terms, a problem of WP:UNDUE. The twentieth century is awash in art that is "lifted" or "appropriated" or "stolen" from more prosaic contexts. To an extent we are misleading the reader when we say for instance in the lead "some contended that he merely duplicated extant original work."[1] As the article is about the work of art, the reader should be afforded a view in keeping with the most sophisticated thinkers and commentators addressing such a point. I think we are less interested in any commentator who "contended that he merely duplicated extant original work."[2] This is tantamount to elevating in our article a largely wrongheaded view of the work of art. I am not opposed to including the views of those who roundly criticize the work. As an example, I think it is fine to include that "In 1963, Brian O'Doherty stated in The New York Times that Lichtenstein was one of the worst artists in America who briskly went about making a sow's ear out of a sow's ear."[3] I think the inclusion of this is fine because it is a self-contained, historical quote, with a source provided. But I think I take exception to similar comments when created by Wikipedia editors. This would apply to positive evaluations of the work too. We don't have to say for instance that it is a "pivotal work of the pop art movement"[4] or that it is "widely regarded as one of his finest and most notable works"[5] or that "The work is admired for the temporal, spatial and psychological unity of its two panels."[6] Those are value judgements and they may be interpretive on our part. I think we should avoid such pronouncements. I think brief quotes from others are preferable. Bus stop (talk) 00:32, 15 July 2013 (UTC) Bus stop (talk) 00:24, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be conflicting commentary by other reviewers at Wikipedia:Peer review/Whaam!/archive1 and/or Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Whaam!. Justlettersandnumbers (talk · contribs) suggested fewer quotes, which is against your less interpretive and more brief quotes. Hiding (talk · contribs) has suggested alternate viewpoints from the Comic arts perspective, which is against your sophisticated thinkers suggestion. It is very difficult to get an WP:FAC nomination to meet with everyone's approval. I believe that Ewulp (talk · contribs) has attempted to address some of your concerns in terms about duplicating others' work, even more than I would have been likely to do. Note that what you view as "wrongeheaded" is really the comic arts perspective, which probably has some sort of place in this article.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:18, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

• Comment It seems that the issue of really blatant appropriation was rather novel, and a much bigger deal, in 1963 than it is today. The emphasis in the article may be about right. If Irv Novick's reaction to Lichtenstein's appropriations can be added, that would help the article; we now have the anecdote about their having supposedly met in 1947 but it reads almost as a digression. I found tantalizing snippets using google books, but nothing complete enough to use. And did Tate trustees Barbara Hepworth, Andrew Forge, and Herbert Read make any statements explaining their objections to the painting's purchase? This might address Bus Stop's request that we represent the opinions of sophisticated thinkers. I also think the division of critical reception into positive and negative is problematical. I would be inclined to merge them or make some other adjustment, as much of the critical commentary is descriptive and does not fit the dichotomy. For example, the context in which David McCarthy describes the work as "dispassionate, detached and oddly disembodied" is a passage that contrasts Kienholz and Lichtenstein with Westermann, and McCarthy goes on to say that "this is not to underestimate or dismiss the intentions of the two artists, both of whom opposed the war in Vietnam". This does not seem a negative judgement on the work. Ewulp (talk) 04:01, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

TonyTheTiger, Ewulp—a painting doesn't do anything improper. We need not include "sophisticated thinking" but we should trim back on "unsophisticated thinking" already present. The lead shouldn't be reading "Lichtenstein was criticized by some commentators for his failure to give credit or compensation to the comic book artists whose work he copied. Despite controversy surrounding its originality and ethical propriety, such artwork has since become popular with collectors and is now widely accepted."[7] Bus stop (talk) 11:26, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

As I said before, Hiding, had suggested including the comic arts perspective and has encouraged the addition of content expressing their feelings about the work. I will leave it to him to respond and if no response comes, then I will remove the comic arts perspective.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:16, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Tony—the Whaam! article has a paragraph called General originality. This should be construed as "general originality" of the painting "Whaam!" because this is an article on one painting. In other articles you may wish to take up concerns of "general originality" pertaining to Roy Lichtenstein's entire output. I had said that the Brian O'Doherty quote ("…Lichtenstein was one of the worst artists in America…") was OK for inclusion in this article but I misspoke. Strictly speaking it should not be considered OK for inclusion in this article, the reason being that this article concerns itself with one particular painting. Similarly the wording that I have alluded to in the lead ("Lichtenstein was criticized by some commentators for his failure to give credit or compensation to the comic book artists whose work he copied. Despite controversy surrounding its originality and ethical propriety, such artwork has since become popular with collectors and is now widely accepted") does not belong in this article. When I look at the article Drowning Girl I am finding similar ideas conveyed, and also in the lead: "Contemporaneous critics were divided on whether Lichtenstein's comics-based work was art, since some contend that he merely duplicated extant original work. Ever since he began creating comic-based artwork, others have complained that Lichtenstein did not give credit or compensation to the comic book artists. However, such artwork has since become popular with collectors and is now more widely accepted." Why are these roughly similar blurbs placed on two different articles on individual paintings, and why in the lead? I think we would serve the reader's interests better if we allot information to related articles in accordance with the implied scopes of each article. Repetition can thus be avoided, allowing the reader to read shorter articles. Bus stop (talk) 14:12, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Does it make sense to you to inform the reader of this work that it was part of a class of works that were controversial (both by high art critics like O'Doherty and low art comic arts people) when they were created?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:54, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Tony—this is an article about one single painting. All art emerging from a similar milieu is controversial. You are seizing upon the wrong controversy. That which piques the public's interest is not that Lichtenstein may have failed to remunerate the comic book artists. Of interest is that he had the audacity to present as fine art, in a fine art setting, using the materials of fine art, an image that resonates with a plebeian setting. Compare this to a "Campbell's Soup Can" by Andy Warhol. Is the concern that the artist stole the image from the food manufacturer? Bus stop (talk) 16:43, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Bus stop above states in criticism of a sourced opinion the user does not like that we are "elevating in our article a largely wrongheaded view of the work of art". I suggest the user appraises them self of the policies on neutral points of view and original research and avoids pushing their own interpretation of the artwork or of views on the artwork. We do not get to decide which views are wrongheaded. If the user wishes to provide a sourced statement to the effect that Dave Gibbons' views are wrongheaded, that will aid the article, but given that Gibbons views were sought by a major broadcaster on this very artwork I think we are in breach of our policies if we attempt to airbrush them from history. Gibbons is offering a commercial art view and has been sought out to do so. There is a conflict between modern art and commercial art that this work raises, which has been discussed in sources and which the article reflects. Attempting to pretend that debate has not happened does a disservice to our readers and is in stark contradiction to our policies. And in reply to the point regarding Warhol and Soup, do we have sourced material on that position. If not, the situations are not comparable and I'd rather not belabour straw man arguments. If there are such sourced opinions, then I suggest we add them to the relevant article or place it at FARC. I can turn up a Pulitzer Prize winner's quote on Warhol, soup, Lichtenstein and comics if we wish to debate the point elsewhere, but it isn't germane here. What's germane is balance, unbiased writing, comprehensiveness and neutrality. Hiding T 17:08, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

No one suggested that we "airbrush" all mention of a topic from an article. We are talking about individual works of art for which we have articles. I think that it follows that sources should conform to scopes of such articles. If you are speaking of a source that addresses specifically the Whaam! article then I will concede that it probably warrants inclusion. But by the same token material tangential should not be granted automatic inclusion. I think material of a general nature should be considered for removal. In doing so we would not be engaged in airbrushing but rather organizing material across extant articles. The Roy Lichtenstein article for instance could serve as a possible repository for material not specific to any work of art for which we have an article. My understanding is that articles on individual works of art should basically be for the presentation of material particular to that artwork. Some allowance for the inclusion of material more generally related to the output of an artist can be considered for inclusion in an article on an individual artwork. But when that inclusion becomes excessive the quality of the article on the specific artwork can suffer. Bus stop (talk) 18:57, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

There is probably a significant amount of content in the article that describes the two or three year window when he was doing comics-based military art (as well as comics based romance). Given that his career spanned about 50 years, this is not general information. People who want to read about any specific work will still want to have some background related to the specific period in his career. The content that gives context for a proper understanding of the specific work is relevant to that work. For all of my prior FA's this is what was wanted. After the bot does its next update, I will have created six (three paintings and three sculptures) of the 55 works listed at Category:FA-Class visual arts articles. For each of the paintings context has been desired by the audience that influenced the development of the work. I am not likely to change from this formula unless there is a consensus to do so.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:07, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

P.S. I have no idea why I have not been asked to add similar context for the sculptures.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:12, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

P.P.S. It might be the case that for pop art the audience needs explanation why the subject matter was chosen, but more traditional art might not need contextual explanation. All of my prior FA paintings have been pop art.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:20, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Tony—could I ask a favor? Please don't intersperse comments with other editor's posts. I'm only asking this because I see you've done that on this page discussing the article Whaam!. I see that Curly Turkey's post is in a form (using bullet points) that might invite interspersed responses. I have some responses that I would like to make, but I can't do that immediately. Thank you. Bus stop (talk) 02:50, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I think Tony missed your comment. ;) Doesn't bother me, though. I actually prefer it that way. Curly Turkey (gobble) 04:55, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Are you requesting that for you and all other editors that I not respond following each bullet point. I have been involved in over 1000 GAC, FAC and PRs, and find responding directly to each bullet point to have been a fairly successful way to manage responses to concerns. How would you have me respond? Do you want a section for questions with a separate section for responses?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:13, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Our article presently reads:

"In an interview for a BBC4 documentary in 2013, Alastair Sooke asked the artist Dave Gibbons if he considered Lichtenstein a plagiarist. Gibbons replied: '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'."

