Talk:Molly Crabapple

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Unsourced Exhibitions[edit]


  • "Ink! Babes! Irony!-Molly Crabapple Says Goodbye to Pen and Ink" Jigsaw Gallery (February 2005)
  • "Licentious Behavior" Perihelion Arts (May 2006)
  • "Tarts and Flowers – A Valentine's Day Show" Jigsaw Gallery (February 2006)
  • "Peepshow: The Art of Molly Crabapple" Trinity Art Gallery (January 2007)
  • "Demimonde: Arena Studios" (February 2008)
  • "Shell Game: A Crowd-Funded Show about the 2008 Financial Collapse" (April 2013)[citation needed]

Group exhibitions[edit]

  • Resistance, a Festival of Peace, Theater for the New City (April 2003)
  • "Visions of New York" Antique Café/Gallery (July 2003) (solo)
  • The Lower East Side Festival of the Arts (August 2003)
  • "Queer Artists Talk Back" The DUMBA Collective (October 2003)
  • The DUMBO Festival of the Arts (October 2003)
  • Terrible Toy Fair, CBGB 313 Gallery (January 2004)
  • The Writer as Visual Artist" Theater for the New City (February 2004)
  • "Self Portraits" Theater for the New City (March 2004)
  • "The Hip Hop Show" Asterisk Art Project (April 2004)
  • "Dirty Detroit Erotic Art Fair" (February 2005)
  • "Propaganda" Encrypt Gallery at Columbia University (April 2005)
  • "Patterns and More Patterns" Bamboo Lane Gallery (Los Angeles) (April 2005)
  • "The Smut Show" Green Door Gallery (Kansas City) (May 2005)
  • "The Mermaid Show" Coney Island Museum (June 2005)
  • "New Erotix – Third Annual Juried Erotic Art Show" Art at Large Gallery. (July 2005)
  • "BlueShow" BlueSpace Gallery (Los Angeles). (July 2005)
  • "Cannibal Flower" Los Angeles (August 2005)
  • "Our Own Show" Museum of American Illustration (September 2005)
  • "Cannibal Flower" Los Angeles (September 2005)
  • "Halloween Show" MF Gallery (October 2005)
  • "Untitled" Bluespace Gallery (October 2005)
  • "Exquisite Corpse" Toyroom Gallery ( Sacramento ) (October 2005)
  • "Werwolf Bongo Party" DVA Gallery Chicago (October 2005)
  • "Broads on the Bowery" CBGB’s Gallery 313 (October 2005)
  • "Grope Show" Zito Studio/Gallery (December 2005)
  • "Victorian Rhapsodies" (Three Person Show) Toyroom Gallery (January 2006)
  • "Spin" CVB Space (January 2006)
  • "Girls! Girls! Girls!" MF Gallery (February 2006)
  • "Dirty Detroit Erotic Art Fair" (February 2006)
  • "Native Spirit" Supreme Trading (March 2006)
  • "Betty Does Veronica" Femina Potens (June 2006)
  • Going Underground. Art at Large (August 2006)
  • "Dirty Detroit Summer Show" (August 2006)
  • "Eye Candy". Trinity Art Gallery (October 2006)
  • "Paper Doll Show" Trunk Space (October 2006)
  • "The Drawing Show" Perihelion Arts (November 2006)
  • "Don't Say MF" MF Gallery (February 2007)
  • "The Erotic Show" Trinity Art Gallery (February 2007)
  • "Seven Brides Electrified" Jail Gallery (April 2007)
  • "Ladies Only Show" Crybaby Gallery (April 2007)
  • "Carnival" MF Gallery (August 2007)
  • "Naked Show" Bluespace Gallery (September 2007)
  • "DECK" A Show of Skateboard Art Pravus Gallery (October 2007)
  • "Masquerade" Dabora Gallery (October 2007)
  • "Fountain Art Fair" (during Art Basel Miami) (December 2007)
  • "Home Sweet Home" Crybaby Gallery (December 2007)
  • "DEEP POP" Kenneth Chapman Gallery (January 2008)
  • "Pop Subversion" Ad Hoc Arts (February 2008)
  • "Two Person Show w/ Genevive Zacconi" Ad Hoc Arts (August 2008)
  • "Queer Couture" Femina Potens Gallery (August 2010)

Career headings[edit]