The problem is that the above is a selective reading of the source that is used. Yes, we do find in the source that "this is 'WHAAM! by Roy Lichtenstein, after Irv Novick", but we also find in the same source: "…the proper credits should really read: ‘Roy Lichtenstein after Robert Kanigher, Irv Novick, Jerry Grandenetti, Russ Heath and Gaspar Saladino.'" The source explains that Lichtenstein "did not follow Irv Novick’s panel completely but used it as the underpinning composition". The source goes into the various possible derivations of aspects of the image Lichtenstein finally settled upon. The word "remixed" is used in that source. In another source I find the word "reworked" used. Certainly Lichtenstein used comic books as sources. But the same reference also has this to say about comic books in the early 1960's: "Their simplicity and outdatedness were ripe for being mocked and in many ways deserved it."[8] If Lichtenstein sought imagery that was ripe for mocking, he had little choice but to use the comic book imagery that existed. But he also altered that imagery. Therefore I see little reason for emphasis in this article on supposed impropriety. There is a paragraph devoted to this in the lead. It was not just comic books that contained the sought-after qualities. He also "took his inspiration from the cheaply printed, commercial imagery of newspaper ads and mail-order catalogues…"[9] Bus stop (talk) 02:26, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I apologize, but as everyone at WP:WPVA, knows, I am not really much of an art scholar. In this case, I find myself having to work to flesh out your statements because of my own lower level understanding of art. If I am interpreting your "Therefore" correctly, it is based whether Lichtenstein intended to mock his sources. I.E., we should ignore discussions of impropriety of source use and credits if he intended to mock them. Am I interpreting you correctly that if you intend to mock a subject stealing its themes and subject is not a consideration?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:10, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Tony—you refer to "subject[s]" and "themes". (You pose the question: "Am I interpreting you correctly that if you intend to mock a subject stealing its themes and subject is not a consideration?") I would just point out—I do not have a source to support this—that subjects and themes are commonly recycled in not just the visual arts but in all the arts. In my lengthy post below we see the source expanding considerably on the notion of copying an image. If we are going to rely on a source, and this is the same source that has been in the article all along, shouldn't we properly represent that source? The source expounds on the complexity of drawing on a passage here and a passage there, from comic books that Lichtenstein probably felt represented good source material. Lichtenstein recombined disparate elements to create a new image. This is not simply copying. Apparently many individuals were involved in the making of the comic books which Lichtenstein used as his inspiration. My reading of the source is that it supports the complexity of the act of "appropriation" in this case. We should avoid presenting that act of appropriation in overly simplistic terms. Bus stop (talk) 16:07, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Our article presently reads:

"In an interview for a BBC4 documentary in 2013, Alastair Sooke asked the artist Dave Gibbons if he considered Lichtenstein a plagiarist. Gibbons replied: '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'.[14]"

The source that our article provides in support of the above wording is paulgravett.com. The above wording in our article conveys that Lichtenstein could be characterized as a "copycat" and that the painting that is the subject of this article could be characterized as "WHAAM! by Roy Lichtenstein, after Irv Novick". This seems to be a result of a faulty reading of the source. While it is correct that the source says the above, the source also contains language that detracts from and counters the above. Perhaps we should include counterbalancing quotes from the source. Perhaps, and I think this would be preferable, we reduce the implications of impropriety already found in our article. The lead of our article is I think out of line in presently reading: "Lichtenstein was criticized by some commentators for his failure to give credit or compensation to the comic book artists whose work he copied. Despite controversy surrounding its artistic merit, originality and ethical propriety, Lichtenstein's comics-based work has since become popular with collectors and is now widely accepted." The lead of the article should be for broadly supported themes of the article. There is very little support in sources for the above.

We have a section in our article titled General originality. It is sourced. But the problem is that our article is not reflecting what our source says in its entirety. The source asserts that the painting is not simply "WHAAM! by Roy Lichtenstein, after Irv Novick". This is for several reasons. What Lichtenstein seems to have done is search though many panels in comics for ingredients for his pictures. The presumed process that Lichtenstein followed can be hard to follow. The source provides a wealth of comic book panels for reference. It may help to look at the article, and at the images in particular. The article says:

"To be accurate, in the case of ‘WHAAM!’, Lichtenstein did not follow Irv Novick’s panel completely but used it as the underpinning composition and for one sound effect and narrative caption. He then sketched out a remixed version, replacing Novick’s side-view of the attacking plane on the left with a sharper, clearer plane at an angle, taken from the following issue, All American Men Of War #90, from the story ‘Wingmate of Doom’, panel 3 on page 11, drawn by Jerry Grandenetti."

One panel, the Irv Novick panel, may have served as the "underpinning composition" and it may have served as the source for "one sound effect" and the "narrative caption". Note that Lichtenstein "sketched out a remixed version." This is not simply "copying". Note the extent of manipulation of imagery and recombining of elements from separate panels:

"He also switched the relatively small exploding plane in the distance on the right with another, by flipping through the same issue of All-American Men of War and picking out a different plane. David Barsalou, compiler of the invaluable resource Deconstructing Lichtenstein, thinks it could be taken from panel 3 on page 3 of the Russ Heath-illustrated story ‘Aces Wild’. It could well have looked to Lichtenstein (mistakenly) as if its right wing is shearing off diagonally. This looks to me looks more probable than Barsalou’s other suggested source for the enemy plane, literally sitting over the page, panel 6 on page 12 of Novick’s ‘The Star Jockey’, as its nose cone shape is different and it lacks that breaking wing, the sort of creative idea and drawing that Lichtenstein would not have added to Novick’s design."

"So if we also want to acknowledge the writing (the image would not have been drawn without the initial script probably by editor Robert Kanigher) and the lettering, the proper credits should really read: ‘Roy Lichtenstein after Robert Kanigher, Irv Novick, Jerry Grandenetti, Russ Heath and Gaspar Saladino.’ If we could ever determine who coloured that original panel, that name could be added on the end! ‘WHAAM!’ may be about the most famous, most reproduced single panel from a comic book, but it has been totally removed from its context as merely one of 67 panels across a 13-page story."

Our source is telling us that the work of many people is drawn upon by Lichtenstein. We should not be singling out for retelling in our article the one negative quote from Dave Gibbons characterizing Lichtenstein as a "copycat". We should also not be including the quote from Dave Gibbons that the painting is "'WHAAM! by Roy Lichtenstein, after Irv Novick'." The source counters this with a long list people's names that were possibly drawn upon by Lichtenstein in compositing his image. The source is conveying the notion that Lichtenstein recombined visual passages from many panels. I think the source makes a point of saying this. If we are to represent the source we should represent it in its totality. Bus stop (talk) 06:48, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I apologize for placing a response proximal to the concern, but it seems to me most sensible to do so, since in the one or two thousand other reviews I have been involved in it has made sense. Currently, the WP:LEAD summarizes the main body. If we don't like the content in the LEAD, we need to re-evaluate the main body. I asked above and you did not say where you wanted me to respond.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:04, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Tony—I can't tell you where to post. What I am trying to suggest is that you post before or after my posts, rather than in the middle of them. Thanks. Bus stop (talk) 17:46, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Much of this content was developed under the discussion advisement of Hiding (talk · contribs), who at the time felt it was needed for balance from the commercial arts perspective. He was the first active commercial arts respondent to one of my dozens and dozens of Lichtenstein works articles. I'll leave it to him to reply to your concerns.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:04, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Partially reverted one edit because you said you added the content elsewhere in the article but I do not believe this to be the case and because you contested my summary of the secondary source in your edit summary ((it is generally incorrect to say that Alastair Smart characterized Whaam! as an attempt to mimic Abstract Expressionism), but I explained my reversion (source: "enlarged to mimic a huge Ab Ex canvas"). Sometimes this type of reversion gets a kneejerk Oppose to express vehemence, but look closely at my reasononing.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:44, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Generally, when there is content that is contentious, it is better to expand an underrepresented side than to cut a contentious side. Why don't we focus on broadening the article to balance ideas that you would like to contest.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:44, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

• The Gibbons quote should really be sourced to the Gibbons interview, but Tony pointed out that people outside the UK can't access the original source as it is on the BBC iPlayer. I have no objections to balancing the Gibbons statement with additional sourcing from Gravett and if we are allowed to use Eddie Campbell as well then he makes points here and here, the latter speaking to our articles. Bill Griffiths also makes points here. But I feel the Gibbons statement is needed because it represents a view of the artwork that exists and is widely held in the comics and commercial arts fields and our policies dictate that we represent all the views. I don;t know how you balance whether it should be in the lede because, as Tony argues, the lede should summarise the article and the conflicting views this artwork provokes should be addressed in the article. I don't know whether Hamlet and the ur-Hamlet work discussed there is a good analogy, but that's something somewhat similar that's handled in another FA and may be a good example? Hiding T 09:40, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Hiding—the article presently reads:

"In an interview for a BBC4 documentary in 2013, Alastair Sooke asked the comic book artist Dave Gibbons if he considered Lichtenstein a plagiarist. Gibbons replied: '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'.[7]"

The source provided in support of the above does not properly support the above unless one very selectively reads that source. The language selected above is extracted with unreasonable narrowness and selectivity from the source provided. The source actually contains a much broader view of Lichtenstein's working methods and the possibility of them being considered anything akin to plagiarism. The source explains that Lichtenstein extracted parts of images from many comic book "panels" by many different comic book artists and remixed them to create the images we find in the painting Whaam!. Rather than me trying to explain the tortuous detail of how Lichtenstein went about doing that, you have to read the three paragraphs from the source, posted below. Illustrations intersperse the paragraphs at the source but here are the 3 paragraphs without the illustrations:

1. ) "To be accurate, in the case of ‘WHAAM!’, Lichtenstein did not follow Irv Novick’s panel completely but used it as the underpinning composition and for one sound effect and narrative caption. He then sketched out a remixed version (above), replacing Novick’s side-view of the attacking plane on the left with a sharper, clearer plane at an angle, taken from the following issue, All American Men Of War #90, from the story ‘Wingmate of Doom’, panel 3 on page 11, drawn by Jerry Grandenetti (below)."