I'm at a complete loss trying understanding the rationale for this edit by Nightscream. I am not only in the process of cleaning up this article he personally placed numerous maintenance tags on and then abandoned, but I'm also trying to correct erroneous information and expand it directly from the best secondary sources. I am curious why Nightscream removed the section headings I added here as I engage in this process. Before he removes them again, I would like an answer to this perplexing edit. I cannot imagine how the reasoning behind the edit summary, "All of this falls under her career as an artist" explains the removal of the section headings. Perhaps Nightscream would be so kind as to provide a link to a policy or guideline that supports this strange edit. In return, I would like the opportunity to tell Nightscream that we add section headings to help the reader and to sort the topic. At the moment I am fleshing out this article by doing the actual research and vetting the material. Since there is no reason to lump an entire article under the singular section heading of "Career", I would like to know what policy or guideline Nightscream is relying on to do this. I am very familiar with BLP articles, including layout and composition, and I cannot see a reason to do this. Viriditas (talk) 03:27, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

The fact that all of that material falls under the area of her career as an artist is precisely what explains it. The divisions you insist upon are arbitrary and unnecessary, since headings should only be used to separate material that is either distinct in topic or to separate sections that have grown too large. The individual paragraphs together make one relevant, good-sized section whose size does not require division at this time, and are not so distinct in themselves that they require separate sections. This is also consistent with other articles on illustrators and artists, and with other public figures in general. Nightscream (talk) 03:50, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
You did not provide any policy or guideline-based reasons as I previously requested. I disagree with you on every point. Her "career" as an artist, as you put it, is divided based on the order of events that took place chronologically over the course of her life. There is nothing "arbitrary" or unnecessary about this headings at all, and the subject matter is growing as I continue to expand it. Headings are used appropriately here to separate distinct material and sections that are growing too large. You argue that the paragraphs lumped together "make one relevant, good sized section whose size does not require division", which I find simply absurd. You also claim that this is "consistent with other articles" which again I dispute. Firstly, "Early life" is growing as it expands, and is not part of what you call her "Career". Second, there is no such "consistency" in our best, featured art biographies nor our GA articles, so your claim is demonstrably false. Many of the featured biographies actually follow the structure currently in this article. I am curious, when you speak of "other" articles, are you referring to non-FA, or non-GA articles? Because if you are, those don't qualify. The section headings that are currently in place are consistent with our best articles. Ironically, the use of the "Career" section heading is in fact arbitrary, and inconsistent with our best biographies. Not everything in a Wikipedia biography is simply reduced to a thing called a "Career" nor does any policy or guideline stipulate the use of such a heading. In fact, our best articles do not use it all, preferring to focus on actual subtopics, such as our featured articles on Bronwyn Bancroft, Felice Beato, Matthew Brettingham, William Burges, and many others. "Career" sections are lazy, and often hide poor writing and trivia. Topical subsections require editors to tie everything together and to focus on expanding the most important and significant material. I think you have fallen into a lazy habit that is not reflected by our best articles. Your intention of reducing every biography to a large "Career" section is not supported by our best practices, and should probably be recommended against in practice, site-wide. Viriditas (talk) 04:18, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Not every principle of good article writing is necessarily codified formally in the form of a policy or guideline. Common sense understanding of how sections and their headings work says that articles are split into sections in order to break up and organized the text, and to this end, sections of text should be grouped according to relevance of subtopic. That's just fundamental. But if you want something explicitly written in a policy, guideline page (or in the case I'm about to present, a Manual of Style page): I refer you to this passage from Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout:

Sections and subsections are introduced by headings. These headings clarify articles by breaking up text, organizing content, and populating the table of contents. Very short or very long sections and subsections in an article look cluttered and inhibit the flow of the prose.