2. ) "He also switched the relatively small exploding plane in the distance on the right with another, by flipping through the same issue of All-American Men of War and picking out a different plane. David Barsalou, compiler of the invaluable resource Deconstructing Lichtenstein, thinks it could be taken from panel 3 on page 3 of the Russ Heath-illustrated story ‘Aces Wild’ (below). It could well have looked to Lichtenstein (mistakenly) as if its right wing is shearing off diagonally. This looks to me looks more probable than Barsalou’s other suggested source for the enemy plane, literally sitting over the page, panel 6 on page 12 of Novick’s ‘The Star Jockey’, as its nose cone shape is different and it lacks that breaking wing, the sort of creative idea and drawing that Lichtenstein would not have added to Novick’s design."

3. ) "So if we also want to acknowledge the writing (the image would not have been drawn without the initial script probably by editor Robert Kanigher) and the lettering, the proper credits should really read: ‘Roy Lichtenstein after Robert Kanigher, Irv Novick, Jerry Grandenetti, Russ Heath and Gaspar Saladino.’ If we could ever determine who coloured that original panel, that name could be added on the end! ‘WHAAM!’ may be about the most famous, most reproduced single panel from a comic book, but it has been totally removed from its context as merely one of 67 panels across a 13-page story."

This article is not about the approval or disapproval of Lichtenstein's means of acquiring images generally. Information on the painting Whaam! is the topic of this article. One might consider adding to the Roy Lichtenstein article, information along these lines if it is well-sourced. Our article presently contains the following:

"Although Lichtenstein's comic-based work is now widely accepted, concerns are still expressed by critics who say Lichtenstein did not credit, pay any royalties to, or seek permission from the original artists or copyright holders.[38][39]"

What does the above have to do with the topic of this article? This is not even on the topic of the painting Whaam!, and the two sources provided do not say anything about the working methods Lichtenstein employed to create Whaam!. This source does not mention Whaam! at all. This source critically speaks about Lichtenstein vis-a-vis image-sourcing but not about the painting Whaam!. It says: "But the trouble with Lichtenstein’s work, says Rian Hughes, is that most - if not all of it - is appropriated from comic book artists without credit or compensation." This is outside the realm of this article. Such information might be inside the realm of the Roy Lichtenstein article. The lead of our article says this:

"Lichtenstein has been criticized by some commentators for his failure to give credit or compensation to the comic book artists upon whose works his paintings were based. Despite controversy surrounding its artistic merit, originality and ethical propriety, Lichtenstein's comics-based work has since become popular with collectors and is now widely accepted."

The lead is an even more prominent part of an article than the body of an article. It is what a reader encounters first. There is an article for material such as this—if reliably sourced. That is the Roy Lichtenstein article. But one needs sourcing for material such as this. It simply is not sourced in relation to this article. Our article on Whaam! could constructively speak of the "remixing" (word found in source) of the variety of images from a variety of comic book artists. There is nothing wrong with the source that you are using to support the information about Dave Gibbons—but that particular information is outweighed by distinctly differing information found in the same source. The source can be put to a good purpose. We can derive that Lichtenstein scoured many panels in comic books in order to find images and parts of images to construct the image that results in Whaam!. Bus stop (talk) 00:14, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I think it's important for context to mention the attribution issues. To a degree, the article should be self-contained, and the attribution issue is almost certain to cross the minds of many readers. I agree it doesn't need to be in the lead, but it does need to be mentioned as part of the general background. A sentence or two is not UNDUE; it's also not OR, as it will inevitably come up in any Lichtenstein biography. Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:44, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

This sort of thing belongs in either the Roy Lichtenstein article or the Appropriation (art) article or the List of plagiarism incidents#Visual arts article or in any other article that would include this sort of thing in its scope. Of course this topic might come up in a biography of Lichtenstein. This is not a biography of Lichtenstein. This is way beyond the scope of this article. We should stick to writing about that which is reliably sourced and within the scope of an article on the painting Whaam!. To see how complicated this can be, please take a glance at this. Bus stop (talk) 01:55, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

No, the the Roy Lichtenstein, Appropriation (art), andList of plagiarism incidents#Visual arts articles are appropriate places to discuss the issues in detail. This article is an approriate place to mention the issues in summary. Far from being out of scope, failing to mention it at all would mean that the article lacked sufficient context. As this is one of Lichtenstein's key works, and attribution issues are one of the most common issues brought up WRT his work, you couldn't possibly leave it out of this article and say it was sufficiently broad and comprehensive. I wouldn't hesitate to oppose on those grounds alone. Curly Turkey (gobble) 03:06, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Of course, I'm totally aware the issues are complex. That's no excuse for ignoring their existence. Curly Turkey (gobble) 03:07, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

We require sources. At present we have reliably sourced that one individual complained about this. Please read the wording in the source:

"Back in 1993, Watchmen co-creator and artist Dave Gibbons recorded a short piece for the Beeb as part of The Great Picture Trail series, choosing a Lichtenstein as his subject (see the clip below)."

"On February 24th 2013, Gibbons was invited back to be interviewed by Alastair Sooke who fronted an hour-long BBC4 documentary on Roy Lichtenstein. In what was largely a puff piece for the Tate Show with little questioning or controversy, the only interviewee to raise important issues was Dave Gibbons. Here are the highlights of Sooke’s and Gibbons’ discussion, centred around and standing in front of the 1963 canvas ‘WHAAM!’. Sooke began by asking Gibbons about accusations that Lichtenstein was a plagiarist and referred to an article headline from the period, ‘Pop Artists All Copycats’."

"Dave Gibbons: '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’.'"

The above hardly constitutes a compelling case for the retelling in our article. And the rest of that very same source detracts from the impropriety that the above dialogue suggests. Bus stop (talk) 03:19, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

That isn't the quotation we were talking about. In the comment I responded to, you quoted:

"Although Lichtenstein's comic-based work is now widely accepted, concerns are still expressed by critics who say Lichtenstein did not credit, pay any royalties to, or seek permission from the original artists or copyright holders.[38][39]"

and:

"Lichtenstein has been criticized by some commentators for his failure to give credit or compensation to the comic book artists upon whose works his paintings were based. Despite controversy surrounding its artistic merit, originality and ethical propriety, Lichtenstein's comics-based work has since become popular with collectors and is now widely accepted."

from the lead. I agreed it should be dropped from the lead. The first quote is short, to the point, and has two sources. It addresses a question that will almost inevitably come up in the reader's mind. I am not convinced it can be removed without damaging the article. Curly Turkey (gobble) 03:34, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

We can consider putting into this article material from a source that elaborates on the origin of the imagery for this painting. This is an article on one painting. If the implications of impropriety are valid, you should be able to find sources to support them in relation to the subject of this article, which is the painting Whaam!. The reason we have an article on an individual painting is to address concerns particular to that painting. All paintings are not identical. Do you know that the implications of image sourcing impropriety which you wish to put into this article are applicable to the subject of this article? No, you do not, and that is one example of the general reason that Wikipedia requires sources. If sufficient reworking of imagery took place prior to assembling the finalized version of Whaam!, there may not be any impropriety at all. The three lengthy paragraphs I quoted above go to great lengths to show that derivation and remixing are from parts of images that are far-flung across many different comic book panels. If Lichtenstein created a unique image in Whaam! then there may not be the impropriety that you assume exists. If there is impropriety there should be a source to support its existence. If you can't find sources for it then implications of its existence should not be in this article. Bus stop (talk) 11:25, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I can assure you that you don't need to lecture me on the importance of sourcing. Did you not bother to look at either of the sources inlined to that sentence? The sentence itself makes no claim that there was impropriety, as it shouldn't; it does let the reader know that there are those who do, as it should.

"Do you know that the implications of image sourcing impropriety which you wish to put into this article are applicable to the subject of this article? No, you do not" Presumptuous, aren't you? I can assure you I am no virgin to the subject.

"there may not be the impropriety that you assume exists." Excuse me? I assumed this exactly where? Are you even following the conversation? By what ab-ex math do you equate including "Although Lichtenstein's comic-based work is now widely accepted, concerns are still expressed by critics who say Lichtenstein did not credit, pay any royalties to, or seek permission from the original artists or copyright holders" to being a statement of the author's belief in anything? (and I'm not even the author, for chrissake!)