As far as your claim that "the subject matter is growing as you continue to expand it" and "Headings are used appropriately here to separate distinct material and sections that are growing too large", I see nothing in the article that has grown "too large" to justify these disparate headings. Hell, the largest section in the article is the Early life section, and none of the Career sections matches it.
As far as your comment that the Early life section is "not part of what you call her 'Career'", well, I never said it did. In fact, if you look at my last edit, in which I changed the sections/headings, you'll see that I kept the Early life section separate from the Career section. So what are you referring to with this statement?
Then again, the last paragraph in that section is about her early career, now that you mention it.
There are not a lot of FA articles on comics artists or illustrators, that I am aware of, but we can look to how the community organizes articles on other people of a similar occupation for ideas on the standards that that community have devised for that subject area. The idea that any article that isn't a FA "doesn't qualify" for mention in discussions like this is horseshit, as is your rather dismissive remark that they are characterized by "laziness" "poor writing" or "trivia". The Brian K. Vaughan article, for example, which I've worked on, uses the Career section, but it is not characterized by those things you mention, as far as I can see. There is nothing "consistent" about the headings you insist on for the Crabapple article. There is no reason why single, small paragraphs on her different artworks need their own headings, much less why you need those headings to arrange her carer in chronological order, since you can remove the headings, and the material will still be in chronological order. Those articles that use topic headings instead of "Career" usually do so because there's enough material on those individual subtopics to justify them, and because those subtopics are usually distinct enough in area of focus to justify separate sections or subsections. That is not true with the Molly Crabapple article. Placing those paragraphs under one Career heading makes more sense, at least until they grow too large to justify this, and even then, then can still be placed under subheadings, under the main heading of Career. Nightscream (talk) 21:54, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
I've addressed all of these points already, so once again, you seem to be repeating yourself and ignoring the points that I've made. I am using section headings appropriately per best practice, and I am expanding the sections while you continue to complain about absolutely nothing relevant nor important. I've cited an entire category of artist biographies that refutes your contention that section headings aren't used this way, and your insistence that there is a need or even a requirement for a "Career" section remains totally unsupported. You are trying to enforce your own preferred lazy style of editing on this article for no good reason. You claim that the sections aren't even large enough to require headings, yet while you've spent all this time complaining, I've spent the last week working on expanding each section. So far, I've expanded the lead, the early life, and the Occupy section, and I'm continuing to expand the rest. Right now, I'm working on expanding the Dr. Sketch's section. Please do not continue interrupting and disrupting my work. Go do something constructive with your time, like improving articles or helping people. I've spent many years ignoring you and taking article after article off my watchlist because you continue to spend your time interfering with the work of other editors. Not this time. You have not done anything substantial to improve this topic, except leave numerous maintenance tags. When I showed up to fix it and improve it, you then fell back into your bad behavior. Again, please leave this article alone for a week and go do something else. The section headings are being used appropriately, and the material is being expanded per the cleanup list I've posted at the top of the page. Since you do not seem to be interested in doing the hard work required, please go do something else. If, in another week, your think your arguments are still valid, I will be happy to revisit the topic. I have personally used "Career" sections in some instances, for example when a subject has had one profession over time, with the majority of it spent at a single job. I've also used singular "Career" sections when I'm unable to spare the time to expand the topic. This is not the case here. I am currently working on and expanding this topic, and the sections are being used correctly per our best GA/FA articles. You've been provided many examples of artist biographies, and you've dismissed them. So, I will consider this matter closed for the next week starting now (you've already been asked to drop this and you refused). You are welcome to revisit this matter in seven days. However, your behavior so far has been to disrupt this article, disrupt editors like myself from improving it, and to waste my time. Please don't continue to do that. There is nothing wrong with the current sections, and there is no policy or guideline against their use. Viriditas (talk) 02:10, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
I've ignored nothing. I've read each of your points, and responded to each one of them in a fair amount of detail, referencing each point explicitly in my response, which makes "ignoring" them kinda hard. I'm more than willing to wait and see how your version of the article turns out if you like, but referring to any edits as "disruptive" just because you jolly well don't like them, and lobbing this false accusation against me without providing evidence of this supposed motive that excludes other possible motives, you've repeatedly done with me for some time now, is a violation of WP:AGF, and is itself far more disruptive--and obnoxious--than anything I've said or done. Nightscream (talk) 01:30, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
What's disruptive is your editing behavior. Your recent contributions shows more of the same. You go from article to article reverting people and creating time sinks on talk pages. To me at least, this appears to be attention seeking behavior. Is there a particular article you are currently working on to improve? No, there isn't, and you should ask yourself why not. Instead, you go around reverting and reverting and then dragging people to the talk page for needed attention. Meanwhile, there are editors here who actually write and improve articles. I just don't see you doing that, anywhere. You've shared your opinion about the use of section headings, and I've responded to it. There's nothing more to discuss at this time. Please stop interfering with my work. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 08:32, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
It is not disruptive, and does not appear to be "attention-seeking". These remarks are just argumentum ad hominem arguments, nothing more. You have zero evidence of this supposed motive on my part, and are just attacking me because we disagree on the article, an unambiguous violation of WP:AGF.
Is there a particular article I'm working to improve? There isn't??? How do you figure? What is your basis for this accusation? Have you checked my edit history? There's lots of articles I'm constantly working to improve, as any look at my editing history shows, which flies in the face of this idiotic remark of yours. There are entire lists of articles I've created and worked on seen on my user page, including three articles I single-handedly brought to GA status. The Arthur Adams (comics) article for example, has been expanded and improved by me on an ongoing basis for the past three years, and is currently undergoing a GA examination process. These inane comments by you do nothing other than to reveal you to be an abject child and a pathological liar, one who brazenly attacks others who dares disagree with him. Nightscream (talk) 13:50, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Cleanup in progress[edit]

This is a running task list of cleanup I've performed. The comments are my own unless otherwise noted. Viriditas (talk) 04:19, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

  1. Maintenance tags
    Tag removed and unsourced material added to this talk page
    Source for birthdate?
  2. Images
    No images of her artwork appear in the article
    Added one in progress, but still need finished image accompanied by commentary
    Partial piece added, but it's still not good enough. CC licensing exists for at least one Occupy work, but I suspect it is a non-commercial license, however it may not be.
    Lead image is cute, but does not show her entire face, and doesn't give the reader a good impression of what she looks like. It does, however, seem to focus on her breasts, which I suspect is why it was chosen. This is not, therefore, a representative image.
    I've just reviewed several dozen images, and it appears that I'm wrong. This "pose" of hers seems to be unique (minus the peace sign, of course). That is to say, she has a habit of looking at the camera from the side like this, so one could argue it is representative of her image. Then again, there are a lot of portraits from the front. For now, I think the image is OK.
    File:MollyCrabapple-DoV0211-263.jpg: poor quality. Should be replaced by something better at commons
    I've removed the photo due to concerns about licensing
    File:9.13.09ActIVateByLuigiNovi11.jpg: article is about Crabapple not Dean Haspiel. We should focus on images of her and her artwork, not other people
  3. Prose
  4. Layout
    Lead: needs to summarize, use quotes sparingly, if at all; "She is one of a few artists in the last decade to draw the base at Guantanamo Bay": I removed this from the lead because there's nothing about in the body yet and it needs to be put into the proper context. She says she was one of 4 artists to draw the base but NYMag says she was one of 3.[1] HuffPost Live also has a video interview on this topic.
    New Statesman says that Vice published "her portraits of Guantanamo detainees" so it should be discussed in the context of her work for Vice.
    Thompson, Catherine (August 15, 2013). Guantanamo Bay Through The Eyes Of Artist Molly Crabapple. Talking Point Memo. Retrieved June 14, 2014.
    Early life: fixed unsourced content and chronology
    Dr Sketchy's Anti-Art School
    Background source: Croughton, Paul (July 18, 2010). This will get them interested in art. The Sunday Times, pp. 10-11.
    Comic illustrations
    Source for critical commentary: Salavetz, Judith; Spencer Drate (2010). Creating Comics! 47 Master Artists Reveal the Techniques and Inspiration Behind Their Comic Genius. Rockport Publishers. ISBN 9781610601672.
    In progress.
    Art projects
    "Debt and Her Debtors" (2013)[2]
    Zuckerman, Esther (March 11, 2012). Molly Crabapple On 'Shell Game,' Her Surreal Take On the Financial Crisis. Village Voice.
    Exhibitions: split out into a separate list or remove altogether?
    Should focus on sourced prose first. Considering the breadth of Crabapple's work, I am fairly certain a separate bibliography page is justified (and necessary).
    Possible source.
    Style and influences:
    Salam, Reihan (November 8, 2013) Sketching Rebellion with Molly Crabapple. The VICE Podcast. Vice Media. Retrieved July 1, 2014.
    interview by Francesco D'Isa for Scene 360° magazine.
    Crabapple, Molly (March 20, 2013) Diego, Frida, and me. Paris Review.
    I Have Your Heart: crowdsourced film project to add. Cavna, Michael (February 14, 2013). Artmaking, A Love Story. The Washington Post.
    Personal life
    She has a fear of large dogs.[1]
  5. References
    von Rohr, Mathieu (April 7, 2014). Politik? Yeah! Der Spiegel, (15): 152-153.
    Still need access to full translation or original. I will ask another editor for help.
    Found it.[3]
  6. External links
    Why do we need links to both the Comic Book DB and the Grand Comics Database?