"The reason we have an article on an individual painting is to address concerns particular to that painting." And important to understand the concerns of the particular painting is a sufficient context. The reader should not be assumed to have read the Lichtenstein article or any of the other articles that deal with the issues in detail. The reader most definitely should be informed of the greater issues involved, though, at least in summary.Curly Turkey (gobble) 13:28, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

• In a consensus making effort I agree with Curly Turkey. I don't have sufficient time to argue point for point with Bus Stop but Tony will agree that it was me who gave him the sources that Bus Stop now seems intent on trying to tell me I know nothing about. As stated above, there is a separate source for the Gibbons article which does not work outside the UK because it is on the BBC iplayer. Hiding T 13:57, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Curly Turkey—my post at 00:14, 19 July 2013 (UTC) clearly shows that I looked at the sources inlined to that sentence. In that post of mine I expounded upon the contents of those two sources. I don't doubt that you know the importance of the use of sources. Moments ago I added to the article a "See also" section containing a link to Appropriation (art). This I find to be entirely appropriate. Similar measures I would also find entirely appropriate. But what I think you are failing to be aware of are the implications of adding some of the other language already in the article or even the more mild language that you are contemplating for inclusion. Perhaps we can agree on language that is simply milder by degree. My idea is that only links to other parts of the project should be considered for inclusion with only the simplest and non-condemnatory language being used. (I am sure there will one day be a Wikipedia parade with a float reading Non-Condemnatory Language Only.) We could for instance mention that the use of images relating to comic-book imagery might fall under a term used in the visual arts (and other arts) called appropriation. Notice my italicized words: relating to comic-book imagery, and might fall under. At the Appropriation (art) article there could be a section added dealing with Lichtenstein-related instances of supposed improper cadging of images or whatever other improprieties are supported by reliable sources. Alternatively, the link from the Whaam! articlee could be to the Roy Lichtenstein article. Similarly—a paragraph or section could be initiated or expanded upon addressing this topic. We do not know that there are any improprieties relating to this painting and we should be careful not to mislead the reader by means of implication. Notice the language in "Manual of Style" for "See also" sections: "The links in the 'See also' section do not have to be directly related to the topic of the article, because one purpose of 'See also' links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics."[10] I bring this to your attention not because I think you might be unaware of it but because this is the spirit in which we should approach the handling of the issue that we are discussing. Yes, it could be appropriate to alert the reader to other resources for questions they may have on their minds. But no, we should not by implication suggest that the Whaam! painting is problematic for improper use of other artists' images. This is an important distinction. What is the point of having an article on an individual painting if you are going to imply in the article that that which may be applicable to one or more paintings (by the same artist) is probably applicable to this painting? That implication is clearly presently there in the language that is currently in the article. If we are going to address this issue we should understand what we are trying to do: we are trying to apprise the reader of other resources to which they can turn. But we are also trying to avoid implying something not supported by reliable sources concerning this painting. Bus stop (talk) 14:26, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

• Since we have a sourced statement from Dave Gibbons which references this very painting, and since Dave Gibbons has created his own version of Novick's original to critique this particular painting I'm not sure I understand why we don't reference that in the article as we do at other Featured Articles. Otherwise I would wonder whether we are airbrushing the article of any criticisms particular editors find distasteful. Hiding T 14:45, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Hiding—we should not be giving undue weight to one individual carping about this painting: "Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views."[11] This is all that Dave Gibbons had to say:

"Back in 1993, Watchmen co-creator and artist Dave Gibbons recorded a short piece for the Beeb as part of The Great Picture Trail series, choosing a Lichtenstein as his subject (see the clip below)."

"On February 24th 2013, Gibbons was invited back to be interviewed by Alastair Sooke who fronted an hour-long BBC4 documentary on Roy Lichtenstein. In what was largely a puff piece for the Tate Show with little questioning or controversy, the only interviewee to raise important issues was Dave Gibbons. Here are the highlights of Sooke’s and Gibbons’ discussion, centred around and standing in front of the 1963 canvas ‘WHAAM!’. Sooke began by asking Gibbons about accusations that Lichtenstein was a plagiarist and referred to an article headline from the period, ‘Pop Artists All Copycats’."

"Dave Gibbons: '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’.'"

<edit conflict>The above is contained in a source which to a large extent counters the thrust of what Dave Gibbons says in the above quotes. (The source goes to considerable lengths disagreeing with Dave Gibbons. For instance: "To be accurate, in the case of ‘WHAAM!’, Lichtenstein did not follow Irv Novick’s panel completely but used it as the underpinning composition and for one sound effect and narrative caption.") If we are to include what Dave Gibbons has to say, we should include what is somewhat "exculpatory" at that same source, said about the painting Whaam!. That, to me, is quite a fuss about very little. Bus stop (talk) 15:01, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

It is not merely Dave Gibbons that offers this opinion which you describe from a POV as "carping" and something I wish you would refrain from doing so in the hope that we can respect WP:NPOV. The Gibbons artwork was part of an exhibition of a number of artworks by a number of artists curated by Rian Hughes. The opinion Gibbons holds is held by a number of commercial artists and therefore that view needs to be reflected in the article. You seem to be playing a numbers game here which is counter to the spirit of Wikipedia policies. Your position is that we shouldn't mention all these criticisms because they aren't specific to this artwork in particular, and so now there is only one and we would give that undue weight. That's gaming the system. Because I have already indicated above on two separate occasions that the Gibbons quote can be sourced elsewhere I would also like you to amend your opinion to reflect that. And because I have already indicated I have no issue with contextualising Gibbons with the use of Gravett, I do not see any need to discuss that point. The point remains, however, that the Gibbons view of the artwork should be in the article to inform the readers of all the discussion the work itself raises. The BBC sought Gibbons views on this through Sooke. It's a reliable source. Per WP:UNDUE, "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents". Rian Hughes, Dave Gibbons, Mort Walker. Given that myself, Curly Turkey and TonytheTiger seem to be grouping around a consensus on this, I would advise everyone to be mindful of WP:CONSENSUS, "Editors who refuse to allow any consensus except the one they insist on, and who filibuster indefinitely to attain that goal, risk damaging the consensus process." Hiding T 15:14, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Quick note: I apologize for and retract the use of "carping". Bus stop (talk) 15:49, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

• Gibbons views on this artwork are also reflected and contextualised on the Senate House Library website here. I would assume this is a reliable source and may help counter Gibbons but also reflect that his view is taken seriously and with respect. Hiding T 15:26, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
• BBC Worldwide has something at this link which I cannot access since I am within the UK. Not sure if someone outside the UK wants to peruse it and see if it is of use. Hiding T 15:29, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Hiding—there is no gaming of the system on my part. I happen to be upholding the basic understanding of an article which is that it has a proper scope and an improper scope. There are certainly countless examples of instances in which material properly outside of the scope of an article gets included in an article. I know for a fact that I have done so myself. I recently created the Table with Pink Tablecloth article. Does it have to say in that article that it was made "using skills Artschwager gained designing furniture using similar materials and similar techniques"? No, it does not. But that sort of thing is harmless and not potentially misleading. And no one is objecting to it. In the Whaam! article, on the other hand, there is ample reason to believe that by implication the Whaam! painting will be understood by the reader to be tainted by the impropriety of plagiarism. This is to be avoided, in my opinion. And it is easily avoided. It is easy to insert bland language informing the reader that if they are interested in the common twentieth century practice of appropriation, that they might consider looking here or here. For something to be included in this article, basically-speaking, it has to be sourced to fall within the scope of this article. Bus stop (talk) 16:17, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Hiding—that link to "BBC Worldwide" is very much "of use." I am tempted to post the whole thing here. Consider just a few paragraphs:

"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. In general, he wanted to simplify and unify the image, to give it more clarity as a coherent work of art. For this reason, he removed two extra fighter jets to the right of the original panel. He also got rid of the lump of dark shadow representing a mountainside that was an ugly compositional mistake to the left of Novick’s picture. The result is that the two panels of Whaam! feel much more evenly balanced, producing a satisfying and well-structured visual effect."

"While Novick’s explosion is a measly, scratchy little thing slipping out of frame, Lichtenstein’s self-possessed fireball unfurls like a blooming flower. Lichtenstein changed the colour of the letters spelling out “WHAAM!” from red to yellow, so that yellow would become another means of yoking everything together. As a result, the eye is cleverly led from the yellow of the speech bubble above the jet through the onomatopoeic sound effect to the explosion itself and back round to the horizontal vapour trail left behind by the missile."

"Then, of course, there is the question of scale. Lichtenstein took something tiny and ephemeral – a throwaway comic-strip panel that most people would overlook – and blew it up so that it was a substantial oil (and acrylic) painting more than 2m (6.5 ft) wide and 1.7m (5.5 ft) high. Here, he was saying, was a contemporary equivalent of a grand ‘history painting’, once considered the highest and most challenging branch of art. In the years after it was executed, people began to understand Whaam! as a prophetic critique of America’s involvement in the Vietnam War."

The BBC spells funny but other than that it is a good article in my opinion. Bus stop (talk) 16:45, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

The article sure seems to be going to an awful lot of effort to dispell the myth of plagiarism, right from the title:

• "Is Lichtenstein a great modern artist or a copy cat?"
• "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."
• "Comparing the source for Whaam! with the finished painting banishes the hoary idea that Lichtenstein profited on the back of the creativity of others." An idea wouldn't need to be banished it it weren't held in the first place.
• "Surely, in 2013, it is time we stopped accusing Lichtenstein of plagiarism once and for all." because, obviously, that's exactly what a significant number of people (still) do (whether you agree with it or not)

The BBC article seems to me to be a mountain of evidence that something needs to be said about appropriation/attribution/accusations of plagiarism in the WP article. Reliable Sources are doing exactly that, after all.

I'm off to Tokyo Disneyland for the day, so I won't be able to respond quickly. It's too bad Hiding can't access the article. Curly Turkey (gobble) 17:57, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Would anyone object to the removal of the following two blocks of text from this article at this time?

"Lichtenstein has been criticized by some commentators for his failure to give credit or compensation to the comic book artists upon whose works his paintings were based. Despite controversy surrounding its artistic merit, originality and ethical propriety, Lichtenstein's comics-based work has since become popular with collectors and is now widely accepted."

"Although Lichtenstein's comic-based work is now widely accepted, concerns are still expressed by critics who say Lichtenstein did not credit, pay any royalties to, or seek permission from the original artists or copyright holders. In an interview for a BBC4 documentary in 2013, Alastair Sooke asked the comic book artist Dave Gibbons if he considered Lichtenstein a plagiarist. Gibbons replied: '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'.'"