Other sources[edit]


  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Penny was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

Media appearances[edit]

  • In June 2013, Crabapple and numerous other celebrities appeared in a video showing support for Chelsea Manning.[1][2]
    • In progress.
      • Could go temporarily in "Other work" section...still thinking about this.
  • On February 11, 2014, Crabapple appeared on The Joe Rogan Experience podcast.[3]
    • Added as ref.
      • I think I'm going to remove this again because I prefer to work with the print refs right now. If there are secondary sources about Rogan, I'll add it back.


  1. ^ Gavin, Gavin (2013-06-20). "Celeb video: ‘I am Bradley Manning’". Politico. Retrieved 2013-06-30. 
  2. ^ "I am Bradley Manning (full HD)". 2013-06-18. Retrieved 2013-06-30. 
  3. ^ "JRE #453 - Molly Crabapple". 

Unsourced quotes[edit]

She has been called "equal parts Hieronymus Bosch, William S. Burroughs and Cirque du Soleil" by The Guardian; “THE artist of our time” by comedian Margaret Cho, and “a brilliant and principled artist” by BoingBoing. She spent four years as the staff artist of The Box Manhattan, one of the world’s most lavish (and notorious) nightclubs.

In progress.
Added "the Box" back in with a source (minus the copyvio)
Will work on adding critical reception back in as go over the sources
Quotes were taken from previously published PR blurbs, so I've removed them as they don't point directly to any secondary source but to a likely press kit. I will endeavor to find The Guardian piece, however, and cite it judiciously. If Cho is relevant, I will add it as well.
Working on adding Hieronymus Bosch back into style section (if possible)...

Unsourced career[edit]

Crabapple began her art career doing covers for the pornographic newspaper Screw.[citation needed] She has since illustrated for the New York Times, Wall Street Journal,[1] and Playgirl. She was at one time a regular contributor to Coagula Art Journal.[citation needed]

  • In progress.


  1. ^ Crabapple, Molly (September 23, 2012). "My arrest at Occupy Wall Street". CNN.

Responding to latest changes[edit]

Unless these are directly related to her notability, they do not belong in the Lead.

Unless these are directly related to her notability? Whatever are you on about this time? You removed where she was born, and a summary of her early life and education from the lead. I'm sorry, but what were you thinking? Every GA/FA biography has these notable elements of a subject in the lead. Please don't remove it again. Viriditas (talk) 11:59, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Viriditas (talk · contribs) is right about these facts belonging in the lead, according to WP's policies and guidelines. — Lentower (talk) 14:26, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Can you cite the specific policies and guidelines in question?
Also, Viriditas reverted all the edits I made, including the addition of valuable and relevant material, all supported by citations. He stated in his edit summary "If you want to add content, then do it in a way that people can read it", but there is nothing wrong with its legibility. Viriditas' only elaboration on this point was this rather obnoxious, incivil message on my talk page:

I'm getting the sense that English is not your first language, because not only did you misread the MOS, you went on to add content that does not appear to be English. You wrote: "In 2013 Crabapple traveled to documented a trip the detention camp..." among other stuff.

...for which Viriditas was naturally warned by an administrator, and which was not the first time he brazenly ignored WP:CIV with me with insults or false accusations. The passage in question a simple grammatical error, which happens when one does a large number of edits, and easily corrected. His blanket revert, therefore, was not about policy or guidelines, it was merely spite. Nightscream (talk) 04:51, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Nighscream, I suggest you file an RFC. Your rationale for removing the material from the lead is disputed. WP:OPENPARAGRAPH was intended to proscribe against using the birth place in the first sentence, which in the past was commonly added to the birth date. It was never intended to limit its use in the lead itself. Over time, the original intention of this guideline appears to have been lost, as multiple editors forgot and new ones joined the site. This is why WP:OPENPARAGRAPH specifically points to WP:LEAD as the dominant guideline here. The very idea that "Birth and death places should be mentioned in the body if known, and in the lead if they are relevant to the person's notability" was added by a single editor without consensus in 2010[4] and with absolutely no discussion. An RfC in 2014 found no consensus on the wording.[5] To quote Nikkimaria from that RfC:

...the practice of including places either in the opening brackets or within the opening paragraph generally is common to several respected encyclopedias, other Wikipedias, and many of our own articles. There is already consensus to remove the part about the brackets. I do not suggest mandating the inclusion of places in the opening paragraph, but it should be an option available at the discretion of contributors to a particular article.

And that's exactly where we stand. Depending on the numbers, a rough count of FA biographies from October 2014 to the end of January 2015 shows that a little less than half of FA bios use birth places in the lead, most often in the second paragraph. This is likely what Nikkimaria was getting at. In other words, it's already common, best practice. And when you have a MOS proscription written by one editor without discussion that doesn't reflect best practice, and that clearly notes that WP:LEAD takes precedence, appealing to that particular MOS makes no sense. As for the subsections, I believe we already discussed that. Why in the world would you add those subsections to this biography? Please provide a good reason. As for your content additions, if you can't be bothered to add readable text, you shouldn't be editing. Full stop. Viriditas (talk) 05:44, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: I've reverted your addition of erroneous, incomprehensible text once again. There are so many problems with your additions that it would take me quite a while to list them here. It is absolutely amazing to me that you would add them back in again when you have not attempted to fix them. This tells me that you should not be editing Wikipedia at all. Here is a list of some of the major problems you have introduced:

  1. The text "Born in Far Rockaway, New York, Crabapple briefly attended the Fashion Institute of Technology, and worked as a life model and burlesque performer to support her art" is fully supported by WP:LEAD and had support from third opinion from Lentower back in July (up above). You ignored this consensus and removed it again. Your appeal to WP:OPENPARAGRAPH is entirely incorrect as the MOS passage in question was written by one editor without any discussion and has no consensus in the community (per the above links to the RfC). It also makes it very clear that WP:LEAD takes precedence.
  2. You introduced the redundant primary section header "Career" when one is neither called for nor needed, and relegated the current sections to subsections for no good reason. This was extensively discussed with you before and you appear to have ignored that discussion once again.
  3. In the "Dr. Sketchy's Anti-Art School" section, you introduced outdated content from 2009 that is no longer accurate, claiming that the group "usually meets every other Saturday at the Slipper Room, a burlesque-themed bar on Orchard Street in Manhattan" etc. Do you always cite outdated information from six years ago? Seriously?? Furthermore, most of it is unreadable, such as "to draw a downtown personalities such as alternative model Raquel Reed or performance artist Amber Ray". What the heck?
  4. Once again, you cite outdated and duplicated information from 2009, writing "As of 2009 there are branches of Dr. Sketchy's Anti-Art School all over the world". Why would you do this when the same section already says, "Crabapple will often travel around the world visiting different Dr. Sketchy's...After an artist inquired about starting a Dr. Sketchy's in Melbourne, Australia, it began to spread around the world...As of 2010, there were approximately 150 licensees using the Dr. Sketchy's name." How does duplicating the same material with older sources make any sense? Of course not. The fact is, you didn't read the article, you just added outdated information wherever you desired. There's a good reason that statement is cited to 2010. It's because it's the most recent info we have! Please read the article before you edit!
  5. You altered a perfectly good sentence ( Scarlett Takes Manhattan (2009), a graphic novel published by Fugu Press, is a prequel to Backstage, and shows how Scarlett rose from being a poor girl to become the best fire eater in New York.) and made it incomprehensible by adding, "Scarlett Takes Manhattan (2009), a graphic novel published by Fugu Press, Crabapple's first graphic novel,[1] and a prequel to Backstage, and shows how Scarlett rose from being a poor girl to become the best fire eater in New York." This would work, of course, 'if you simply added the information in the correct place'! That would of course be, "Scarlett Takes Manhattan (2009), Crabapple's first graphic novel, published by Fugu Press.." You can't just add information wherever you want!
  6. In the Occupy Wall Street section, you bizarrely changed a source from the BBC to the New Republic, even though the material was cited to the BBC! Did you actually read it? The New Republic pointed to the source, not the content. The content is sourced to the BBC. Why then would you change it? The reason the New Republic source is there is to show that the BBC article was notable in the first place. The content, however, is sourced to the BBC.
  7. Until today, and for the last several weeks, the Guantánamo Bay content you added back in December was unreadable. Thankfully, you fixed it. However the sourcing is not ideal, and for controversial material like this, you should rely primarily not on video or audio sources, but on good secondary sources anyone can verify. I see many online; please tighten up your sources so anyone can verify the material.[6][7][8][9]


Shouldn't there be a section about the whole FBI file / controversy issue? Centerone (talk) 18:51, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Molly Crabapple. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:55, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Kino was invoked but never defined (see the help page).