We have two sources providing a glimpse of Dave Gibbons' view but both of those sources are not ambiguous in their refutation of Dave Gibbons' view. They are the paulgravett.com source and the bbc.com/culture source. It has been my opinion all along that the "paulgravett.com" source provided sufficient refutation to remove Dave Gibbons' view from our article. Now we have the "bbc.com/culture" source pointedly addressing Dave Gibbons' assertions concerning the origin of the imagery found in Whaam!. As an example, from the "bbc.com/culture" source:

"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".

The above two blocks of text found in our article are misleading to the reader. The wording in those two blocks of text is telling the reader that the imagery seen in Whaam! is the same imagery found in a panel of a comic book. Sources are saying otherwise. Bus stop (talk) 12:24, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

"not ambiguous in their refutation of Dave Gibbons' view"—and at Wikipedia we are supposed to provide a neutral point of view. We don't take sides. We summarize both (or more) sides, and let the reader decide.

"It has been my opinion all along that the "paulgravett.com" source provided sufficient refutation to remove Dave Gibbons' view from our article."—Your opinion is not what we're writing about. You (and others) are convinced by the argument; Gibbons (and others) are not. We're not here to evaluate the arguments of either side. You do understand that, don't you? The BBC article itself repeatedly emphasizes that the work is frequently subject to such criticisms, and not just from Gibbons. The criticisms have been refuted? Great! We summarize the refutations as well. However, under no circumstances do we remove the criticisms merely because we find the refutations convincing. Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:00, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

• I have not been following the debate between you and Hiding (talk · contribs) very closely, but I would say either add content to tell the other side or wait until he agrees with (rather than fails to object to) the removal.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:53, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Tony—these edits were not made by Hiding; these are edits that you made: this, and this, and this, and this, and this. Bus stop (talk) 14:18, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I made those edits while he was a discussant with me in either the PR or A-Class review. They are his ideas. I did not find those sources. I was responding to his concerns to balance the article with commercial arts perspective. I will leave it to the two of you to iron this out.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:58, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Tony—you are obviously expected to apply critical thinking to the edits others suggest to you. Bus stop (talk) 15:02, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I was responding to his concerns. I am saying he is the expert on commercial art. You and he need to discuss this issue.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:06, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Tony—I believe you are responsible for your own edits. Bus stop (talk) 15:43, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Tony, I do have to agree. You are expected to evaluate Hiding's feedback and include the info or not based on your own judgement. In the end, the edits are your responsibility. Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:00, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Basically, I don't want him to remove content that seems to summarize WP:RS. I would rather that he summarize opposing views and add them. However, I would let Hiding, who understands these issues better than I decide if it can be removed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:30, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Tony—why have you edited on behalf of an editor who "understands these issues better"? Bus stop (talk) 08:26, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Presuming you are talking about these edits from earlier, WP:NFCC and Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Whaam!/archive1#Opinion_request. Keep in mind I have 6 of the Category:FA-Class visual arts articles (only 5 show up their now because the bot is being finicky). I know a lot about how NFCC is viewed at WP:FAC with respect to WP:WPVA candidates.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 10:53, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Tony—did you make this edit, this edit, this edit, this edit, and this edit on behalf of Hiding?

Wikipedia:Peer review/Whaam!/archive1 seems to show requests for these or similar edits being made of you, by Hiding.

Just wondering why you made these edits as I think I hear you saying that Hiding "understands these issues better" Bus stop (talk) 12:15, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes I make all the edits from my account and under my signature. As I explained above, many of the changes I made were out of deference to superior expertise that offered advice at PR and MILHIST A-Class review. I am not sure why this matters. What matters now is determining what content should be in this article to make it one of WP's finest. I appreciate the attention that you have paid to this review. I apologize that I am not responding to you frequently. I hope others that have better understanding of this topic will help steer this discussion in productive directions. Thus far, I think most issues are getting handled fairly. However, I would like to reiterate that I would feel better about you adding content to balance existing content rather than removing content.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:07, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

In response to "Yes I make all the edits from my account and under my signature", could you please stop feigning misunderstanding? No one suggested that you did not make your edits from your account and under your signature. Bus stop (talk) 11:42, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand your point. You keep inquiring about edits. Did I do them? Why? I thought you were insinuating that I didn't do them. I am explaining that I did do them in response to a PR.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:38, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

For the record I agree with Curly Turkey that the Gibbons opinion needs to be in the article to reflect the contrasting views held on Lichtenstein and I once again question Bus Stop's tendentious attempts at editing the article to present his POV, which is that he doesn't agree with Gibbons opinion and does not want to see it in the article. We write from a NPOV and reflect the arguments. We don;t decide which side to take, we hold a neutral position. That the BBC, an organisation similarly committed to neutrality and reflecting views, sought out Gibbons for his opinion demonstrates the view is worthy of coverage in the article. The fact that Gibbons' view can be challenged through reliable sources is all to the better since it presents the reader with the arguments and allows them to draw their own conclusions rather than being shepherded to the Bus Stop approved version of history. Hiding T 21:32, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I have reverted this edit. It seems that Hiding (talk · contribs), Curly Turkey (talk · contribs) and I all want opposing views added rather than existing content trimmed. Correct me if I misunderstand the relevance of those thoughts to this edit.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:28, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Bus Stop, there's nothing at all unusual about opening a Peer Review to solicit feedback, and then to incorporate that feedback into the article. You seem to be implying that Tony did something inappropriate—he didn't. When Tony wrote that Hiding "understands these issues better", I'd assumed all along that it meant that Hiding, a member of WikiProject Comics, was likely to have a better understanding the comics POV. I assume he thought what Hiding told him appeared reasonable, and was sourced, so he incorporated it into the article. It may have been overlengthy (thus perhaps UNDUE), but not in the least inappropriate. Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:19, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Hiding, TonyTheTiger, Curly Turkey—the opinion that the imagery in Whaam! displays originality had been absent from the article prior to today. The only opinion present in the article prior to today was the opinion that the imagery found in Whaam! lacked originality. Today I added the opinion that the imagery displays originality. I did not remove the opinion that the imagery lacked originality. After my edit—both opinions were represented in our article. Sources were provided. This is my edit. This is the revert. What is the reason my edit was reverted? Bus stop (talk) 01:16, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I've already explicitly stated that I think both sides of the argument must be stated, and I had no hand in the revert, so I don't understand why I'm being co-addressed here. Having looked ath teh diffs, I have a couple of comments:

• I do think the quotation of Gibbons was overdone and should be summarized more concisely. I think both Gibbons and Sooke were condensed to the point of needlessly leaving more questions for the reader than it answers. At teh very least, we should have a summary of how "Lichtenstein transformed Novick’s artwork in a number of subtle but crucial ways."
• I think removing info about Lichtenstein and Novick in the army is a huge mistake. Of course it's relevant to this article.
• "Originality of imagery" is a terrible subtitle.
• I agree "Lichtenstein has been criticized by some commentators for his failure to give credit or compensation to the comic book artists upon whose works his paintings were based. Despite controversy surrounding its artistic merit, originality and ethical propriety, Lichtenstein's comics-based work has since become popular with collectors and is now widely accepted." was too much, adn overstates the controversy, but "The originality of the imagery in the painting is the subject of some debate, with some maintaining it represents plagiarism." is far too little, far too vague, and violates WP:PLUSING. What is not debated is that the imagery came from somewhere else originally; what's debated is whether or not this was inappropriately handled (e.g. should there have been attribution/royalties/etc?).

———Curly Turkey (gobble) 05:48, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Curly Turkey—I don't think that the two sources (paulgravett.com and bbc.com/culture) are according Dave Gibbons' point of view much weight. I think the thrust of both of those sources represents a refutation of Dave Gibbons' point of view. By the way have there been any lawsuits or other legal repercussions associated with the painting Whaam! regarding the originality of its imagery? If not should we be questioning whether or not there "should ... have been attribution/royalties/etc"? Aren't those legal questions? Bus stop (talk) 08:25, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm astounded that you believe neither source "accord[s] Dave Gibbons' point of view much weight"—they each devote multiple paragraphs to Gibbons, and the Gravett even includes of video. Of course, it's obvious by "[not] according ... much weight" that you mean they don't think much of his opinion. That's beside the point. Not only is Gibbons a prominent artist giving an opinion on the work, he was quoted by two sources—the BBC (!) one of them—and teh sources are both coming from different angles—the BBC from the fine arts point of view, and Gravett from comics (he's published mulitple books on comics). And even more important than either of those points is that the BBC article (as I've already pointed out above) goes to lengths to state multiple times that the plagiarism-or-not issue is alive and well, even if Gibbons had not jumped in the ring.

"have there been any lawsuits or other legal repercussions"? I have no idea, and am not going to waste my energy finding out (I'm not an author of the article and am not motivated to become one). Do there need to be? Does it make even the slightest difference at all? Why? Maybe Novick's a pussy who just won't stand up for himself, so Gibbons decided to shine light on it himself. I don't care, and a lack of something is immaterial anyways. Curly Turkey (gobble) 11:20, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I have gone through this section and added everything to the article that I felt was appropriate except the BBC content. First, I don't know what consensus is on this because I don't understand Curly Turkey's responses. Second, can someone provide the information to fill out the parameters for an WP:IC.--TonyTheTiger (T/C) Check out the WAWARD 17:23, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

More from Bus Stop

The last paragraph of the lead is outside of the scope of the article, and it is condemnatory, and it is gratuitous. It reads: "Lichtenstein has been criticized by some commentators for his failure to give credit or compensation to the comic book artists upon whose works his paintings were based. Despite controversy surrounding its artistic merit, originality and ethical propriety, Lichtenstein's comics-based work has since become popular with collectors and is now widely accepted." This is a very loose summation of material in the body of the article. In my assessment this is an article on an individual painting. It can be acceptable to include material outside of the scope of an article on an individual work of art but I don't think it is advisable in this instance. This article is not an article on Copyright infringement as concerns the works of Roy Lichtenstein. That would seem to be a valid but complicated subject area. It is in my assessment a pollyannish expectation that a neutral and balanced tone can be achieved on that topic in this article. An area for exploration in a Wikipedia article is conceivable on the topic of the sourcing of images in Lichtenstein paintings. This would seem to be a generally valid area for an article. I think much material is out there on that topic. If one does a Google search on related terms one finds a lot of information on that topic. Someone may wish to create an article on that topic. That topic should be considered outside of the scope of an article on the painting Whaam!. I don't think a balanced treatment is obtainable on that topic in this article. That should be evident from the material on that topic in this article at this time. In the body of the article we find: "Although Lichtenstein's comic-based work is now widely accepted, concerns are still expressed by critics who say Lichtenstein did not credit, pay any royalties to, or seek permission from the original artists or copyright holders." This is outside of the scope of this article, and it is condemnatory, and it is gratuitous. (As an aside I think it is interesting to note that Lichtenstein was never sued for copyright infringement although the possibility exists that copyright holders threatened to sue but settled privately outside of court.) Bus stop (talk) 20:38, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I agreed in my first response to your comments that it doesn't belong in the lead. The rest is an issue of wording—I believe it needs to be reworded in a way that better reflects a NPOV. I'd thought so all along, but it's hard to copyedit the wording when whether or not to include it at all is being fiercely debated. Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:03, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

• Does Hiding agree with this? This content seems to be stuff he was supporting. I would like to see it stay, but if Hiding agrees anyone can chop the 4th para of the LEAD or let me know there is agreement.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:57, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
• Can you guys summarize the issues that you all agree on at this point.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:57, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Curly Turkey—you say "A sentence or two is not UNDUE; it's also not OR, as it will inevitably come up in any Lichtenstein biography."[12] This is not a "Lichtenstein biography." This is an article on an individual painting. We have in the article at present: "In a February 24, 2013, interview for a BBC Four documentary in front of Whaam! at the Tate Modern about the show, Alastair Sooke asked the comic book artist Dave Gibbons, who has parodied Lichtenstein, if he considered Lichtenstein a plagiarist. Gibbons replied: "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'."" You are arguing for the inclusion of material along the lines of: "Although Lichtenstein's comic-based work is now widely accepted, concerns are still expressed by critics who say Lichtenstein did not credit, pay any royalties to, or seek permission from the original artists or copyright holders". Unlike the Dave Gibbons quote, which I would contend is about a closely related topic, the sort of material you are trying to include is not about this painting in particular. It is a generalization about an indeterminate number of Lichtenstein paintings. Bus stop (talk) 02:52, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I really appreciate this treadmilling. I've been telling myself lately I could afford to lose a few kilos.

The sort of material I'm talking about including is discussed in the context of this painting in the Gravett article, the BBC article, and another Gravett and the Priego that Binksternet has now brought up (scroll down to see links to them). Further, it is standard to include a general summary of the context in which a work was created, and would be a disservice to the reader and damaging to the article not to include one.

I'm also not arguing we include any specific lines you've quoted. I'm arguing that the issues must be summed up in a balanced, elegant way that says neither too much nor too little. Binksternet below has brought up a couple of other articles that go into further depth on the attribution issues. There are now far too many sources that talk about it in the context of this painting to give it short shrift. It may even need more elaboration than I initially thought or argued for. Curly Turkey (gobble) 03:31, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I have added a bunch of things including the Priego.--TonyTheTiger (T/C) Check out the WAWARD 17:29, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Curly Turkey—you are not speaking in specifics. You say "The sort of material I'm talking about including is discussed in the context of this painting…"[13] What "material" are you referring to? Are you going to present that material in the context of this discussion? Are you going to present sources in support of that material, whatever that material might be? I can't discuss something with you that you are not disclosing. Bus stop (talk) 21:06, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea how to respond to this. The sources have been presented, the material has been presented, we've long gone blue in the face talking about it, and now you're acting as if I want to introduce something new that I'm not disclosing to the article? What?!? Does anyone else have a clue what Bus Stop is trying to get at here? I'm not being facetious when I say I haven't a clue. Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:33, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Am I not being clear? This:

"Lichtenstein has been criticized by some commentators for his failure to give credit or compensation to the comic book artists upon whose works his paintings were based. Despite controversy surrounding its artistic merit, originality and ethical propriety, Lichtenstein's comics-based work has since become popular with collectors and is now widely accepted."

and this:

"Although Lichtenstein's comic-based work is now widely accepted, concerns are still expressed by critics who say Lichtenstein did not credit, pay any royalties to, or seek permission from the original artists or copyright holders."

should be removed from the article.

You say "I'm also not arguing we include any specific lines you've quoted."[14] Does that mean that you are "not arguing we include" the above two blocks of text? You are speaking about "The sort of material I'm talking about including..."[15]. Is this instead of the above two blocks of text? Bus stop (talk) 23:24, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

It's déjà vu all over again! I've written that I'm not defending any particular wording as it stands in the article, but under no circumstances should the information embodied in that text be removed. I'd love to get to a rewrite, but you keep insisting on removing it. The issues raised in those quotes must be addressed, in a neutral, balanced manner. Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:50, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Curly Turkey

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

• "It is one of his two notable large war-themed paintings." Don't tantalize the reader. What was the other one?
  • O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:13, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
• "Lichtenstein was a trained United States Army pilot," does the US Army have untrained pilots? Drop "trained".
  • Done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:16, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
• "The image is derived from comics." Comics is a narrative medium. The image was derived from a specific image that appeared in an instance of that medium.
  • Fixed, I believe.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:27, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
• "war comic" --> "war comic book", and link it to War comics
  • Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:36, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
• I think "oversized" should precede "onomatopoetic"
  • O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:39, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
• A Google search shows ""onomatopoeic" is about three times as common as "onomatopoetic". Not a big deal, both are legitimate, but you may want to keep that in mind. Also, you use "onomatopoeic" twice later on in the "Description" section.
  • Good eye.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:44, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
• "Contemporary critics were divided on whether Lichtenstein's comics-based work was art; some contended that he merely duplicated extant original work." I agree this is somewhat UNDUE. I think it needs to be talked about briefly in the article to provide context, but shouldn't be in the lead.
  • O.K., but given the current balance of the main body and the need to summarize all aspects (each section) of the article we need to consider what the final content will be before we put this issue to rest.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:00, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
• "Lichtenstein's comic blow-ups" Was there humour in his blow-ups? Something like "blow-ups of comics" would be better.
  • O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:08, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
• "Subject matter sourced from comic books was regarded as "the lowest commercial and intellectual kind"" Attribution for the quote? Also, is there some reason it needs to be quoted at all? It's pretty easily paraphrased.
  • Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:53, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
• The discussion about the merits of Lichtenstein's work certainly needs to be there to provide context, but I think it could be condensed to a sentence or two. Seriously, the quotes about his work in general belong in the Lichtenstein article and not in the ones for the individual works.
  • Have you skipped from the second paragraph of the main body to the end of the article?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:02, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Yeth. Ain't I a thtinker? Curly Turkey (gobble) 07:09, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
      • What do you think of the current rearrangement where I have that content in a section for general context of his works?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:57, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
        • Honestly, I hold the same opinion. I'd condense the first paragraph to couple sentences (as none of it is specific to Whaam!) and append it to the beginning of the second paragraph (which is specific to Whaam!). The first sentence of the first paragraph is fine as it is, and really doesn't need elaboration in this article. A further sentence about its eventual acceptance, and about attribution/royalties issues would be more than enough. Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:38, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
          • Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:52, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
• My understanding is that the public had a low opinion of comic books long before the Senate hearings. The hearings were a culmination of anti-comic book sentiments dating back at least to the 1940s. In Canada, for instance, the depiction of crimes in comics was prohibited by law as early as 1949. Check out the "Backlash" section of the Crime comics article.
  • At some point, it becomes a consideration of how far back you want to trace the root of the controversy. I am probably stretching the relevant issue already.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:04, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
    • No, my concern is that the way it's worded implies that comic books' status stems from the Senate hearings, rather than the Senate hearings stemming from comic books' status. It's not factually correct. There's no need to trace the whole history of comic books' lowbrow status. It just needs a rewording. Curly Turkey (gobble) 07:13, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
      • How is it now?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:58, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
        • I think that's much better. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:07, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
          • Would we want to work in the mid-60's Louvre exhibition of Milton Caniff as a counter, or is that better done in other articles? Hiding T 09:44, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
            • I'd never heard of the exhibition until you mentioned it, so I may be misinterpreting why you would want to mention it. I assume you want it there to show that comics art had somehow risen in the estimation of genteel circles in the wake of Pop Art. I see a number of issues with that:
              1. Is it mentioned in reliable sources in connection with this painting in particular? Was it somehow a key event for Lichtenstein? If not, then we're veering into OR territory.
              2. With the mention of the Senate hearings, the context seems to be comic books rather than strips. Comic strips didn't exactly have a highbrow reputation, but at the time they weren't seen as the irredemable trash that comics books were. Just take a look at Walt Kelly's testimony, which basically pitted the comic strip community against the comic book community (the hurt feelings are tangible in the Mad parody of Pogo). In the 21st century, we really only see reprints of the best of the Golden Age (the Kurtzmans, Eisners, Stanleys, Coles, Barkses...) which makes it a little hard to get a grasp on just how truly horrible most comic books were at the time. Caniff wasn't a part of that world. He was a part of the "classy" comic strip world, where basic drawing skills and clean writing were a given.
              3. The implication seems to be that comics were somehow "accepted" in the wake of Pop Art. This position is a bit hard to accept, given that the 1992 Maus show at MOMA was still seen as something of a novelty, and that "Biff! Pow! Comics Aren't For Kids Any More!" stories have persisted well into the 21st century. Pop Art has gained a level of acceptance that comics still only dreams of.
            • I could say more, but this is veering farther and farther from anything to do with Lichtenstein. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:04, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
              • I mentioned Caniff because Eddie Campbell mentioned it as, in his opinion, an example of comics being taken more seriously as a result of the Pop Art movement in the comments at [16]. Don't know if it can be used anywhere I just thought I would mention it here to get it on the radar. Take all your points on board though. Hiding T 14:10, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
• "Whaam! adapts a comic-book panel from a 1962 issue of DC Comics' All-American Men of War. The story was "Star Jockey", from All-American Men of War #89 (January–February 1962), drawn by Irv Novick." This could easily be condensed to a single sentence.
  • Done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:21, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
• "February 10 through March 3, 1962 ... Castelli Gallery from September 28—October 24, 1963" Inconsistent.
  • Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:26, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Not really. You shouldn't be mixing prose with dashes. Go with either "from February 10—March 3, 1962" or "from February 10 (to|through) March 3, 1962". Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:16, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
      • O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:41, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
• link Ben-Day dots. Also, "mechanical printer's (benday)"? Mechanical printer's what?
  • Fixed, I think.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:38, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
• "rockets blazed through the sky ..."." The period is unnecessary.
  • Oops.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:46, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
• "It is widely described as Lichtenstein's most famous work.[34][35] Other sources cite it, along with Drowning Girl, as one of his two most famous works." Surely these sentences could be merged.
  • done--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:59, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
    • I still feel that this could be done a bit more elegantly, but whatever. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:16, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
• I wish a reliable source would shit all over Lichtenstein's ugly lettering.
  • Not sure how I can help.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:47, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
    • You can't. Society is to blame. Curly Turkey (gobble) 07:14, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

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

More from Curly Turkey

Reception

• "Compared with As I Opened Fire, Whaam! is less abstract." Something like "Whaam! is less abstract than As I Opened Fire" would avoid having the two titles run together—as it is, they visually appear as if they were one title.
  • O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:42, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
    • You now have the same problem in the previous sentence. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:19, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
• "It is widely described as Lichtenstein's most famous work, while other sources cite it, along with Drowning Girl, as one of his two most famous works. It is also regarded as one of his most influential works along with Drowning Girl and Look Mickey." I'm sure this could be condensed and more elegantly worded. Actually, I'm sure the first two paragraphs could be rearranged and reworded to read more nicely. Reading them out loud, they kinda go "bumpity bump".
  • Fixed per WP:BUMPITYBUMP.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:59, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Better, except for the above point. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:19, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
• "The work is regarded as a "spectacular display of firepower"". By whom?
  • Added name--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:05, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
• The most important element of Lichtenstein's procedure was "the enlargement and unification of his source material". His method entailed "strengthening of the formal aspects of the composition, a stylization of motif, and a 'freezing' of both emotion and actions". Attribution(s)? Any reason for the extensive quotation?
  • Mainly my lack of artistic eloquence. The source is accessible. Feel free to make a suggestion or to be BOLD.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:04, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
• "Nonetheless, Lichtenstein appears to have accepted the American capitalist industrial culture." In what way? According to whom?
  • Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:37, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
• "When art dealer Ileana Sonnabend sold Whaam! to the Tate for £4,665 (£64,713 in 2013 currency) in 1966—in spite of a reported market price of £5,382 (£74,659 in 2013 currency)" The currency conversions will date so quickly (and disrupt the flow of the prose) that I'd prefer to see them in the endnotes. Not an order, just my preference.
  • We are using {{Inflation}} and {{CURRENTYEAR}}. No worries.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:29, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Ah, I see. That's a neat little template. You might want to read the instructions, though, about when it is and is not appropriate to use this template—I suspect reported market prices for paintings follow rules independent of any Consumer Price Index. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:08, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
• "a need to horrify and/or shock" See MOS:ANDOR
  • Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:27, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
    • I'd drop the "or both". I don't think this "or" is exclusive, and I don't think we need mathematical precision for this statement. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:19, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
• "Part of this included an interview with Dave Gibbons while standing in front of Whaam! at the Tate Modern." The interview was standing in front of the painting?
  • Yes. Oh I see, it's a copyedit thing, the interview took place in front of the painting, yes. Hiding T 07:51, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
    • I CEed this. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:19, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
• "When Sooke attempted to prompt Gibbons" Did Sooke fail to prompt Gibbons?
  • He failed in what he attempted to prompt him to discuss.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:30, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
    • So he prompted and failed to get the desired results, he didn't attempt to prompt. Curly Turkey (gobble) 05:11, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
      • I view a failed specific-response prompt as an attempted specific-response prompt, but let me know what you want done to the text.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:37, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
        • I find it hard to read it that way. I changed "prompt" to "get". I hope you don't mind. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:19, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

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

Theramin

• Well, this is getting there, slowly. I have applied a light flame-thrower to the under-brush (feel free to revert if you prefer) but I think you need some more copy-editing by a non-specialist. I have to confess to being stumped by the paragraph that starts "The most important element of Lichtenstein's procedure was "the enlargement and unification of his source material"..." What are you trying to say there? -- Theramin (talk) 23:47, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
  • It seems to be a good copyedit in many regards, but it has introduced and reintroduced some issues. I will address these.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:30, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Most of this was a response to your copyedit.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:55, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
      • You are welcome, and apologies if I went wrong in places. Anyway, I have found and added a few extra pieces of information. I've done my best with the aircraft identifications (for some inexplicable reason, the art historians do not seem particularly bothered which models they are, but it is obvious in context). There are a few good quotes from the Tate website. Again, feel free to keep or lose as you prefer. I think I have exhausted what I can offer right now, but I may come back for another copy-edit in a few days. Good luck. -- Theramin (talk) 00:46, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
        • Again a largely constructive contribution that has introduced some issues. The most significant of which is the content regarding the plane models, which does not seem to be from a WP:RS. It seems that a random uncredentialed blog poster interviewed Rian Hughes. However, the details that you added are not the thoughts of Hughes, but rather the blogger. We continue to need a better source for this detail. I am continuing to work on smoothing out your contribution.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:01, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
          • this was my cleanup of your edits.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:03, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

Opinion request

Issue 1

• Do we want the graphite on paper sketch included in this article?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:17, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Ideally, yes. Ceoil (talk) 22:13, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

O.K. done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:03, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Issue 2

• QUERY regarding FU image I see that Hiding added a fair use image that is not currently discussed in the article, to my knowledge. If there is no content related to a fair use image, it must be removed. However, I believe a parody section would be welcomed if it can be sourced.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:22, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
  • What should we do?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:23, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
    • There are already five other FU images on the page. They all directly cotribute to an understanding of the painting. The Gibbons is interesting, but does not significantly contribute to an understanding of the painting—it's pretty tangential, so it falls outside of the guidelines for inclusion of FU images. I'd drop it and throw a link to wherever it came from in the "External links" section. Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:10, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
      • Removed and moved to EL.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:41, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Sources

Source review - spotchecks not done

• Citation-needed tag needs to be addressed
  • handled.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:12, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
• Don't need retrieval dates for Google Books links
  • removed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:19, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
• Check formatting of short cites
  • I think we are good now.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:32, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
• Be consistent in how you format multi-author sources
  • Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:11, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
• MIT Press or The MIT Press?
  • Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:51, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
• Be consistent in whether page ranges are abbreviated and if so, how
  • I think I have resolved this.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:21, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
• FN47: date?
  • added.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:32, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
• What makes this a high-quality reliable source? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:32, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
  • removed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:11, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Source review v2 - per request, still without spotchecks

• "The Ben-Day dots in the final painting were created using a metal screen" - source?
  • Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:10, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
• Can you clarify what you're doing with the Waldman short cites? Is this a chapter?
  • Yes. For this particular article, this particular chapter is encyclopedic information.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:46, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
• FN21: is this a book? If so, need italicized work title
  • Now FN22: Work title is italicized, chapter title in quotes.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:21, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
• Short cites are still oddly formatted - "Alloway. . p. 56" - why the spaced period in the middle?
  • Converted to {{sfn}}--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:25, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
• FN48: formatting
  • Now FN50: Do you want me to remove the parentheticals.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:15, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
• Fn52: ISBN?
  • Now FN54. It is there now.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:16, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
• FN58: check title
  • Now FN60: Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:19, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
• Page ranging is still inconsistent. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:54, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Are you talking about FN48. It uses {{cite journal}}, which is different than most other citations.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:37, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Binksternet

• There should be a lengthier prose explanation of Ben Day dots which Lichtenstein used in this and many other of his pop-art paintings to good effect. Lichtenstein painstakingly hand-painted the dots which would have been automatically generated in normal printing.
  • Do you want more than was added below?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:50, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oh wait there is more.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:53, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
• The context of the original cartoon imagery should be discussed. The Irv Novick image is a fantasy of the future as imagined by a fictional Native American pilot named Johnny Cloud who was active in World War II. The two airplanes depicted are jet fighters of the Korean War era. See pages 200–204 of High & low: modern art, popular culture, ISBN 9780870703546. I will bring further comments to bear on this article. Binksternet (talk) 21:53, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

"Few people know that the pilot firing those missiles is a Native American, ‘Johnny Cloud, Navaho Ace’, who receives predictions of his future through ‘smoke pictures’."[17]

Added.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:28, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

You wrote the following:

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

The reader should be told this is a fictional pilot. It won't hurt to say the character was developed by Kanigher. The bit about the plane being the subject of two panels and the face not visible is your own interpretation. The general scene painted by Lichtenstein was from a comic which featured Johnny Cloud. We know that Lichtenstein changed various aspects of the original but nobody says Lichtenstein swapped in a new pilot. Binksternet (talk) 18:56, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

• Do we have know that both of the comic sources are Johnny Cloud comics? --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:47, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
• Do we have a source? --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:47, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
• Two panels is sourced above. --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:47, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
• Face not visible. - Well the reader can look at the image him/herself.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:47, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
• Do you want "even though the plane in the work is the combination of two panels and its subject's face is not visible." removed?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:47, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

• Yes. I would also like the reader to be told that the text in the text balloon was written by Kanigher to represent Johnny Cloud's thoughts.

• How is it now?--TonyTheTiger (T/C) Check out the WAWARD 14:33, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

"He reproduced the Ben Day dots of comic strips by laying a metal screen over his canvas, spreading paint with a roller and rubbing it in with a toothbrush."[18]

That is not an adequate WP:RS to support this fact in this article. Lichtenstein only used this technique after doing circles freehand for a while. Several early works have uneven dots, such as Look Mickey, Engagement Ring (Roy Lichtenstein), and likely I Can See the Whole Room...and There's Nobody in It!. We need a source that says by the time he did this work he was using metal screens.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:54, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Particularly pertaining to the "Benday dots" I also find this: "The piece was drawn directly on to canvas with pencil and painted in layers of oil and the Magna brand of acrylic paint. Layering meant the paint could remain wet during the production process and allow for manipulations of shape and colour. The Benday dots were produced using a scrub brush and handmade metal screen, the outline of which is evident, on close inspection, in parts of the background. From the preparatory drawing we can see how Lichtenstein has manipulated the original source, including the text."[19]

Added.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:25, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

"But he never abandoned his signature method, the Ben-Day dot (named after inventor Benjamin Day's 1879 technique for reproducing printed images by using dots to recreate gradations of shading), ensuring that his work would remain as recognisable as it was quotable."[20]

• This is fairly general commentary and probably belongs in his bio more than here, but I will try to incorporate it.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:23, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
• Added some for context.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:28, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

"The Ben-Day dots, too, were meant to suggest the manufactured and simulated: "The dots I use to make the image ersatz. And I think the dots also may mean data transmission." The work is "supposed to look like a fake, and it achieves that, I think," he explained."[21] Bus stop (talk) 22:09, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• added.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:05, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

• Per MOS:DATE, there should be a comma following the year of a full date written in running prose. Several instances of no comma are present in the article.
  • I fixed a few. Those were all I saw.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:53, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Found another--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:06, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
• Please remove the hidden comments: the note to find a source for "most notable", and the note about David McCarthy.Binksternet (talk) 22:55, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Removed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:56, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

• There should be a link to Robert Kanigher who developed the character Johnny Cloud, USAAF pilot, member of the hot-shot squadron called The Losers. "Character Sketch: The Comic That Inspired Roy Lichtenstein", Yale Press, June 26, 2012. Binksternet (talk) 23:45, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
  • • Added.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:35, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
  • The Kanigher/Johnny Cloud stuff is interesting in and of itself, but isn't it tangential to the painting? Given that the imagery was combined from a number of strip panels, we don't even know if that silhouette is "really" Johnny Cloud. After all, it's clearly not the same plane. Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:08, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
    • The Yale Press connected the dots. We cite reliable sources, and the Yale Press is one of them. Binksternet (talk) 03:46, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
      • ""We cite reliable sources" doesn't mean we hunt down every source imaginable and then pile the article up with every tangential tidbit we can find—otherwise, we end up with this. This article doesn't even have a summary of the story the panel(s) originally came from (nor is anyone calling for one), but we're supposed to have the backstory to that nonesxitant back story?
        Far more importantly, notice that the Yale source states: "Several of Lichtenstein’s comics-inspired paintings, including Okay Hot-Shot, Okay! (1963); Von Karp (1963); and Jet Pilot (1962), are based on a character named Johnny Cloud from the DC Comic’s All American Men of War series (1956 to 1966)." Never in the body of the article is Whaam! even once mentioned—though the painting is used to illustrate the article, without comment. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:19, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
        • The Paul Gravett source which is already used in the article says that the pilot in Whaam! is Johnny Cloud. Binksternet (talk) 00:51, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
          • The Gravett claims no such thing. Here's what it does say:
            1. "... the image would not have been drawn without the initial script probably by editor Robert Kanigher ..." — It is not clear who the writer of the story was; Gravett speculates it was Kanigher.
            2. "To be accurate, in the case of ‘WHAAM!’, Lichtenstein did not follow Irv Novick’s panel completely but used it as the underpinning composition and for one sound effect and narrative caption. He then sketched out a remixed version (above), replacing Novick’s side-view of the attacking plane on the left with a sharper, clearer plane at an angle, taken from the following issue, All American Men Of War #90, from the story ‘Wingmate of Doom’, panel 3 on page 11, drawn by Jerry Grandenetti (below)." — He did not use the plane that Johnny Cloud was in.
            3. "... the most famous, most reproduced single panel from a comic book, but it has been totally removed from its context as merely one of 67 panels across a 13-page story." — Gravett then goes to describe the story and the story's background (including scans of the original 13-page story) but never once claims, suggests, or implies the silhouette in the painting was the same character that appeared in the story—in fact, he appears to imply the exact opposite when he emphasizes that the plane was replaced by one from a different story drawn by a different artist.
          • In short, there is no source that supports the claim that the silhouette is Johnny Cloud, or that the dialogue was written by Kanigher. That the original story included a character orginally co-created by Kanigher is tangential—at best endnote fodder, but in know way helps the reader better understand anything about the painting. Curly Turkey (gobble) 13:58, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
            • I disagree strongly. Paul Gravett says in his Kanigher obituary that Kanigher's "war comics were the sources for nearly all of Roy Lichtenstein's pop art of war, notably his 1963 paintings, Whaam!" The Kanigher text is an undeniably important part of the work of art, and we should tell the reader who wrote it. The library science lecturer Ernesto Priego of City University London, writing for Comics Grid, credits Kanigher with the text and Novick with the visuals, and connects the single Kanigher/Novick panel with the Lichtenstein work, despite the various changes to aircraft, flame, etc. Priego is not alone, of course. The Tate's own description of the artwork makes reference mainly to the single Kanigher/Novick image, you know, the one that says "Whaam" in it. Binksternet (talk) 15:19, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
              • The Guardian obituary was from 2002. The article where Gravett qualifies that with a "probably" was from 2013. It's pretty clear that Gravett has become less confident in that assumption. I don't expect the Tate to put the research in themselves (tracking down anonymous comics contributors? Unlikely)—they almost certainly relied on the statements of Gravett or others. Priego gives credit to Kanigher in his sources, but what does he base that on? The work is uncredited (as can be seen in the original posted at the Gravett 2013), and two years after that blog post, Gravett gives us his "probably". If Kanigher is to be credited, it will have to be similarly qualified. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:07, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
                • I tried my hand at this one.--TonyTheTiger (T/C) Check out the WAWARD 14:16, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
              • I do like this quote from the Priego: "Besides embodying the cultural prejudice against comic books as vehicles of art, examples like Lichtenstein’s appropriation of the vocabulary of comics highlight the importance of taking publication format in consideration when defining comics, as well as the political economy implied by specific types of historical publications, in this case the American mainstream comic book. To what extent was National Periodical Publications (later DC) responsible for the rejection of the roles of Kanigher and Novick as artists in their own right by not granting them full authorial credit on the publication itself?"
                It seems Priego's saying that Lichtenstein can't be blamed for not crediting the original creator(s), as they were anonymized by the company that produced the comic book. I think it might be worthwhile considering working that into the article. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:16, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
                • O.K. So you like something he suggested. Are you in agreement on what is or should be in the article yet?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:28, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
                  • No, I found something else in one of the sources Binksternet brought up that I thought would give another interesting angle to the article. We'll see what Binkersternet has to say about my last-but-one comment. Curly Turkey (gobble) 03:34, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
                    • Yes, I think the Priego observation is good for the article, saying that the originally anonymous artist and writer was a decision by NPP/DC, not some sort of failure by Lichtenstein to credit them. Binksternet (talk) 04:55, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
                      • Handled.--TonyTheTiger (T/C) Check out the WAWARD 14:32, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

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

• As you know, I have been on hiatus for 48 hours. I am catching up. I will try to respond to these issues promptly.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:16, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
• The fact that Dave Gibbons has created his own parody of the painting should be mentioned.
  • mentioned.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:40, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
• The BBC4 documentary with Sooke and Gibbons is mentioned twice. The second time has too much redundancy in the presentation. The first instance should carry the details and the second should not have any—just the negative opinion of Gibbons. Binksternet (talk) 19:14, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:50, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments from John

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

• • Fixed both specific issues. A copyedit/proof-read is welcome.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:58, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
• Questions What version of English are we supposed to be in here? I see instances of both. What makes the Daily Mail a good source for this article? --John (talk) 08:10, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Lichtenstein is American, but this work is housed in London. I would say we should probably go by the artist and all Lichtenstein works should be written in American english. Apologies to the Queen. Any instances of British English outside of quotations should be pointed out.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:01, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
• "not least by linked by the horizontal smoke trail of the missile"? --John (talk) 08:16, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
  • May have been a copyedit gone bad. I am going to dig into the article history. I may have also just jumbled up the original contribution.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:10, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
    • It came from these edits. I have had to edit some fo Theramin (talk · contribs)'s edits in the past. I will try to figure this one out.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:31, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
    • I have attempted to correct this issue.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:36, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
• "...Bradford R. Collins: he considers it to be a revenge fantasy and vehicle for his anger towards his first wife Isabel"; whose wife? --John (talk) 08:49, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:08, 26 July 2013 (UTC)